|
Directed by: Fernando Meirelles Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Bill Nighy Reviewing films like these is difficult because you have to look at it from two perspectives: the cinematic standpoint, and the literary standpoint. With that being said, the thing that stuck out in my mind about this film was that the plot didn't really interest me. I thought it was dull, roundabout, and inconclusive. The movie was bogged down by indecision; indecision as to whether or not the movie should be a political thriller, a romantic tale, or a political/social commentary. I just think LeCare was biting off more than he could chew by combining a criticism of the modern pharmaceutical industry and also the heartlessness of the general treatment of africa, an intricate romantic substory, and a WHODUNIT plot. But credit neeeds to be given where credit is due. Fiennes and Weisz were both very good. This was most definitely Weisz's best performance, and Fiennes was perfect for the timid yet impassioned British diplomat. I even enjoyed the Tony Scott-eque, jerky cinematography. I felt it served its purpose of conveying the downtrodden conditions of Africa and the hectic and depraved lifestyle of an African citizen. I just wasn't entertained by this movie. It was well done as a film, but dull as a story. So I compromised and gave it a 3.5. RATING: 3.5 PROS: Good performances, overall a solid film CONS: Dull plot, lack of resolution, too ambitious for my tastes ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0387131/
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2005 06:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Serious agenda drama from the director of City of God. It's a beautiful movie which really doesn't shy away from making you care for their characters or the subject of the film. Although occasionally complex, it never lost good narrative progress. Ralph Feinnes plays an almost humanly emotional person (I usually find him very unemotional or at least impossible to identify with) as a diplomat with a politically active wife. His journey through the film is very enthralling, made moreso by the effort to give us perspective on his feelings about his wife as well as the way that he learns more about her driving passion. Supporting cast is also pretty close to perfect. The film is very beautiful as well. It isn't quite as flashy as City of God but occasionally does use some well chosen effects to heighten a few scenes. It managed to capture, to me, the desperate conditions that millions are living in at this very moment. I don't want to give any details because the film delivers the plot in a perfect way. It's not quite as excellent as City of God, but not much really is. Highly recommend this one to anyone able to sit still for a couple of hours and have their mind and emotions exercised a bit. Rating: 4 PROS: Solid acting from every speaking member of the cast, involving dramatic story and effective love story CONS: A few scenes where the stylish directing got in the way and interrupted the flow
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2005 08:02
|
|
|
I loved City Of God, But I disliked this movie. The effects were well done, and the actors were great, but the plot was uninteresting. A more conclusive ending would have helped, but this movie left me with the thought of, "I just paid how much for that?" Rating: 1.5 PROS: Nice effects, Nice acting CONS: Just about everything else
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2005 22:21
|
|
|
Beautiful cinematography/scenery and quality acting, but plot seemed formulaic and predictable. You could easily tell it was going in the direction of "one person dies before finishing mysterious work, other person steps in and finishes his/her noble efforts" kind of stuff but the whole thing seemed about 15 minutes too long regardless. Movie seemed hastily concluded, like the writer got so involved with the plot and suddenly realized he had to wrap this poo poo up. Probably would've worked better as a book. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2005 05:13
|
|
|
A promising film with excellent acting which was ruined by an uninteresting plot and terrible pacing. It's usually a good sign that your movie is much too long when any child in the audience has figured out your Whodunit about halfway through; the rest of the film becomes a tedious morass of hashing and re-hashing things that we already know and therefore can't be surprised or shocked by. The cinematography is like City of God's only not as good, with beautiful, often complex settings obscured by filters and visual effects that have been applied for no apparent reason. Rating: 1 Pros: Superb acting. Cons: Self-consciously "arty", often very dull, and could benefit greatly by being around 45 minutes shorter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2005 20:08
|
|
|
