User reviews

Underseen Bunuel movie starring Simone Signoret and Michel Piccoli, among others. These two, playing a prostitute and a priest respectively, are joined by Charles Vanel, Georges Marchal and Michele Girardon as a group of people in South America trying to escape an oppressive government. Marchal and Vanel, both diamond miners, are two men taken as revolutionaries by those in charge. The first half of the movie is about their getting into trouble, and their attempt to find a way out of the country. The second, and more interesting half takes place in the jungle, where the group gets stranded during their escape attempt. Many of Bunuel's pet themes come up, and there's a lot of his signature visual trademarks. The most potent image is that of a python Marchal kills with a machete, thrown down to the ground while they try to start the fire. Piccoli looks over at it and its corpse is writhing with fire ants. It's a pretty good story, very gripping in its latter half. It may not rank alongside Bunuel's best, but it's certainly a worthy film in his canon.

Saw the complete film in new york in the 80's. 140 min. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you see the cut version they are using on dvd you get a very watered down story. Why does IMDB not list the 140 min. version? Everybody must know that is the official French version!? there is alot more to explain the beginning, the army, the jungle. its way better.

on tv in the 90's on kgo-7 Movie Greats Network appeared a dubbed version called DIAMOND HUNTERS. it said 1978 and ran 88 min.

I had seen nearly all of Bunuel's films, including his early "commercial" Mexican ones, but had actually never heard of this one before seeing it. This is really an extraordinary film! The great cast is just the beginning. It starts much like an "A" Western, with lines drawn between diamond miners and corrupt Mexican officials. Leading archetypical characters are introduced in a classic manner: the arrogant lone stranger with a distinctive cowboy hat; the old prospector who just wants to build a nest-egg so he can open a restaurant in Paris; his deaf-mute daughter; the cynical gal who does well by doing the best she can; and the naive priest. This last is, of course, a very Bunuelian character; his every good deed backfires on him, and his proselytizing is financed by big companies who find Christianized natives a cheap source of labor. The events have a classic cast and are filmed with great, stylish skill and action-film panache. But classic Bunuelian touches abound. An example: the soldiers who arrest the stranger on a trumped-up charge stop off at the church to pray, and brutally kick him to a kneeling position. The deaf-mute girl, who he had previously treated cruelly, happens to be kneeling next to him and strokes his face in compassion.

When a street battle goes badly, the lead characters all seek escape on a small steamer going up-river, and when a faster patrol boat catches up to them, they take off in the jungle on foot. At this point they quickly become lost. The pace perceptibly slows, and it becomes a film of another sort entirely. Finally, in a Bunuelian ironic ending, death comes to this strange garden. The kicker of the ending (which must have seemed much stronger in 1956) must have been in the original novel and is probably what attracted Bunuel to the story. The final scenes put one in mind of Herzog's later AGUIRRE; in fact, the whole second half of this film follows a path similar to AGUIRRE.

I am amazed that I can find no reference or commentary on this film in print, other than in checklists of Bunuel's work. I can only assume the film is caught in the classic Catch 22 of being unavailable because it is unknown and unknown because it is unavailable. It should be considered a major film in Bunuel's oeuvre! The comments of aw-komon-2, dbdumontiel, and UndeadMaster on this site are all right on the mark. This is definitely a film that cries for rerelease and reevaluation.

Probably Bunuel's most straightforward movie. There is very little of the usual strangeness from the director but as usual the characters are more than one dimensional. Michel Picolli as the priest and Signoret , Vanel, the entire cast are excellent with the exception of the deaf daughter who is a little sentimentalized. Still it's a gripping action adventure movie that one wouldn't expect from the master of surrealism.

This is not what we would call 'vintage' Bunuel although it is one of his earlier films and made only a couple of years before Nazarin (1959) which would prove to be the start of the most amazing run of cinema classics, certainly half a dozen of the finest films ever made and quite possibly a dozen. This is more mundane, although always of interest and those little Bunuel trademark signs do creep in. Indeed without wishing to spoil anyone's viewing it does turn out that salvation at the end is at the cost of some 50 lives. It is also interesting to see how the priest is ridiculed throughout and that the seeming good and kind turn out to have interests much closer to their own hearts. It surprises me that after the wondrous El (1953) and hilarious Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz (1955) Bunuel should decide to make this more straightforward literary adaptation but there were undoubtedly financial restraints and it is well documented that he would rather make a lesser film for someone than make nothing at all. And it is surely this perseverance that would lead to that aforementioned fantastic run of films that would establish him as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

Chark, a mysterious adventurer, arrives in a small village, near a diamond mining field, where a riot has just begun. Probably one of the most unknown films by Luis Buñuel, the genius of surrealist cinema. It is far from being a great work by the Spanish director, however, the atmosphere created around the story is enough to captivate and hold the viewer, especially anyone who is a fan of the western genre. In this case, contrary to what is usual in his filmography, Buñuel didn't created characters full of eccentricity or odd, but rather more down-to-earth characters. As the narrative progresses, the pace intensifies, and grows in a very interesting way, and when reaches the climax, which for me was the best part, resolves all the tension accumulated in a really nice way.

