It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

I promised my mom a good movie. she trusted me because I know much about movies. I told her 'it's a movie about the Bible, about gay men, about AIDS, about paparazzi, ...' and she said 'ow that must be a good movie'. she we went to the film museum of Brussels and we watched The Garden. how disappointed we were. how boring it was! what was Derek Jarman thinking?! I wanted to go away, but my Mom said 'no, we've paid for the tickets, so we'll sit it through'. what a mistake that decision turned out to be! now we have both more than 3600 seconds less to live. it wasn't the theme of the movie. I adore experimental movies. I'm one of those idiots that love to see the full 8 hours of Andy Warhol's Empire. but this? no, I will never ever watch a Jarman picture again. I hope you'll never do that too. because it doesn't matter who you are, where you are or what you do. this movie proves only one thing: there are still some crazy people alive that pay money for something like this. it's BEEPing boring! I saw at least one other viewer leave the museum. I saw the others getting frickin' nervous. I saw my mom staring at her watch. and how did I see this?? because the movie was BEEP! I would rather BEEP myself than watching this torment another time. how is it possible producers wanted to invest in such BEEP? it's like BEEPing BEEP! also, the rules of death are not allowed in this one, because just when you think the torture of watching it is over, another 30 sadistic minutes await you. okay, so I wrote down what I think about this movie. but you know what's really BEEPing my brains? I saw a Jarman film already! yes!!! it's true! I'm ashamed, but it's true! and I knew all Jarman films were alike. I knew it! so how the BEEP did I ever think I would do my mom a favor by taking her to The Garden? anyway, don't worry if you do like The Garden. that is possible, because I guess there really are people who'd love to stare 20 minutes at different shots from the same sky, or watching 15 minutes full of pictures of grass in different colors. and if you like it, hey man, that's cool. but it doesn't change my mind at all. I think this movie is a waste of your time.

Derek Jarman's jazzed-up home movie is very much a relic of its time. He mixes footage of his own extraordinary garden in Dungeness (one of the most remarkable & bleak landscapes in England)with dream-like re-enactments of New Testament stories given a gay spin. Church antipathy to homosexuality, the AIDS crisis, police and media brutality all spin around the screen in kaleidoscopic fashion, the images the film admits to be the dreamscapes of Jarman's own mind (he appears in his study and in his bed).The trouble with The Garden is that, although it is often visually remarkable, it is also shudderingly obvious. The scenes in which respectable old tutors bash their canes and bosh through Bibles as a boy prances on a table, or where 3 Santas homophobically abuse a gay couple, or where a camp pseudo-Pilate laughs with his minions in a sauna are all crushingly obvious pieces of public schoolboy sketch-show comedy, cut-price Monty Python skits which presume that the audience always already agrees with what is being said, so we needn't bother to argue, analyse or comprehend why. It's agit-prop at its dullest, and even Jarman's considerable abilities as a visual artist and editor can't raise this into being a work of art rather than a work of jejune satire.As for Jarman's vision of homosexuality, again he shows his class colours and sentimental bent. His gay boys are nice middle-class lads, neatly dressed and posing around like something out of Brideshead Revisited; they're very cute and noticeably silent. It's a very middle-England, excuse-making image of homosexuality, with no dissonance or awkwardness allowed, as if Jarman thought to be gay was to be a Jerome K Jerome-ish Two Men in a Boat.I suppose that the film is heartfelt and rises from a comfortable middle-class man's one piece of anger, the anger that he isn't accepted by the establishment he is a part of. It was probably necessary at the time, but it sure is a dated relic rather than the piece of masterpiece cinema his admirers might claim.

I wrote my analysis on this so I think its fitting to place it here, I don't think there are any spoilers but just in case there is one someone notices I gave the warning. It does hint at other parts in the film:The scene depicts the humiliation of two gay men, portrayed through the main sections of the New Testament. This segment I have chosen is rich in colours, symbolism and religious imagery and contains religious iconography. The deceased Derek Jarman was a well known director and screenwriter of unusual and challenging films, which were often longstanding stories that had been warped or had changed perspective.The second section is set in what looks like a sleazy massage parlour. In it are the clear divisions of authority and power, shown in terms of colour and grandeur and their performances, shown in confidence and gesture. The two men, as seen in the scene before, have been found. It is clear that they are unhappy about this, since their freedom is no longer possible and so they cower into each other in the middle of the room. They are in the middle of the room to show that they are the centre of attention, the objects towards which the rich and powerful men are projecting their intimidation. As it is, they do not seem to be rejecting their sexuality, but staying true to themselves, which is what Jesus did. The first shot is of a dripping wet, hairy adult leg which is raised and a finger bounces off a point of his foot, the point where a nail is driven through in a crucifixion, this may be a reference to the amount of torture that is to come, the fact of their impending death. In the massage parlour there are a number of highly unattractive older men walking around half naked and rubbing each other with oils and sponges, laughing and joking, acting as if they is nothing more pleasing than to humiliate and taunt the two men standing before them. The main man which I presume to be Pontius Pilate is wearing a grand red dressing gown and nothing underneath but for a pair of small gold pants. The reason for this presumption is that half way through, when he washes his hands in the water with the other men. He sings 'down to the river Jordan' as he does so. The river Jordan is the river which was known then as the river that fed the 'garden of God' and, in the New Testament, Jesus was baptised in it. This image and act of washing his hands is reminiscing of the section in the New Testament 'I wash my hands of you.' Gold and red: The colours of wealth and power. The other men are wearing an odd assortment of garments including a drawn on paper crown, a towel, a gold dressing gown, a gold fan and sunglasses. All of these garments and objects give the men higher status; they are comfortable, assured of their wealth and power. They prance around stupidly with great confidence in themselves, laughing along with their acquaintances in a casual façade and make-believe happiness. The lovers, standing there, enduring their laughter, their flaunting. Perhaps thinking wistfully of before when they were able to be alone together, something that riches and power and status would not have allowed. Taking a different perspective, this scene could portray a kind of hell. One where the devil is the man implementing the basin as a drum and going wild. His mental abuse of the men is challenging them, each deranged, primitive scream saying 'stand up for yourselves!' The parlour would be a taunting, strange sexual fantasy invading them, taunting them. As though the parlour is in their heads and it is just the devil and them, the great illusion, the temptation or allurement. The capricious nature of the devil defies all previous conviction of him being merely evil; it is depicting him as a primitive, impulsive being that transcends evil. His actions become almost bestial.Overall I find it and enchanted and fascinating picture from an artistic visionary - I loved it, but you should make up your own mind, this film is not for everyone.

Derek Jarmon films are always interesting. People seem to love his work or despise it. "The Garden" takes the persecution that Christ faced and puts it in modern times, or an unknown time for that matter. We have two homosexual martyrs who are persecuted like Christ, by the church. Tilda Swinton plays a modern day Mary who's chased around by ruthless Paparazzis. The film contains many strange visual delights. There is not a whole lot of dialog except for poetic narration. Like Jodorowsky's "the Holy Mountain", it's chock full of bizarre religious images. The set pieces and Costumes are extremely avant-garde and colorful. If you enjoy films that are a trip for the mind, you'll enjoy "the Garden". I felt that Derek Jarmon was inventive with his camera tricks and imagery. If you like bizarre art-house films with hallucinatory imagery, you must see this film.