I found this movie to be engaging and thoroughly soulful. It's tough and intense, and it takes your emotions and wipes its rear end with them. Fiennes is fantastic in this, as always. He plays Quayle, a withdrawn, distant, low-level diplomant, and though his face rarely moves he acts entirely through his eyes. They speak volumes. For example, when he's told of his wife's death the screen simply fixes on his face and he slowly responds, "Thank you, Sandy. Thanks for telling me. It couldn'tve been easy." The plot is not so important as Quayle's journey. His wife is brutally murdered at the beginning of the film, and he is suddenly struck with the idea that maybe he never really knew her at all. As he searches for answers, her passions become his passions, her lost causes and losing wars his fights as well. He changes from a man paralyzed by his job, hiding behind his desk and bureaucracy and his little flowers, into a man with nothing left to lose. It becomes hard to watch him. Guided by the sizzling and manic direction of Meirelles, Fiennes and Weisz play out a poignant and touching tragedy. Like all John le Carre stories, this movie brings with it a powerful and deep aching hurt. It brings into light the world's willful ignorance of Africa's grinding poverty, and you watch a man whom you probably identify with turn from someone who vaguely wants to help but is unmotivated into someone willing to die for these people. Fantastic movie. Possibly the best of the year. To be honest, I'm not sure many reviewers are familiar with the book or Le Carre's work as a whole. Any who do should understand that he's almost entirely character-based, so... don't expect to understand or to find the plot magnetic. What matters is Quayle. And that's it. Rated: 5 Spiny Norman fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Sep 15, 2005 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2005 06:18
|
|
|
To be blunt, I think there was only two serious problems with this film. The visual style and convoluted nature of the story. First of all, I should say that I enjoyed Meirelles City of God. The frenetic style was well done and fit the film very well. I can't help but to think considering the story, a more conventional style of filming would have been beneficial. The various and impressive backdrops of the film are often overshadowed by quick cuts which degrade them. While the speed of the cuts at times did build tension, it also slowed it down at many times. Considering the non-linear style, certain events lacked a complex buildup when we already know the outcome. In general, I don't feel the visual style ruined the film, but I can't help to think if done differently how it would have enhanced the film. My second complaint is with the actual story. The premise of The Constant Gardener is really quite interesting. The concept of the film with relation to the drug companies, was interesting. The issue is the monotony of the whole crisis outside of the Africa plotline. What starts as an interesting issue (drug company morals in Africa) becomes a conventional consipracy theory, with all the coverups you have seen a thousand times before. Not that this is completely ineffective, but it is dragged on way too long for it to stay entertaining. Unfortunately I have not read the Le Carre novel from which the film is based, so I don't know if this is a further issue of the book or not. I may seem heavy handed with the negatives, but there were a number of positive aspects to the film. Ralph Fiennes puts in a notable performance as Justin Quayle, and Rachel Weisz was very good as well. The supporting actors were effective in their supporting roles. The message of the film was also worth noting, there haven't been many mainstream films, (at least in this genre) that tackle the current issues in Africa. Although, I can't help but to think that most viewers of this film are openly aware of them. Rating: 3.5 Pros: Interesting concept, solid acting all around, some very good visuals. Cons: Visual style negates a lot of the visuals, and a good concept can't save a muddy narrative. unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Sep 10, 2005 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2005 09:52
|
|
|
This has some of the best cinematography i've seen in a movie in long time, and the effect was a very engrossing movie. The love story was lame. I seriously hate Rachel Weisz. Her character was also cliché. The main character was played very well, especially towards the end. The supporting characters were all pleasing to watch. I enjoyed the movie. Pros: Cinematography, Ralph Fiennes, supporting characters Cons: plot (for the most part), Rachel Weisz and her character 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2005 06:56
|
|
|
The visuals in this movie are the best I've seen all summer. The editing, directing, acting, all of the highest caliber. But the plot was astonishingly weak and dragged out, including a half-hour character establishing flashback to start the movie that could've been done in half the time. Every conversation the main character has with a character on the 'inside' (which the other 3/4 of the movie consists entirely of) is a simple copy/paste of themselves, with the name and location changed, a little more information added and a different way of saying "I'm the only friend you've got". The ending is short, predictable and unsatisfying considering the massive buildup given to it. This movie had so much promise, and I wish that the content of the story could've supported the world-class technical aspects. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2005 08:31
|
|
|
I keep comparing this movie to Hotel Rwanda. Except that movie succeeded in being a message movie with a very compelling story. So that we didn't feel like we were being beaten over the head with some polital correctness. Constant Gardener was a messag movie first and somewhere around 38th, it felt it needed to keep us interested with a story. Why not just make a documentary? I bet it would have had the same or more audience that this movie will have. In any case, I found it overly-preachy, unrealistic, the characters unsympathetic, the plot convoluted. 1.5
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2005 17:34
