Just Saw Gandhi For the First Time... (1 Viewer)

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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

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

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=1979

I think the tone and pace of Ghandi pretty much matches the characteristics of the revolution the man achieved--maximum effect with minimal violence.

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

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

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.

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.

I loved Gandhi