This is not a film I could or would ever see again, but I am not about to criticize it as much as I am going to praise it on a technical and aesthetic level. At the core of the movie is the sad and enormously disconcerting theme of humans using animals to enrich their lives, which are lived in a high-tech, hyperstylized human world in which nature is losing its place. I am not a stickler when it comes to disturbing images. Indeed, Salo and Lake of Fire are favorite films of mine. It is animals whose suffering offends me; they are not consciously cruel and do not betray one another. Even when they are cruel, it is the way of survival in the natural world.

Nonetheless, this richly developed film about decay by Peter Greenaway truly sees and says something profound and disturbing about humanity. It is a purely metaphysical experience. For example, there is a scene where two character talk about the relevance of the film they're watching. We see fascinating elaborate showcases of making films of carcass decay. Even brief establishing shots and any one of the few cutaways Greenaway allows are layered with nuance and mathematical precision.

Purely a sensory approach, Greenaway's struck me as very thematically similar to David Cronenberg's: The focus is on the physiological effects of experience and environment. But where Cronenberg works ambiently inward, Greenaway radiates smolderingly outward, his standard being pale mise-en-scenes with intensely emboldened focal colors. And whereas the dark and ethereal nature of Cronenberg's work is accentuated by Howard Shore's brooding orchestral score, Greenaway betrays the psychosis of his wide, still, panoramic, painterly set-ups with Michael Nyman's infectiously eccentric and complex soundtrack.

I am not good at preparing myself for the human effect on animals, but I admire and appreciate ZOO's audacious and brandishingly external style. It is the sort of work that could be deemed style over substance, and maybe it is to some degree, but it is the style that informs function of the narrative. It is form over function that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal world, and yet the form here is a smolderingly animalistic one. We cannot escape our nature.

I saw A ZED AND TWO NOUGHTS in the spring of 1987 . I read in the tv guide that this film " Contains scenes that some viewers may find disturbing " . Great I thought , this mean`s that it`s gonna be a gritty hard hitting film just like SCUM or APOCALYPSE NOW or all these other films that contain the warning " Contains scenes that some viewers may find disturbing " . So I sat down to watch it and was disgusted by what I saw . What a load of pretentious anally retentive crap ! Who the hell wants to watch vegetable matter and dead animals decompose ? Come on put your hands up . People who admit to liking this film are just kidding themselves on , they`re showing off big time by pretending to be intellectuals . Obviously working class scum like myself and most other people who watch movies are too thick to recognise ZOO as being a wonderful piece of art . And you know what ? I`m glad about that . It`s not often I give a film a 1 on the IMDB but that`s what I`m giving ZOO . On an entertainment level it deserves 0 . Or should that be a NOUGHT ?

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.