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. I went into it knowing absolutely nothing about it, and I'm glad that I did -- I was expecting a sappy tale of love found and lost in a foreign land and instead got hit with a suspenseful thriller. Many of the scenes reminded me of The Insider, a movie I also liked. The characters were engaging and the many shots of Africa were breathtaking. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2005 16:53
|
|
|
Good cinematography and acting packaged in a beautiful boring package. 1.5
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2005 16:31
|
|
|
Well, the early stages of the plot were very promising. They ended up panning out though without any more surprises. The acting was solid and the cinematography was excellent, but that's not enough to really hold a movie together. 3.0
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2005 21:22
|
|
|
I went in to this because I was bored and movies only cost 150 peso here. From the poster I was expecting some kind of espionage thriller with brainless rachel weisz thrown on top (the poster has fiennes brandishing a gun with something like "there's an international plague... AND ONLY THEY CAN STOP IT!!!"). What I ended up getting was a frustrating yet moving character drama. There were two really incredible things the film did. The first is the constant re-classification of rachel weisz. Is she an activist? Opportunist? Whore? Martyr? You run the gamut because the film-maker makes you watch it entirely through Quayle's eyes; you generally only get the information he does and have to make the same judgements. I really enjoyed the dizzying sense of ambiguity in the middle of the film; does qauyle even want to find out more about her at this point, or does he want to have his memories intact? The second thing is how effective Ralph is at protraying Quayle, but what makes it good is that the movie helps him instead of him having to pull out all the stops of Acting 101. Simply put he is a believable character in an unbelievable situation. He's not out there beating up guys, shooting people, cracking passwords and sexing up the lady spies. He's just a public school educated mid-level civil servant. The "spy" things he does do are relatively common sense, with the only stumbling block being Ham and the fake passports. He muddles around in his gormless stiff upper lip way and it's both tragic and uplifting to watch. His emotions are that much more accessible because he's not suddenly kicking rear end and taking names, he's following a trail step by step and refuses to be pulled off of it no matter the cost. You add to this portrayal the emotional dimension of witnessing horrible events in Darkest Africa and you get a movie that comes dangerously close to being a cynical tear jerker. I think that's not the intent or the case however. While there are many emotional setpieces they generally serve as background for the plot instead of being thrust upon the viewer in a preachy fashion. The one we can help right now is a valuable lesson too. The bad things are unfortunately, kind of bad. The first act is an extended flashback that feels like it was copped from a meet-funny relationship film. It feels like the movie will never emerge from the kooky relationship stage, but when it does it's definitely worth it. I can see the value of the flashback but it's a hard sell even to me who enjoyed the film. I can see it being a deal-breaker for anyone not into it. There are things done wrong in this movie, but the things done right overshadow them. To me this felt like "The Interpreter" done right, that the emotional crescendoes ring true and aren't sterile and over-explained. (I realize they're two entirely different films but hey, Africa.) 4.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 13:01
|
|
|
I think that Meirelles went a bit overboard here. I think the problem was that the movie tried to do too much, and as a result each individual part suffered. It was a love story that was a bit by the numbers, a espionage thriller that was a bit predictable, and a message film that was a bit too preachy. Now I'm not against movies trying to be multi-layered or anything, but this film just didn't gel it all together. City of God was similar in its several plotlines/themes, but it worked because it felt like a single story of the City of God; this movie just felt like several movies taking place at once. It wasn't terrible at all, though. I liked the visual style (especially towards the end, the scenes where Fiennes was walking through Africa were really beautiful), the acting was pretty good all around, and the movie worked to an extent in all that it tried. I just think it needed a bit more focus. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2005 00:12
|
|
|
Constant Gardener is a beautiful film. Africa is the movie's most important character; it looks incredible in the juxtaposition of natural splendor and human squalor. The movie shows the extend of its poverty in a way I'm surprised Hollywood had the balls to. The plot is pretty complex and a bit far-flung, but it's handled beautifully by the director. He treats the audience with respect and lets us draw conclusions on our own by reading the actors. I just love movies with characters who are subtlely flawed (and there aren't many). To me a story draws me in so much more when I see people who make mistakes, and who can only marginally rise above their character faults. I had a few harmless qualms. The bad guys are a bit too devious to be believable (although I think Bill Nighy plays the perfect British prat). The politics are a little too overt, and I thought the eulogy speech was a little ham-handed. Insignificant. Best movie I've seen this year by a large margin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2005 06:36