Dear Luis Bunuel, I am surprised you made a seemingly commercial adventure film like McKenna's Gold. A badass wanderer has to stave off the police (who are in bed with the capitalist mafia), Mexican revolutionaries and a catholic priest. And there are not one but two femme fatales. The wanderer, femme fatales, priest and a cook are all cooped up on a boat as they escape the small town ravaged by fighting between the revolutionaries and the police. Then the action moves to a jungle. Jealousy and suspicion sets in between the members of the group. It is a really nice plot, Luis. One that is worthy of a Western.

And it was reasonably entertaining. There are some pretty grotesque scenes in the jungle. Ruggero Deodato must have been watching your movie. I read some of the other reviews and I thought some of the reviewers saw too much into your film and your intentions.

Best Regards, Pimpin.

(7/10)

I love most of Bunuel's films but "Death In the Garden" is definitely my absolute favorite, ahead of "Los Olvidados," and even "Viridiana." For me, this is as close to perfection as you can get doing 'transcendent realist' or 'transcendent existentialist' cinema (although Bunuel has gotten tagged as a 'surrealist,' most of his '50s work actually has very little to do with that movement and style, and a couple of 'trippy' scenes here and there shouldn't automatically serve to qualify those films in the same boat as "The Exterminating Angel" or "Phantom of Liberty," etc.). To most critics, when they even bother to mention this great film in talking about Bunuel, this is nothing but a 'flawed' film, a commercial chore or 'assignment.' To that I'll have to say: "If only 1 out of a 100 commercial 'chores' ended up as fascinatingly timeless as "Death in the Garden," the cinema would go through a major cultural revival!" The 'flaws' in this film are further aspects of its pefection, if taken in the proper 'absurdist' perspective the film has toward 'reality.' It has its lunatic elements and a few supernatural angles like all Bunuel films, but it also showcases the 'romantic' side of the man too often labeled a pessimist. By 'romantic' I mean, he's managed to fit his auteurist obsessions within a colorful, picturesque film about amoral adventurers in the Amazon jungle who descend into 'the Heart of Darkness.' Also, for one thing, there is some twisted heroism, or 'anti-heroism' going on here. The completely 'amoral' yet not unadmirable Georges Marchal character "Shark" is the closest thing to an Yves Montand/Wages-of-Fear type tough-guy 'hero' Bunuel ever got.

On the surface "Death in the GArden" is a "Wages of Fear" like adventure story (Charles Vanel from Clouzot's masterpiece is one of the main characters) where a bunch of people are put under pressure and forced to work together and survive. The people putting the pressure on are the military fascists not the industrialist-fascists of "Wages of ear." The story happens in a South American state, where a bunch of Diamond miners are being chased out by the corrupt military government. When a small-scale civil war breaks out, the leaders of the rebels become hunted men, and they have to escape by boat, ending up in a rain-soaked amazon jungle trying to get to Brazil. The characters have to cooperate and survive under an increasingly hopeless situation and reveal fascinating aspects of themselves in the process. To incorporate Bunuel's anti-clerical satire, of course, one of them is a Nazarin-like priest, brilliantly portrayed by a very young Michel Piccoli. And like all Bunuel films, there are no moral black and whites to be found anywhere, no stereotypes, but only a dynamically evolving morality shaded in different grays leaning toward the black here, toward the white there, depending on the situation that's being dealt with. You come to have a deep level of sympathy with almost every rogue main character in the film, even Simone Signoret's avaricious Madame, but only after examining them as totally flawed human beings capable of many bizzare deeds, some admirable, others despicable, etc.

Like most of Bunuel's films, "Death in the Garden" gets its main tone , originality, relevance, and philosophical strength from the hilariously absurd farcical scenes that constantly frustrate the action (but not in a totally irrational way as in the later allegorical, surrealist films), a deep identification with religion in order to remain that much more strongly anticlerical, and a complete lack of sentimentality; unlike most other Bunuel, this one has ravishingly beautiful color cinematography (very lush and colorful, almost Renoir-like, Renoir being an obvious favorite of Bunuel's since he not only re-made "Diary of a Chambermaid," but used Zachary Scott from "The Southerner," as his lead actor in "The Young One," his, in some ways Southerner-like foray into and artistic, if not commercial, conquest of American Cinema). Oh yeah! Did I mention the beautiful young deaf girl whose long hair gets stuck in a tree?! What more could you want? This is definitely a MASTERPIECE film that should be transferred to a good DVD as soon as feasible. The Interama video copy uses a scratchy old print, is not letterboxed, and has readable but ugly subtitles; yet, the beauty of this film comes through even in that format.

