La muerte en este jardín

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.

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.

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.

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 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.