Watch The Gardener

The Gardener

The Gardener is a movie starring Francis Cabot, Anne Cabot, and Adrienne Clarkson. The Gardener is a documentary directed by Sebastien Chabot about Frank Cabot's Les Quatre Vents, aka Cabot Garden, a magnificent private garden in...

Other Titles
Le jardinier
Running Time
1 hours 28 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Sébastien Chabot
Sébastien Chabot
Adrienne Clarkson, Colin Cabot, Francis Cabot, Anne Cabot
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The Gardener is a documentary directed by Sebastien Chabot about Frank Cabot's Les Quatre Vents, aka Cabot Garden, a magnificent private garden in the Charlevoix region near Quebec City.

Comments about documentary «The Gardener» (22)

Patricia S. photo
Patricia S.

This documentary is about the environmental movement in Australia in the early 80s. It covers the environmental movement that took over the country. Most of the population has strong views on environmental issues, but this film is not about the people, it is about the environment. This documentary is amazing and very well done. It is one of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time. If you want to see an environmental documentary, this is a must see. However, if you don't like environmental documentaries, I would not recommend this one.

Rachel C. photo
Rachel C.

CGI, fun effects, great ideas, intelligent actors, and really big spectacle are the ingredients that make up this movie. The most outstanding part is the way they made this film look like a great film, and not just a real-time animation. This is one of those films that is really worth seeing for the wonderful way they have done it. One of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it is real, but also has this "fantasy" feel that is really hard to find in some of the movies that do not follow this type of style. I really enjoyed this film, and I recommend it to anyone who is into animated films, or just people who like to think about things for a while. To me this is a great movie, and I look forward to seeing more from this team.

Joseph Woods photo
Joseph Woods

It is very easy to forget that the first film of this trilogy was actually an excellent film. They were superb. But I was not convinced by "The Gardener". The first film was made in a period of quiet thought and you could even say it was all introspection. In this second film, everything is more about entertainment. The film is based on a short story. In the first film, the gardener is just a man with his own life and his own frustrations. In this film, the gardener is also a person, with problems, but also with problems. There is also a little comedy of errors. In "The Gardener", there are some other problems. The first is the gardener is trying to live his own life and has no real identity. This is very true to life, to the people he knows and to the people who live in his life. The second problem is that he is not afraid to have his life in the spotlight. He wants to have his own television show and also has a television station in the country. This is all very true to the world and to the real world. The third problem is that the gardener is not really an important person. He is a pawn, a toy, a figure of the media and a symbol of the success of the new management. This is true to the reality. We are all pawns in the media world. We want to be a player in the world, to be a powerful person, but we are afraid to be a pawn in the hands of the people who have power. All of this is true in the real world, and we know that we will not be free when we lose our individuality. This is what the gardener is going through. He is trying to make a mark in his life and he is afraid to be a pawn. The film is very beautiful and there is a lot of beauty in it. The gardener was very honest. He is a very real character and he is very good at showing his problems. There is a great actor in the film, Francis Ng. He is one of the best actors in Singapore, but his performance is really impressive. He is a great actor and he has such a good personality. It is a film you have to see. There is a lot of interesting things in it. I have seen this film twice and I am going to see it again.

Daniel Stephens photo
Daniel Stephens

An excellent documentary, the most well made I have seen in a long time. It gets a bit depressing, but it is worth watching for the subject matter. A fantastic film.

Gerald Howell photo
Gerald Howell

This film was really great. It showed how animals are used to do the grunt work in the "normal" way. Animals are used to a certain extent, but it is not as much as people like to believe. I was very impressed with this documentary. The way it showed us how animals were used to farm and even how they were bred and raised to help raise the people that do the farming was very interesting. A great piece of information for me. And I thought that it was very interesting to see the work that people have to do in order to produce a "good" product. It was not that "happy" as it was said, but it was a very educational and uplifting documentary. The way that people were used was the most interesting part of the film. I enjoyed the documentary a lot, and I recommend it.