Bunuel doing an adventure movie is fine in my book. Why do people have to be such snobs when it comes to pigeonholing directors? Some of the films Bunuel made during this period, he may have been personally disappointed because he might have rather been making pix with subject matter more of his choosing. Nevertheless the things that Bunuel brings to this movie - the subtle deadpan humor throughout, the irreverent politics, the surreal touches (especially in the last third of the film when our fugitive protagonists are in the jungle) -- make this a gem.

Plus Georges Marchal, Charles Vanel and Michel Piccoli are stupendous. And Signoret is in a class by herself. Not only was she one of the most stunningly gorgeous and sexy actresses in movies anywhere in the world in the 1950s, she was also a great actress and perfect here as the unrepentant, mercenary whore who falls in love. The last jungle sequence has some of the most beautifully surreal images in any film from the decade. The new DVD is highly recommended. A really perfect balance of elements.

It's only now that we are able to enjoy many of the films Luis Buñuel made during his time in Mexico. Sure, it won't rank with his classics like Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie or Cet obscur objet du désir, but this South American action thriller has a charm all it's own, Make no mistake, La mort en ce jardin, also has pure Buñuel elements to it, especially in the third act.

Shark (Georges Marchal) and Djin (Simone Signoret) are certainly the most interesting characters in the first act. Shark may be a lout (Shut up Bible thumper!), but his skills come into play later. Djin is just hot.

Great action in the jungle and a beautiful setting in Mexico.

Rarely have I been so disappointed in a film. Bunuel *and* Simon Signoret? What could be better?

I have seen many of Luis Bunuel's movies, and consider myself a fan. From his first, Un Chien Andalou (1929), to his last, That Obscure Object of Desire (1977), I have seen more than half the films he ever made.

Death in the Garden is undoubtedly the worst I have seen. There are three words for this movie:

Violent. Pointless. Boring.

There is virtually no surrealism in the film whatsoever. And absolutely none of Bunuel's unique humor. It consists mainly of two things: people getting shot, and people walking (or running) around.

The film is incredibly violent. The vast majority of the action is people being shot. It is not gory by the standards of the twenty-first century, but it sure is for the fifties, perhaps more so than any movie up to its time.

There are two good things about the film. First, and to my surprise, it is shot in absolutely gorgeous Technicolor. The scenery is breathtaking, and Edward Fitzgerald's sets are also quite eye-catching.

Second, Simone Signoret has never looked more beautiful. Nor more sexy. I found it interesting that somehow they managed to make her look vaguely South American, although I couldn't put my finger on exactly how.

Sad to say, her outer beauty is nullified by her inner personality. She is a monster. She is motivated solely by greed, completely devoid of any human qualities such as warmth or compassion. She doesn't care about anyone else, nor anything except her own advancement and security.

The only thing I really liked was the interview with Victor Fuentes on the DVD. He is extremely articulate, and his viewpoint is continually interesting. He mentioned The Wages Of Fear (1953), which I immediately thought of as soon as the movie started. However, to compare Death in the Garden with Cluzot's movie in any respect except the setting is an insult to the latter.

If it had not had Simone Signoret in it, I would have turned it off after the first ten minutes. As it was, I watched it till the end, but I am not particularly glad I did so.

Want to see a great Bunuel film from his Mexican period? Watch The Exterminating Angel (1962). Want to see a great Simone Signoret movie, where she's every bit as beautiful and almost as sexy as this one? Catch Les Diaboliques (1955). I can't think of any reason for even hard core fans of Bunuel or Signoret to watch this one.

A rare Bunuel that does not poke fun at religion. Remarkable film where Simone Signoret, Charles Vanel, and Michel Piccoli are memorable. A fine story, based on a novel by Jose-Andre Lacour (He wrote the original screenplay of Chabrol's Hell/Torment, made in 1994).

By the strong hand of Luis Buñuel and with the beautiful and excellent player Simone Signoret. Anyway I hope that no animals were killed during the filming (snakes included) which is strictly forbidden. The story is not an exceptionally deep one but is attractive and suggestive enough to follow. In a gold mine in South America there is the diggers' camp. It happened then that the State nationalized the mine an forbade the diggers to have its control. A revolt started then between the diggers and the government troops that were sent to the place to take the mine's control. Many people were shot but a small group managed to escape into the jungle were they started to walk away from the mine spot. While they were travelling conflicts were not absent among them and they suffered a lot of several troubles. A movie well performed and well directed enough and that is all.

