+1
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