A nicely done mystery. It was really quite subversive in it's condemnation of the "help" we claim to give to the people of Africa. The trailer doesn't give anything away since the story is structured out of time sequence anyway - the mystery lies in the unraveling of the plot, not in it's simple events. My only criticism would be a slightly too leisurely pacing - I would have trimmed it by about 15 minutes, just to keep the tension a bit more tightly wound.

4 out of 5.

I am very eager to see this, and hope to within the next 2-3 days.

That may have been the most pointless post ever, but no matter.

Meh, I was unenthused. Not a particularly good conspiracy. Not from a socio-political standpoint or from a tension and intrigue one. I give props to Meirelles for making this movie about the typical generic "African" continent, since any aspiration towards understanding the place wouldn't mirror the fact that economic powers don't. Aside from that, I guess its never a bad thing to have a movie reminding us that Macon County, 1930 isn't just some obsolete relic of nasty pharmacology's past.

Darn.

I know I'll be let down now. Darn you, Galia.

Due to circumstances largely beyond my control, I had to leave the movie after about 30-35 minutes. It was a shame, too, as at this point I'm completely disagreeing with Dolce: The first 35 minutes of this was the best movie I've seen all year. Mereilles' direction is a thing of beauty, so kinetic and alive and vital. I must finally get around to seeing City of God.

I'll finish it this weekend, barring any major disasters. Matinee price; hopefully, I'll finish it this time around.

Fall...smells like the good movies are finally a-comin'!

I just found this review of the movie on Yahoo:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=18 ... 1VBnjBXA--

I'm not saying he's wrong about the movie, and I'm not saying he's right. As you'll know if you read the previous post, I haven't yet seen it ins entirety.

But ths guy has a few comments I find particularly disturbing and frustrating. (They have more to do with his overall movie-watching outlook than CONSTANT GARDENER, but no matter). I don't need to finish the movie to know that he's just dead wrong when it comes to....life?



Well, he's an asshole. These are British characters! It wouldn't make sense if they were American. The story would change. They were British in the novel too, fuckface.



Movie + Action = Entertainment? Movie - action = Boring. Got it, pal. That's some math. And was he expecting a yuk-fest? Its not the lightest subject matter.



I find the "shaky cameras are GAY" argument to be beyond ignorant. But if he doesn't like movies with jerky camera movement, I guess that's his business. (Keep this in mind later in the review when he praises BOURNE SUPREMACY..no shaky camera in there, eh buddy?).



Well, to me, the movie (first 35 minutes, anyway) absolutely seethed with emotion. But thats not my issue here; while I'lll give him Bourne Supremacy, which packed a surprising wallop.....but Mr & Mrs Smith? WHAT!?!?! There is no emotion in Mr and Mrs Smith. None. It's a hollow, snarky, theme park ride. Emotion never enters the picture. I'm not even sure what the hell he's talking about here. But I know it makes me laugh.



*World's Biggest Sigh* I really wish he'd stop moviegoing entirely. The guy is the embodiment of the lame-brained American filmgoer stereotype. "More boobs! More guns! No talking!" And let's no forget his decree that all movie characters be American!

In summation, I just wish this person would stop seeing movies or, at the very least, stop writing about them. Its for his own good; then nobody (except his friends) would know what a tool he really is.

who in their right minds goes to a movie called The Constant Gardener expecting spectacle? It sounds like this guy was dragged there against his will, perhaps by a wife, and is taking it out on the movie.

I think its fine they used brits too. Not having read the book prior, I still think putting Americans from government agencies in there is unconvincing. They tend to come in through private non-profits like Peace Corps, Red Cross, I don't usually think of American commissioners actually living long-term there in the same way. Might just be a false impression on my part, but that's how I see it right now. The British are as much in differnet African Countries as any one else at least.



I think Archie was right....he got dragged. I was expecting All the Presidents Men or The Conversation type mystery unfolding. Not really high action, but high tension.



Haha on Bourne comment. Also, I didn't find it shaky at all. Want shaky? Watch Blair Witch. And that wasn't intended to be high brow or high concept. Blooby Sunday? That has to be the shakiest movie ever. Something tells me this guy has never seen a movie with a production budget less than the triple digit millions. Just a suspicion...



He's confusing suspense with emotion. Its emotional enough as a drama. Quite actually. But its not all that suspenseful. The one crying scene was pretty weak though. I would say that the actors were incredibly restrained. Most of the energy and back story came from Meirelles direction. His weaving of flashbacks with present quest, and so forth. No one particular scene was heart rending, but they were woven together decently. I think this guy was expecting Monster's Ball type tears as an indication of sadness or something.



I argue often that there's still quality levels and high demand even in "escapist" summer blockbusters. There's a fine difference between wanting some good fun and just wanting something non-challenging and assuming that as your "fun" space.

I disagree with almost everything this guy said. My issues with it were that the outline is revealed far too early. You say 35 minutes? did you happen to see when Tessa talks on her laptop to the german (?) woman. Bang, its all there, and the rest plays out only for Justin. If Meirelles had opted to have all flashbacks and scenes occur only within Justin's eye (revisited) raher than an omniscient third person viewer, there would have been a spectacular story to unfold. Instead, he doesn't deny us anything, and its just a drama about atrocities of big business, and a man who's lost his wife. Alright, but pretty mundane stuff. Style is a plus here, however, and certainly its not jumpy or shaky at all. He just uses color filters and a buget of what 50 million maybe?

