-Not Logged In-

Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

Just Saw Gandhi For the First Time...

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 of 14 OFFLINE   Rich Romero

Rich Romero

    Supporting Actor

  • 731 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2002

Posted May 28 2007 - 09:45 AM

Is there anyone that actually likes this film? I found it to be one of the most boring pieces of cinema I've ever seen. This won best picture? Paper thin characters with zero depth. Plot that kept repeating itself. I thought I had watched the same movie 5 times in the span of watching it once because the story just tells itself again and again and again until it ends. Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.
My DVD's "There's no love in fear." - Maynard James Keenan

#2 of 14 OFFLINE   Steve Schaffer

Steve Schaffer


  • 3,759 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted May 28 2007 - 03:08 PM

I strongly resisted this movie, but it ran recently on HDNet Movies so I Tivo'd it. It was slowly working it's way down to imminent automatic deletion when I decided to watch a few minutes of it to see if I wanted to save it or not. I ended up staying up until 3 am to watch the whole thing, thoroughly enjoyed it. I have no comprehension of your objections. This was a thorough and engaging biopic, not an action adventure movie.
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.

#3 of 14 OFFLINE   Adam_S



  • 6,229 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2001

Posted May 28 2007 - 05:25 PM

My first viewing, I was mesmerized from start to finish and think it's a tremendous film. Posted Image

#4 of 14 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway


  • 7,848 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted May 28 2007 - 06:18 PM

I love it. Not every film is for everyone, even films with a general consensus of being "good films". I remember loathing Fargo. I recognized it as a great film, but absolutely not for me. That's just the way it is sometimes.

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932

#5 of 14 OFFLINE   Joseph Bolus

Joseph Bolus


  • 2,225 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 1999

Posted May 28 2007 - 08:28 PM

I've always been biased against this film simply due to the way it beat out E.T. in the 1982 Oscars. For the first time ever (up to that point) the winner of the Director's Guild (Spielberg for E.T.) was not also awarded the Academy Award for Best Director. Instead, Richard Attenborough won the "Best Director" award that year for Gandhi. (Yes! This is the same Attenborough who went on to star in Jurassic Park!) Gandhi also beat out E.T. for "Best Picture" (this was perhaps understandable); but also for "Best Film Editing"?!!! I'm not sure what the Academy was smoking that year, but it left a stench residue that has yet to completely evaporate!

#6 of 14 OFFLINE   Nathan V

Nathan V

    Supporting Actor

  • 960 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2002

Posted May 28 2007 - 10:14 PM

I agree to a point with the original poster. The film is amazingly bland in its execution and approach to the subject matter. I would think it would be difficult to make such engaging, unique, relevant, and volatile subject matter boring, but Attenborough certainly pulled it off. Gandhi remains a one-note enigma without only the thinnest (and most front-loaded) of arcs. I suggest Michael Mann's Ali: Director's Cut and Spike Lee's Malcolm X for superior explorations into individual spiritual transformation and crises. Regardless of all this, the film is still worth seeing, featuring an excellent Ben Kingsley performance and a cameo by a then-unknown Daniel Day-Lewis. And despite Attenborough's barely competent handling overall, the ending still has pathos (duh, given the subject matter). Regards, Nathan
The Tree of Life / Brad Pitt / Sean Penn / Directed by Terrence Malick / 2010

#7 of 14 OFFLINE   JonZ


    Lead Actor

  • 7,794 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 29 2007 - 12:03 AM

Ive always thought it was a good movie even going back to when I first saw it in my teens(mid80s).

#8 of 14 OFFLINE   Jeff Cooper

Jeff Cooper


  • 1,338 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2000

Posted May 29 2007 - 12:40 PM

For those of you who found Ghandi a boring movie...

-Jeff Cooper

"Curse you inspector Dim! You are too clever for us naughty people."

#9 of 14 OFFLINE   Steve Schaffer

Steve Schaffer


  • 3,759 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 15 1999

Posted May 29 2007 - 04:39 PM

I think the tone and pace of Ghandi pretty much matches the characteristics of the revolution the man achieved--maximum effect with minimal violence.
Steve S.
I prefer not to push the subwoofers until they're properly run in.

#10 of 14 OFFLINE   Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 223 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 07 2004

Posted June 01 2007 - 08:59 AM

If a War Movie is exciting, then shouldn't a Peace Movie be boring? ;-)

#11 of 14 OFFLINE   Sam Davatchi

Sam Davatchi


  • 3,151 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 1999

Posted June 01 2007 - 11:58 PM

Gandhi is one of the most "important" movies that I have ever seen.

#12 of 14 OFFLINE   Chris


    Lead Actor

  • 6,790 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 1997

Posted June 02 2007 - 04:25 AM

Pardon my terrible spelling because I'm doing this phonetically how this sounds.. the movie exemplifies to me the hindi phrase "saatchi graha" bear what must be born. I loved the film.
My Current DVD-Profiler

"I've been Ostrafied!" - Christopher, Sopranos 5/6/07

#13 of 14 OFFLINE   PatW



  • 1,585 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 25 2003
  • Real Name:Patricia

Posted June 02 2007 - 04:59 AM

To me Gandhi is a great film and an important one but if I had been an Academy voter E.T. would have had my vote hands down. That's not taking anything away from Gandhi. That's why I hate the academy awards to a certain extent. Does the heartwarming sci-fi movie win or the serious biopic? Both are worthy.

#14 of 14 OFFLINE   fanofthau



  • 16 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 02 2007

Posted June 04 2007 - 02:34 AM

I loved Gandhi

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users