This is a gloriously 'Artsy' film

Rating: 10/10 (8 July 2000)

Previous comments have questioned the Academy's choice in this film, given its imdb rating and mediocre showing at the box office. But wasn't that the point. This movie was an adult themed, classically acted movie which was aimed at liberal, middleclass people between 25 and 40. This is a difficult demographic to attract successfully. The Academy is supposed to choose a film for its merit, not its popularity! Otherwise the whole thing becomes defunct. Also I think it has to be acknowledged that success and merit are not necessarily the same thing.
I am certainly not trying to contradict the other viewers opinions, I just think that they need clarification. 'The English Patient' was not 'Titanic', it didn't come stamed with blockbuster all over it. As to its IMDB rating, the film was one of the least seen Oscar winners in years, due to the reasons outlined above, therefore its mean average is lightely to be lower, although it is above the ordinary. Also as a forethought, this movie did better abroad than in the US, in Europe it was phenomenal due to Binoche, in the UK Fiennes and Scott-Thomas. Other popular European movies have low ratings because the majority of vistors to this site are english speaking and from the US
What Im saying is that it is wrong to categorise this, or any other movie, within the confines of any other, that is quite different to comparison. Finally, was this movie as amazing as some portrayed it. no, but it was sure a better movie than Titanic or Shakespeare in Love.