Steven C. photo
Steven C.

When I saw the trailer for the movie "The Gardener" (which is loosely based on a book by John Steinbeck), I was excited to see a movie based on a famous novel by one of my favorite authors, and most of all a book that is "so very American". I thought the film would be a romantic comedy, which it is not. I thought that the movie would be similar to the novel. It is not. It is an indictment of the role of big business and politics in our country. The movie portrays a lot of hidden biases of the authors and the movie itself. In one scene, the "real" farmer who had asked for the screenplay to be changed was even filmed like a farmer who had been discriminated against. The movie shows that farmers can also be called greedy. In another scene, a farmer who was demanding the change of the screenplay was also filmed like a greedy farmer. This movie is not for those who like movies based on novels, as it shows how it is the business that produces the story that determines the quality of the movie. I think it is good to see how the movie was made, but it is not for those who have not read the book. If you have read the book, you would appreciate the movie better. I also have to say that I found the movie very educational and was very pleased that it was narrated by the author, not by some actor or actress who has little to do with the subject matter.

Gloria G. photo
Gloria G.

It's no secret that the film "A Gardener" was shot in black and white, and with some real-life footage of people working with the environment. But the film is still less interesting than you might expect. The documentary focuses on two subjects. One is the landscape photographer, Eli Fiebe, who's been documenting for nearly 20 years the process of the Green Revolution. He was interviewed by filmmaker Stephanie Fain in 2007, but the film is a bit repetitive, especially when it comes to looking at the photos he's taken of fields, homes, and a bunch of homeless people. The other topic is a documentary film that Fiebe made about how the charity Bread for the World works with the homeless. He was interviewed by Bob Heil in 2007, but the film is a bit repetitive, even more so when it comes to showing Fiebe going into a homeless shelter and taking pictures of the facility. All in all, I'd say that the film is more interesting than it actually is. It has some very interesting interviews, but they are not enough to carry the weight of the film. It's kind of a mixed bag overall.

Diane photo

First off, this is a documentary. So, what's the point? To an outsider like myself who has only ever seen documentaries and nothing else, this film was great. It was true to life. The shots were beautiful. The editing was great. The music was great. The acting was great. The cinematography was great. The scenes were genuine. The entire thing was a great depiction of what life is like in a tiny town, with a tiny population. The story was real. And, of course, it was true to life. The movie was worth seeing. It was a true portrait of life, and how it is hard to get around, and how hard it is to survive. And, the good news, you can watch it at any time. You don't have to think about it. It will put you to sleep. But, if you have a chance, see it. You won't be disappointed.

Steven Freeman photo
Steven Freeman

I am currently studying filmmaking at University, and a friend of mine wanted me to give this a watch. Having recently seen The Gardener, I decided to give it a go, and I am glad I did. The film is a complete look at the film making process from start to finish, with an emphasis on post-production and digital processing. It's certainly a eye opener into the process and the scope of the film making process. There are several parts of the film that were not shown to me in the cinema, so I'm left wondering if I would have liked this documentary better if I had seen it in a theatre. It really is a great insight into the filmmaking process. Definitely worth watching and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in film making, or just wants to get a real understanding of the process.

Melissa F. photo
Melissa F.

Not many people understand the power of a newspaper or the power of the Internet, especially when the ideas can be spread quickly. This documentary takes an in-depth look at the work of the paper that launched the Internet and the paper that used it to spread their ideas, and it is an eye-opening look into the power of the Internet. It's clear that a newspaper can be the first link in a chain of events that can spark a revolution or a change. The leader of the group that went up against a newspaper in the early 2000s and had the newspaper fired and ordered to stop its circulation by the New York Times Company, Peter Scheer, discusses his experience in the paper and how it helped change his life and his way of life. He also talks about how he worked with a group of writers to spread the newspaper's message and how they ended up suing the New York Times. There is also a documentary from the New Yorker, produced by Nicholas Kristof, who discusses how he and the New Yorker gained new readers, what the newspaper had to say about political corruption, and how the publication changed the world of journalism. One of the greatest aspects of the documentary is how it gives a great history lesson about the role that the New Yorker played in shaping America's attitude about the media. But it's the ideas that Scheer discusses in the documentary that really make it worth watching.

