Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Overrated and overhyped

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

(Favourite movie quote) - "What's so scientific about body rot?" With 1985's "A Zed And 2 Noughts" don't expect a riveting plot-line to hold your attention - 'Cause otherwise you'll find yourself endlessly disappointed.But, if you watch this quirky film strictly as a feast for the eyes, then you're bound to get some enjoyment out of it and forgive its demented lack of plot.Containing some of the wackiest dialogue and off-the-wall humour imaginable, "A Zed And 2 Noughts" can be looked upon as being something of a very weird biology lesson, in a roundabout sort of way.Directed by British film-maker, Peter Greenaway, "A Zed and 2 Noughts" is, in some ways, actually quite a provocative picture that features plenty of disturbing imagery which obviously won't sit well with many viewers.Anyway - If you are craving the "odd" and the "unusual", then "A Zed And 2 Noughts" will not disappoint, in the long run.

For better or for worse, A Zed & Two Noughts is a very unusual film. This is hardly surprising given that it was directed by the avant-gardist director Peter Greenaway. It begins with a car accident at a zoo, where two women are killed when their vehicle collides with a pregnant swan. These women are twins who were in turn married to a couple of twin zoologists, Oliver and Oswald Deuce. Shortly afterwards these men start simultaneous affairs with the survivor of the accident, the driver Alba Bewick who lost a leg as a result of the crash. She later has the other one removed surgically for symmetrical reasons and falls pregnant to the twins.This strange film features both the good and the bad typical of Greenaway. The good is the visual presentation and distinctive bizarre qualities, the bad is more or less any time someone opens their mouths, which unfortunately is quite often. Greenaway is really terrible at writing dialogue. His script constantly tries to be clever, which is not the same thing as actually being clever. Needless to say, the dialogue is painful to listen to and ultimately makes the film hard work and not in a good way. But setting this aside, amongst other thing, it's an intriguing concoction about symmetry, birth and decay. Of the latter are several time-lapse films showing a variety of animals and organic matter decaying – films which were fascinating and repulsive in equal measure. We also have excellent cinematography from Greenaway's common collaborator Sacha Vierney, with many shots being a joy to behold. The other significant cog in the wheel is the typically persistent minimalist score from Michael Nyman, which is sometimes brilliant even if it does border on irritating at others. We also have the most unexpected collaborator in any Greenaway film – none other than Jim 'Nick Nick' Davidson, the politically incorrect stand-up comedian who appears as a zoo-keeper.In summary, A Zed & Two Noughts was an interesting film spoiled by Greenaway's horrible dialogue and awful characters. If you can get beyond those it does offer some fascinating stuff but you sure have got your work cut out with this one.

I first saw this film when it came to British cinemas in 1985. Now, in 2010, I've just seen it again. 25 years ago, as an impressionable film school student, I was both baffled and fascinated by its multi-layered imagery and anarchic themes. Greenaway was my hero then for he had mastery over cinematic form and a unique style that I had never seen before. Added to Michael Nyman's powerful, pulsating music, this film gave me the shivers and also left me breathless. Looking at the film today, it seems barren of emotion (intentional) and laboured. I struggled to sit through the film, and luckily, as I was watching it at home, I could get up at intervals to make tea, have a cigarette, and look out the window. I made the effort to watch Greenaway's patronising director's commentary and 'introduction' to the film, but it still left me with the feeling that I had largely wasted two hours. I may have learnt something about sumptuous photography and resonating soundtracks, but A ZED AND TWO NOUGHTS left me cold, sickened and bored. In 1985 this film may have caused a stir, being made in the negativity and economic/cultural stagnation of Thatcher's Conservative Britain. I remember that was not a good period to live through. A film like this might have caused a sensation among cinema-goers, as it is certainly original. But that is its saving grace.

I am normally a very open-minded film connoisseur as I see film as potentially the greatest art form since the 'invention' of music. Films like Russian Ark, Au hasard Balthazar, anything by Bergman, Irreversible, Fitzcarrldo, Izo, The Mirror, Naked, Hana-Bi, Fallen Angels, What Time is it There?, Weekend, Tokyo Drifter, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, etc to name a few, are all films that can express & transcend the very medium of film to convey emotions, thoughts, moods, & ideas that cannot be expressed by any other means in art. Most importantly the works breathe in essence because behind every one of them is a director/artist that is creating the film. A real creator using the creative process to form something that is at heart, only a reel of film.Now, with all that said, I must say that cinematic projection (I will not grace the words film with it) was by & large the absolute WORST thing i've ever had the misfortune to see in my life thus far. Nothing about this in any way is constructive/deconstructive to any end since it's so busying wanking off in order to make itself as worthless as possible. In all serious regards, i've never seen anything in my life that was as absolutely pretentious & just plain worthless as this. Nothing. This was so far abstracted that anything it bothered to try & 'say' is completely laughable. Nothing i've ever seen comes close to perfectly surmising the word pretentious as this.Nothing in element of shot composition (haha), dialog, music, etc can rise this above being the most vacant excuse for pretentious ejaculation on screen. To compare, I for one enjoy Matthew Barney's Crewmaster works which many find completely pretentious/inaccessible. As inaccessible as Barney seems, one can see an artist creating something. Even with all his Vaseline melting, hardcore band dueling, naked women swimming, at heart is a creator who while oblique, creates something that can in the very least creating with regard. Here all we have is pure wankery that attempts simultaneously to pretend to say something, while meaning absolutely nothing at the same time. Anything, any 'scene' from this garbage is just completely utterly worthless; watching paint dry would be a more worthy use of 110 minutes since paint doesn't babble at you and at least lends itself to altering the reason why you are watching it in the first place.In all seriously, use your 110 minutes elsewhere & thus benefit/impact your life in some way other than by simply wasting minutes and minutes of your life by watching this.Absolute pretentious excrement.