The Constant Gardener is an eloquent, powerfully romantic thriller that is a treat for mature moviegoers who have been looking forward to an intelligent picture during the summer. There are no car chases, gunfights or brutal scenes of violence in this film. If that kind of thing is up your alley, I'd suggest skipping this movie and going to see The Transporter 2. Director Fernando Meirelles, making his follow-up to the wonderful City of God, uses a rather dazzling kinetic energy to record this film as if it were a documentary, which works quite well in portraying Africa and global conspiracy in regards to medicine and treatment. Ralph Fiennes is terrific (and gives his best performance since Schindler's List) as Justin, a reserved man who wants to seek answers following the cover-up (or was it?) death of his wife. Rachel Weisz is tremendous as his political activist wife Tessa. Despite not being on screen for a large amount of time (and seen primarily through flashbacks), Tessa is a spitfire and The Constant Gardener's intriguing plot developments all revolve almost entirely around her character. Danny Huston, Bill Nighy and Pete Postelthwaite all round out a fine supporting cast. On the negative side, The Constant Gardener does not always hold one's interest with some occasionally unbelievable plot devices and sometimes confusing time shifts (the film jumps back and forth rather often), but it is a rich, rewarding motion picture that arrives like a breeze on a hot day at the end of a summer full of special effects bonanzas. B+

Libs, any potential award winners in this?

Not sure, but Fiennes and Weisz were both worthy.

Fiennes is getting a nod for sure, I mean just look at the competition ahead, I doubt he'll win, but he'll get nominated. Weisz could get one aswell, it'll probably be for supporting though. The movie getting nominated for best picture is a real toss up though and for sure if it does get nominated its not wining.

I thought it was pretty good. It got enough claps at the end of my sold out show. I also liked the actors mentioned - especially the cousin. I wasn't bothered by the lack of suspense / mystery - which is evident by the ending. Because I felt it was a nice movie that had them discover the truths / love about themselves and their marriage.

My mom saw it Friday afternoon and told me it was okay and said she would give it a C+ or B-

Your mom told you what grade she was giving the movie?

...

I think that is what SM said. If true, nothing wrong with that and no comment is needed - IMO.

An overall good movie with two great performances from Fiennes and Weisz. I definently think both will be in consideration come Oscar time this year. It runs a little long and is boring in parts, but as a whole it works perfectly.

B

I also liked that the ending didn't have a "surprising" Hollywood type ending that goes lets save the stars. This was just a nice ride through their lives.

Good movie filled with fine performances by the leads as well as by some of the supporting cast. The story is contemporary and the ending is powerful. The erratic pacing reduces the movie's overall impact.

A-

Anyone else thought TB was a copout? It would have been stronger if they'd just said they were testing unapproved AIDS meds on them rather than harkening back to the Bubonic Plague....

WTF?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

The first bold section shows that if it is not quite as deadly as AIDS/HIV it is certainly very close and with so many infected latent cases could explode in the coming decades. The last bold section notes what many health professionals fear, that it will overtake AIDS as the number one killer with very little to stop it.

Great movie along with Virgin and BB the best movies of the Summer by far and probably the best movies of this year so far along with Sin City. A-

No doubt. But I don't see the need to split the testing from the topic of AIDS is all. It forcasts some epidemic that will wipe the land clean in the future there for giving it the sort of dark forwarning of a plague. As though, AIDS isn't? I think it would have been a more involved discussion to say "Look, they're suffering of AIDS and we're trying to get good AIDS medecine out to them and the whole world." Makes a much more challenging thinking point than making AIDS a storefront for a different epidemic. Its alot "easier" for the audiance to say "Oh its so wrong to insert TB untested drugs into them when they don't have it." Rather than say "Oh, well we're trying to help them with the AIDS situation aren't we?"

I dunno. I'm well aware TB, and even Bubonic PLague (highest counts are in the Southwest US for the entire world, etc) are present today. I just think its makes the ethics standpoint of the movie more grayscale to have the pharmecueticals at least professing an arguement they're trying to "save" the people from AIDS. Had they been TB victims in the first place, than it would be a similar case. They could argue they're trying to save them from TB. But instead, they were one, and the companies are testing for the other on them. Its alot easier to say no to. Well, its easy to say no to all of it, but I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear or not?

I am not sure if your follow-up post was any clearer (I didn't find it to be ). I thought the point of your original post was that TB was an outdated "controlled" killer and that AIDS was more topical, when I think they are both pretty interchangeable in terms of modern day carnage. Also, from my understanding TB/AIDS tend to work as a combo in Africa (meaning if you get one, you tend to get the other even with the different modes of transmission) and this was also the case in the early AIDS history in the US (not sure if that is still true here). I mean technically they are both classifed by WHO as global pandemics, so I am still confused to your exact point, but I kind of understand your vague misgivings, if that makes any sense.

If you are talking about making it easier to make villians out of corporate suits and govt. officials by making it TB, perhaps. However, have you seen the reviews on IMDB? People are complaining about what left-wing crap it is when the misdeeds are as cut and dry as they are now. If it was made any more complex, the limited audience would be even smaller and more people would be confused. Not sure how much the movie differs from the novel, but I am just glad the movie is complex as it is. Would be nice if it was able to be even more of an exercise in the gray matter of ethics, sure but in these days even "black and white" seems to be a nuance that it wasn't 2 decades ago. These days I feel like the Nazi's could be rehabilitated if they ever wanted to try and make a comeback (sure Hitler is 105 but I hear he is sharp as a tack down in Bolivia).

Seriously, there are numerous cases of Big Pharma bribing govt. officials and fabricating/falsifying drug studies in this country and being directly responsible for thousands of needless deaths. Still there are peole in this country who believe that it is not Big Pharma's fault for cutting corners and trying to maximize profits, but greedy trial lawyers or the people who take the FDA approved drugs.

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.