Randy Fowler photo
Randy Fowler

Peter Sandison is a creative thinker, and he is able to get the most out of his film-making. The result is a very interesting and informative documentary about his film-making process. But it seems that Sandison is one of those people who can be too hard on himself. The documentary is very long, and I feel that the time was spent on the story of a different type of documentary. I felt like I was watching a movie and was not getting the full story. Another criticism is the dialogue. I do not believe that the language of the two main characters was the best that could be used. I think it would have been better to use some of the native language in the film, but I guess that this is a criticism that applies to all films. One other problem is the subject matter. A film about a gardener who is trying to make a documentary about his life and his film-making process is not something that I would recommend to anyone. For some people this could be a perfect way to start a documentary on gardening, but for me, it just did not work. The subjects could have been handled better, or at least with a little more patience. I also felt that the editing and photography was a little overdone. The pace of the film felt slow and I would have liked to see more of what Sandison was looking at. All in all, this was a very interesting and enjoyable documentary that I would recommend to anyone.

Daniel Delgado photo
Daniel Delgado

The Gardener is a documentary on the life of a man who's attempts to change the environment that he lives in was so successful that he would go on to become a famous speaker and advocate of change. The Gardener's story is told in a non-linear fashion, as each segment is followed by a character, and each character is either an individual, an environmental advocate or a spokesperson for an organization that promotes change. The interviews in the film range from the humorous, to the poignant, to the tragic, and the film does an excellent job of telling the story. It's amazing how you can learn so much about a man while not knowing much about him. There is not a single scene in the film that I would not watch twice. The film has a very clear message, and it is a good message. People who are interested in learning more about the man who's life is told in the film, should watch the film. It's not a movie that you would necessarily want to watch twice. But if you want to watch a film that tells a story, then watch the Gardener. I highly recommend this film.

Emily Stone photo
Emily Stone

The documentary about the legacy of the Vietnam war was a very interesting and interesting look into what was the true history behind the war. Although some things were a little sketchy at times, it was still very entertaining and I liked the way they showed both sides of the war, from the people that supported the war and those that opposed the war. The war itself was really interesting, they looked at all the history, and how it was brought up in the media. They even did a look at the history that was really a black hole in the American psyche, and even a very violent history, which made it more interesting to me, as I was in high school when the war was being fought, and then as an adult watching the war through the media. All in all, I think that the documentaries were very well done, and I recommend that everyone that has an interest in the war, watch them.

Janice photo

This is an extremely personal documentary, and it is based on an extremely personal experience. In fact, the sole reason I bought the DVD was because I heard about the movie in the media. I also had never heard of James O'Keefe and this was the only movie he ever appeared in. So I decided to watch it. And I really liked it. So I decided to write this review. So I would just like to say that I think this is a good documentary, and I think it is much more than a very superficial attack on the media. It is also a real look at the media, and how it operates, and how it really works, in spite of the media going out of business, for instance. This is a great documentary that I think deserves to be seen.

Tyler S. photo
Tyler S.

