The two couldn't be more different, yet they seem to share a similar fate: appearing in bad movies again and again. While McDowell has the best of his films tucked away fairly deep in his filmography, Everhart still is looking for the one feature that will allow her to really shine. Both get offered the wrong kind of parts - for the wrong reasons. "The Gardener" is a classic example of this: there's the mad scientist (McDowell plays that stuff without thinking about it - and it shows) and the abused beauty that brings the villain down in the end is played by - yes, a beauty. How could that be interesting? I know that many would disagree with me but I do believe that Everhart has talent, all she really needs is a solid script and a decent director to bring it out. And would please someone offer McDowell a part in which he's not some freak that makes the Mad Hatter look like Al Gore?

The miscasting is almost fatal (Richard Grieco as a police commissioner??? Whose bright idea was that?), and the storyline is painfully obvious (we are forever waiting for the thickheaded heroine to figure out what is in clear view). Those two factors alone make the movie a waste of time (and a warning to Angie Everhart fanatics: don't come here looking for nudity). Even if you happen to catch this on TV, viewing it will offer you nothing; renting is simply out of the question. (*1/2)

Spoilers herein.(Cat's eye comments follow.*)This is a remarkably intelligent idea, worthy of Peter Greenaway as it combines sex, death, eating and counting. It is about the eternal bond between excrement and beauty. The Greenaway approach would come at it from the side of beauty. This takes an apposite, opposite approach. The film takes beauty (flowers, the statuesque Ms Everhart), kills it and turns it into a vile product. Presumably, the intent is to trigger the viewer into creating their own internal garden in the life we have outside this film.Thus, an intelligent film viewer will see this as a matter of art, deliberately bad. The clue is Ms Everhart's subsequent involvement in a Dogma film, and McDowell's past role with the master of visual indirection, Kubrick. The notion is that beauty must pass through the digestive system, a notion treated here with exaggerated sexual connotations. Everhart is a famed companion of Hollywood stars, and already at 30 is an icon of this process, something of deliberate focus in `Jade.'*Cat's eye comments result when nothing intelligent can be directly said of a film.

This is unmistakably the worst movie I have ever had to endure watching. This movie was bad all around. The director clearly thinks that a moving camera is what makes a film great. Unfortunately the constant moving only helps the existing nausea. The DP was real bad, no other way to put it. "Day for night" shots were poorly matched to day shots and so on. I don't know what that other person was talking about regarding Angie Everheart. She is a terribly bad, bad, actor. It's no suprise this movie has no distribution after a whole year. If I were a distributer I would run as far away from this "film" as possible!