How is The English Patient?

→ in
Tools    





Guy
Registered User
I never saw this film before, and noticed all the awards it won. I was wondering what everyone thinks of it? I'm thinking about renting it over the weekend on DVD. Thanks in advance for all the responses! Maybe it'll be a good one.



It sucks.

More specifically, it's a tedious, dumbed-down version of a great novel. Pretty photography, OK score - only that and nothing more.

But I think I figured out why it was so successful, espeically in the Hollywood community. Even though it is a very obvious and plodding drama, on first glance it kinda seems to be more complicated than it really is. There is a flashback structure employed that isn't really at all intricate, but it's not a straight a) to b) to c) progression either. Except for Willem Dafoe, all the actors have foriegn accents, but they do speak English. The setting is far away and nicely filmed. It has all the ingredients of one of those deep, artsy-fartsy flicks that Hollywood never really gets but kind of aspires to on some level. Well here's one that they get completely. In fact, they're a few steps ahead of this narrative. Wow, they must be really smart or something!

Or something. Because this is such an obvious and basic story masquerading as "art", it gives all those people who usually hate "these kinds" of movies going over their heads the feeling like they are now intelligent for once.


It's a very hollow and lifeless movie. If you're at all interested, please pick up Ondaatje's novel and skip the movie.

But maybe that's just me?
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



its crap, why oh why are the oscars so terrible?
__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me



bigvalbowski's Avatar
Registered User
Gotta agree with Holden here.

I could never figure out The English Patient's acclaim.

It's too long and too boring.
__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.



Now With Moveable Parts
Words to describe The English Patient:
Sappy
Predictable
Boring
Tired
Hobsnobby



Guy
Registered User

:strongly reconsidering:



The novel really is quite remarkable and beautiful (though I don't even consider it Michael Ondaatje's best work - find In the Skin of A Lion and Handwriting). If you want a good experience with The English Patient, read the book. If you want a bad experience with The English Patient, see the movie.

There are SO many other immensely better and more rewarding films out there that you've likely never seen, don't watse your time with The English Patient...espeicially just becuase it won some awards.



Assuming my tiny bit of research is correct, 1996 saw these five flicks as nominees for Best Picture:
  • The English Patient
  • Fargo
  • Jerry Maguire
  • Secrets and Lies
  • Shine
I only saw part of The English Patient, but that was enough for me. Of those nominees, I've only seen Fargo and Jerry Maguire...I dug them both.



The English Patient was easily the least-deserving of the five nominees. Not that Secrets and Lies is going to be everybody's cup o' tea, but at least it's more impressive and emotionally raw than the frippin' The English Patient.

Such is the ridiculousness of The Oscars. Hell, stinkin' Gladiator won last year, so do you need to go back to 1997 for an example of how incredibly off the mark Academy voting can be?



Nope. We don't.

What would you say the most deserving of those five was, Hold's?
I've seen Jerry Maguire and quite enjoyed it, if only for Cuba's performance. I've seen Shine which I thought was tremendous and The English Patient which my mind has all but cut off, so much so that I can only remember one scene -- where the bloke loses a finger. I'm assuming it didn't effect me much if it isn't still with me. I must confess to having never seen Fargo.

Haven't seen Secrets and Lies either.



Of those five I would have definitely voted for Fargo and been very happy. But I don't think it was the best movie of the year either - not quite. On my personal list it was number two, behind Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

But please, don't get Commish started on Branagh's Hamlet: he takes major points off because of Kenny's hairstyle in the flick, which he thinks made him "look like a moron". No, seriously. You can read all about it HERE.

Ah, good old thread.


But more importantly, WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVER SEEN Fargo?!?! What in THE Hell is wrong with you, son? Go rent it as soon as humanly possibe.

Geesh.



Don't shoot me over it, man. Don't think I haven't wanted to.
I'll do so over the next week, and if I don't, you really CAN shoot me.

Deal?
Deal.



But please, don't get Commish started on Branagh's Hamlet: he takes major points off because of Kenny's hairstyle in the flick, which he thinks made him "look like a moron". No, seriously. You can read all about it HERE.
Well, depends on what you mean by "points." Does it make the story and acting any worse? No. Does it make him look stupid, and serve as an annoyance? Yep. I don't think it's a big deal, but I can't say it didn't bug me. I'm fairly easy to irritate, though. I fully acknowledge that, aside from the hair, it was quite enjoyable. I dunno why they decided to go with a Victorian setting...but that aspect of it wasn't as bad as I thought it'd be.

I dunno if I'd have chosen Fargo or Jerry Maguire. Probably the former...partially because the latter had one too many "lines," if you know what I mean; stuff that sounds overly scripted. Fargo was weird...but felt very well. Probably one of the reasons they could "get away" with the Based on a True Story nonsense.



Guy
Registered User
I saw Fargo and thought it was the second best of '96 next to Jerry Maguire

I decided to borrow my friend's copy of Lawrence of Arabia to watch it tonight instead of English Patient. Haven't seen it before, but I was planning on watching a 3 hour film ( )tonight anyway so what the hay.



Guy
Registered User
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Lawrence of Arabia is nigh on four hours long, actually.


might have to split that up over two nights.



No matter how long it takes you, Lawrence of Arabia is a must-see. There is an intermission, so you can have a natural stopping place if you need it.

For your sake I hope it's a letterboxed edition. I wouldn't watch the cropped version if you payed me.