Fascinating and very well done documentary about a well known fictional character in a famous novel and the controversy surrounding the story. The film itself is a series of interviews with many of the actors and the writers of the novel. The film has been praised by many for its simplicity and lack of jargon and the interviews are in good order, though some of them are not really interesting or have relevance to the story. The interviews are the only reason why I gave this film a 7 out of 10. The rest of the movie is very strong in presenting some of the hard-core fans and critics of the book who are actually being interviewed, and the documentary covers this ground really well. There are some really interesting interviews, particularly one with Ridley Scott, a great story about how the book came about and how he saw it. Scott discusses his feelings about the novel, and his character in particular, in a very frank manner. The film itself has many good interviews, but the interviews with the writers are not as interesting as the others and have very little to do with the story, or even the story itself. It's clear that the producers wanted to try and portray the book as a great movie. The production values are superb and the editing is impeccable. There are some really good shots of New York, which I found incredibly evocative. The production values of this film are exceptional, but the production values of the movie are not as good as the movie itself. The director does a very good job of conveying the feeling of the film, and he does a good job at presenting it as a great movie. However, I do have one complaint. Some of the interviews are too brief. The directors doesn't do enough to give the audience time to learn about the characters and understand the background of the story. I think that the movie would have been a little better if it had a little more time to tell us about the characters and show us their back story. I did learn a lot of details about the characters and I liked the documentary itself, but if I was to sit down to watch it again, it would be a lot harder to learn the background on some of the characters. The movie itself is also very well made, and it is very well edited. The acting is great and the interviews are very interesting. The documentary really does show the feeling of the people who were involved in the production of the book, and it does an excellent job of explaining the changes that the director wanted to make in the story and how the story ended up as it was. I think that it is an excellent movie and I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the book and who wants to see a documentary about a famous novel.

Marie Wood photo
Marie Wood

I was not a fan of the original, I liked the film but I don't think it was that good. Then the sequel came out and I went to see it. I liked it, but I thought it was the same, only more boring. I finally watched the original again and I must say it is really good. The main reason I watched this movie was because of the actors. I never thought I would like Liam Neeson, but I did. He did a great job in this movie. The other actors were OK. They weren't amazing but they weren't terrible either. There was also a little too much emphasis on the politics in the country. That is a shame because the movie is mainly about the government and the people. However, I don't think that this movie would have been as good if it had focused more on the people in it. It is a great film, but it could have been better if it had focused more on the people and less on politics. This movie was about the people, the politics and it was perfect. If I had to watch one film more, I would have to say "The Professional".

Diana photo

This film was incredibly disturbing to watch. I felt sick watching it and thought about it for hours. The director did a good job with what he had and the documentary made it seem as if he really did know what was happening. The movie was depressing and the people in it looked to be suffering from psychological problems. I also saw a man who was sitting in the audience who had been at least one hit in his life. I don't know what was happening to him, but I was reminded of a lot of the things I have seen in this documentary. The movie ended on a depressing note. A lot of the time the interviewees would just say, "it was just a dream" or "it was just a little nightmare" or "the whole thing was just a bad dream" or "I know it wasn't real" or "the whole thing is just a dream" or "I just can't believe it". The last words out of the mouths of the people interviewed were, "it's just a dream". I was also very upset to see so many comments about the movie being based on fact. The whole thing was really based on a lot of things that people who suffered from childhood trauma had done in their lives. It wasn't based on a lot of the stuff that is in this film. I feel sorry for the people who did not see the documentary and I feel sorry for the people who had trouble sleeping during this film. The movie was very depressing to watch and it made me want to go back and watch it again to see if it really did change me as much as I thought it did. I think it did for a lot of people.

Gerald photo

This film focuses on the plight of the Indonesian women who have been forced to work on the construction site of a large resort. Although the women have no choice in the matter, they are paid too little to support their children. The film shows the sexual violence that goes on between the workers and the local community. It shows the economic consequences that the project has on the women and the community. It highlights how the project is a net loss for the local economy and is the only good thing to come out of this tragedy. It also shows how the Indonesian government is far more responsible for the tragedy than the Japanese government. The film is an excellent and powerful indictment of a brutal system that is not only responsible for the deaths of the women but also the economic loss of the region. It is an important film that deserves a great deal of credit.