I often turn to the Time Out Film Guide, to see what they think of films... They got it wrong for this one: "Its garish, vicious action beats Sam Fuller at his own game". Well it does no such thing. This is sub-par Bunuel at best. The first part, set in the little town in Mexico is easily eclipsed by Treasure of the Sierra Madre, a much funnier and tougher film. Just think of the interplay between Bogart, Walter Huston and Tim Holt and grimace at the clunky efforts of Marchal, Vanel and Piccoli. From a John Huston classic, we pass to a whimsical jungle story that Howard Hawks could have told with much better pace and wit (I think of Hatari!). Oh the waste of all these talented people.

Simone Signoret has a thankless part of a prostitute (which she played much better in Dédée d'Anvers), a misconceived part that does not fit in the story very well. Piccoli cannot play a priest and should have known better than to try. He is much better as a libertine--he played Sade in La voie lactée. Gérard Philipe would have been much better as the priest. Marchal is no great shakes but at least fits the part. He reminds me a bit of Stewart Granger. Vanel is somewhat at home as the old prospector; at least he had often played action roles.

The cast and the plot alternate between positive and negative, while the beautiful landscape gives an idea of the dangers of nature. This is a seriously deficient movie but it entertains quite well and shows the reality of the world, full of selfish and unscrupulous people.

This is an interesting film for two reasons; the performance of Simone Signoret, who was a very fine actress, and the relatively interesting storyline of an innocent and a worldly adventurer winding up with each other. There is a lot of unexplained repression and rebellion by the local population, but in the jungle, it just becomes a matter of survival. That part of the film is actually far more interesting than the chaotic conflict between the citizens and the government. A passable adventure triangle.

The only Buneul I can recall seeing are Un Chien Andalou and Virdinia. Death in the Garden was a totally different experience but just as eye-opening. Its based more firmly in reality and its similar on the surface to films like The African Queen. Its a hard-boiled adventure in the jungle, told in a 2-act scenario with a great emphasis in setting up the relationships and identities of the cast. That sets it apart from so many films of this nature. You care so much about these people. And Buneul keeps them believable and complex. You have no clue who will survive or betray the team. The answers are shocking but the ultimate climax is refreshing. You get an almost romantic and optimistic payoff that is earned... without being melodramatic.

It goes without saying that the film is brilliant technically and stylistically. Bunuel was a true master and this is a masterpiece for its genre. Recommended for fans of well-made adventure/thrillers from any time or place.

I haven't seen all Bunuel's filmography yet, but I can say this one is pretty different from others I saw as "Un Chien Andalou", "L'Age d'Or",... They were completely surrealistic, whereas this one is a much more traditional movie - at least in the coherence of time/space/story.

The story : It starts somewhere in South America, during the '50s, in a village near mines of diamonds. An insurrection begins as the military governement set there decide to close the mines. After a few fights and chasings, an old minor ( Charles Vanel ), his deaf daughter, the prostitute he loves, a monk ( Michel Piccoli ) and a bad boy called 'Shark' manage to escape together with a stolen boat. Hunted by soldiers, they decide to cross the jungle in order to reach Brazil, which will reserve them some more surprises. The ending is a bit sad, but on the whole we end up with a good movie of adventures.

At first, I haven't recognized Bunuel's style here but truth is his personal visions of Religion, Society, (...) are also within.

A good movie to watch 'with all the family' filled with action, love, adventures,... but merely different from the early Bunuels ( no Salvador Dali here ).

8/10

Acted fairly well, quite entertaining too, this movie however is a disappointment for everyone who expects Buñuel's uncompromising vision. His eye for detail and appropriate camera-movements cannot compensate cinematographer Jorge Stahl's goof-ups and the pointless story, unfortunately. Besides the fact that this was the last Buñuel-movie that I could rent from my local video store and that it was Buñuel's first collaboration with the great Michel Piccoli (also: Voie lactée, Fantôme de la liberté, etc.) were attractive things about this movie for me. 'Jungle Attack' is the title under which it is for rent in the Netherlands: in case you were wondering whether this is really a Buñuel-movie or not ... that's how much Buñuel is in here. Finally, Piccoli (la Grande bouffe, 1973) and Signoret (les Diaboliques, 1955) don't come forward with really intriguing performances, but stay in the mediocrity of the adventurous and light story. I do not regret seeing it though. Enough allright. 6/10