The buzz was good a few months ago (mainly because of Meirelles' name), but it actually went a little sour with the trickling in of some negative reviews.

I think it may do well with the critics, but City of God Part 2 it will not be.

Probably.

Well, I saw it last week, and I have to say I was dissappointed in the ultimate bad turn of events.

*spoilers* Is it just me, or is testing on unknowns just a kind of mundane piece of nasty work that's been covered millions of times? I was really expecting something more creative. Pharmacueticals have such a history of doing this that it wasn't even a stretch of the imagination, or some guesswork at future atrocity. Its more a historic retelling of Tuskegee and onwards. In that sense, I'm glad they thought someone had to revisit the conduct, but they went no further with their moral reprimand than to say Anglos who need affordable medicine could care less if its tested on unknowing and unknown African subjects. True, but not altogether ground breaking or even introspective. *end spoilers*

Did anyone else feel this way? Or was it just me?

Bolded part is a bingo! That's what I was trying to say, and you said it better. But I'll elaborate. When I mentioned harkening back to 1349, I didn't mean literally. I meant they created this discussion about the invasion of a pandemic death. So, you may know its already "here" but look at it from a general, slightly more demanding audiance goer who may not know the technicals. The information on TB was not delivered as yours was above. That the two have historic association, that its very present today even within 1st world development, etc. There was a *dark forboding monologue* about how in the near future TB will sweep the world and wipe out half its population. Like a wave...from the "other" (probably China or Northern Africa, where we've historically pointed the finger for past pandemic origins including AIDS).

That's one thing. Now in light of that, you've got all these AIDS testees spitting into a cup. Tessa jokes "That's not how they test for AIDS." This implies she doesn't know about the past history and association of the two as you did either. That could have been a time where they could explain how TB is already present everywhere, but they missed it. In the film, they make it appear as a future threat and not a present one. They make it seem like the pharmecueticals are offering to test for one thing, while actually testing for another. Not one cough in the whole movie even hinted at old understandings of TB. Heck, even Moulin Rouge I knew what was coming about half way through the film. Here, there weren't even discussions of fever, digestion problems, anything.

So, where i'm trying to get at is this. Its easy to say "No. They could have AIDS, it has nothing to do with shoving experminetal TB drugs on them." Its quite a bit tougher to ponder "Well, they have AIDS, and we don't have a cure yet, so how bad is it to try new AIDS curing drugs on them. It could help couldn't it?" It shifts the question of ethics not only to blatant miscunduct, but to "do the means justify the ends?" That's a much tougher question. I don't mind if it had deterred a couple viewers. This particular film, won't actually make any of the viewers that went think too hard. They'll just walk out thinking "Oh, how wrong." In a world of black and white, I think this movie could have made people stop and think a bit more than that. "h the horror"is something so easily forgotten by this time next week. Hence the reason big Pharma does it all the time and doesn't get smacked too hard. And not to worry, Big Pharma will most likely argue the latter excuse rather than the former, so people should be prepared for it. "Well, it wasn't fully tested, but we felt people really needed it, it was there last chance to live so against our own better judgement we gave into their demands, etc, etc, etc." Its alot harder to argue people need TB drugs when they don't technically have it, or only have AIDS. AIDS weakens the immunity system, thus one is more likely to catch TB, but they're not anything similar. AIDS patients are more likely to catch a common cold too.

I do give Gardener credit for its final saying on the matter (in the funeral). They did not just pander to the evil image of big Pharma, they mentioned that "we" (that is, the West) hanker for "affordable" medicine, which is delivered to us only because the lives of those it was tested on, we consider to be so cheap and expendable. That's a better point than making this about big *evil* pharma too. What would happen if my kid came home with TB one day from school and the remedy was 100,000 dollars that I didn't have, my non-existant insurance plan wouldn't cover, etc.

The above point, and the gray scale conduct of "ethical" drug testing were almost delivered here, but then fell flat. It makes it almost more disheartening to see such promise in content and question squandered. And to just see Justin yell out that "This one's here and I can help it now" line that Tessa said earlier. I think because it was already appealing to a niche market, they actually could have made the movie a little bit more cerebral and it would have been just as, if not more, popular.

Hmmmm. Not as concise as yours, but I hope it clears up what I was trying to say was my main issues with the moral plot of the film?I haven't read the book either, so can't comment on it at all.