Judith Perry photo
Judith Perry

I first watched the film at the 1998 SXSW Film Festival and thought it was a very interesting documentary. I then watched the film again at the 2003 Toronto International Film Festival and came away a little disappointed. The film is very interesting, but also a bit too long and repetitive. It is also quite hard to figure out what the purpose of the film is. The entire film seems to be a continuation of what the other films before it have been. This film seems like it was trying to be two different films all in one. There are a few moments where I got a little annoyed with the documentary style of the film. It felt like the documentary style had already been done in the first film. In addition, the ending of the film was quite disappointing. I have no idea what was going on in the film at that point and was left a bit confused. The film is also very slow. At times it felt like the film was going on for an hour and fifteen minutes. I think that is what ruined the film for me. I really enjoyed the first film and was impressed with what it had done, but it was definitely not the film that I was hoping to see. If you are looking for a very interesting documentary, then this film is definitely worth checking out. It is a good documentary, but if you are looking for a documentary about what the film was all about, then I would recommend watching the first film.

Marie C. photo
Marie C.

The story of a young man who got through the "Phobia" (a form of itchy skin reaction) and became a professional jazz musician. It is one of the most fascinating stories that I have ever heard about. The story itself is really interesting, and is told in a different way than in other documentaries. The way that the subject is portrayed in the documentary makes the whole thing worth watching. It is a good documentary that makes you think, and makes you think about how the phobia affects people in the real world. It is not a documentary for everyone, but if you want to know more about phobias, you should check it out. It is definitely a good documentary that I recommend.

Johnny photo

As I was scrolling through the comments, I noticed that many people seem to have an image of the documentary "Gardener" as a simple documentary about the gardener. This is an inaccurate description. This is more of a story about the nature of care. The gardener was the focus of this story, and there is plenty of footage of him doing his work. But I think this is a story about how people, whether they are friends or strangers, can bond and learn from each other. The film focuses on two caretakers, who, unlike most caretakers, feel like they are responsible for the care of their elderly, whom they have never met. The gardener, Edith, feels that he is being neglected by his employers, and he wants to take over the care of his elderly. This is an interesting film about a surprising friendship. I give the film a seven out of ten.

Kyle photo

While the effects in this documentary are nothing short of jaw dropping, the film is rather misleading in its depiction of the whole effort to destroy the village. The Village, if you didn't know, is a Palestinian refugee camp situated in the hills of Lebanon. The owners of the property are Christian Lebanese and there is a Hezbollah militia in Lebanon which controls the area. It is not the first time that the Lebanese government has been at odds with the military due to its policies in the region. In the past few years, there have been numerous incursions into the area by the Lebanese military to evict the residents. One of the largest raids was in 2000. This film is a mere propaganda piece and ignores the fact that the Lebanese Army is just as pro-Palestinian as the militant group Hezbollah. As a result of this violence, the locals are either moving out or have left Lebanon altogether. While it is true that some have moved to France or Germany, many others have left the country. As a result of this, the remaining village has been mostly dismantled, and the residents have been driven out of the area. Many of the residents are so destitute that they have been forced to leave. In addition to that, the economic situation of the area is extremely poor and one in four people in the area have lost their jobs. This documentary implies that the people of the village have been victims of genocide and they are therefore making a moral argument to justify their removal. It is a big step to remove any human from his home because he has been responsible for the destruction of his country. As the film suggests, it is not a case of victimhood, but rather an argument about the right of a nation to exist. The villagers have been in the area since the 1930's. Their purpose was to support the local economy and give the region a more modern feel. These days, however, they are no longer needed, because there is a much stronger economic presence in the area. While the film does not show the actual destruction that was caused by the military, the story is quite clear in showing the bad attitude of the Lebanese government towards the residents of the village. In the end, the villagers had to leave because the Lebanese government, led by the country's most powerful leader, had no intention of leaving them in peace. In many ways, this documentary does a disservice to the Palestinians and Hezbollah, as well as the Lebanese government. There is no reason to exaggerate the events that took place in the village. While the film shows a number of people being slaughtered, this is misleading. It would have been more accurate to show the other side of the story and show the true suffering of the villagers. This is also not a film about a "Holocaust" of the Lebanese people, but rather a story about a people who have been living under the burden of occupation for more than fifty years. In the end, the majority of the people have left the country and that is why this area has become like a ghost town.