|
|
|
It takes a while to follow along, since one's probably seen the trailer, and wonder how it fits in... Well, I enjoyed it, the acting is superb, and the cinematography was right on the nose concerning the story. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2005 11:42
|
|
|
This was one of the most incredible, convincing love stories I've ever seen on screen. Ralph Fiennes was fantastic, and the appalling hole left in his life was horribly realistic. I was crying all through the scene back at the Chelsea house, and through the end. I thought the way the film kept showing you Tessa in an apparently suspicious situation was very clever, and I loved the fact that Quayle never used a gun, never hit anyone. A really intelligent thriller, shockingly emotional. Best film this year, though the shaky camera thing got old too fast. Still, 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2005 14:29
|
|
|
quote:With that being said, the thing that stuck out in my mind about this film was that the plot didn't really interest me. I thought it was dull, roundabout, and inconclusive. The movie was bogged down by indecision; indecision as to whether or not the movie should be a political thriller, a romantic tale, or a political/social commentary. I just think LeCare was biting off more than he could chew by combining a criticism of the modern pharmaceutical industry and also the heartlessness of the general treatment of africa, an intricate romantic substory, and a WHODUNIT plot. I quote this as I need to kind of use it as a base for why I think this was such an amazing film. It's so multifaceted, it is a love story, it is a political thriller, and it is a social commentary on Africa and the abuse corporations deal to it on a daily basis...yet it does all of this in conjunction with each other, linking them even. There are parts of the film where love story is confused for political thriller and social commentary used to show the love story, all elements like ingredients to a fine fine cake. The complaints in the above quote I feel are completely off base, but I respect the opinion and the fact that the plot didn't interest the OP. While the OP might feel that the indecision and lack of conclusion to this film ruins it, I feel the indecision is an essential part of this film that ultimately largely takes the viewpoint of an out of the loop, confused and somewhat gullible/aloof Ralph Fiennes. This film is about his journey of discovery, and every aspect that is involved in it, while you may have guessed something before he has, that's not the end of that part of the story as far as he is concerned. As for the lack of conclusion? This film reaches a conclusion, but it is not one that merely deals with the characters of the film, but with everyone that watches it, it is not the "man saves the world, happily ever after", or perhaps the even worse "Man finds out everything but the world carries on regardless" kind of film. The conclusion isn't a full stop or exclamation point on the matter as to do so would undermine the whole message of the film, the conclusion is, most appropriately, a question...how long do we want to go on pretending that we don't abuse people around the world for financial gain, and can we live with ourselves if we do. You come out of the movie feeling emotionally thrown about, The entire screen I watched this with left the movie in a somber silence, everyone knew what they just had scene and somehow felt guilty merely for being associated with the connotations it gave. Perhaps this doesn't work so well elsewhere than Britain, I'd imagine it should work pretty well in America, but I don't want to pre-judge exactly how conscious the general movie-going public there would be to what goes on in the world. It was well paced, well directed and well handled for such a subject. 5/5 easily. On a side note, I have to agree with Scaramouche on Rachel Weiss, they keep you guessing all along, and for people that are critical of her abilities I think this film shows that she can perform very solidly in a supporting role. Niaccurshi fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 17, 2005 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2005 01:34
|
|
|
I think a person's opinion of the movie is really affected by what they expected it to be. If you think the movie is supposed to be a political mystery thriller, you're likely to be disappointed (and the trailers were very misleading in this regard). But I don't think the story is set up to be a mystery in the first place. They practically tell you who the bad guys are in the first 45 minutes. The focus of the movie isn't about who killed his wife, but on how the killing affects the Ralph Fiennes character. Fortunately for me I saw this after Eternal Sunshine, and because in some ways this movie and Eternal Sunshine deal with similar themes (although not all the themes I similar), I picked up on what I think the movie was really about, which is Ralph Fiennes rediscovering who his wife was and his faith in her. And it's that aspect that I thought was fantastic, and heartbreaking. Therefore the predictableness of the plot, and the simplistic nature of it, didn't really bother me, since it was the McGuffin to what the writer's intent was really was. The journey of the Ralph Fiennes character, and a human rights lesson for the audience about the abuses going on in Africa. 4/5 theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jan 4, 2006 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2006 09:08
|
|
|
How can shaky camera work convey Africa's condition? (nevermind) I could never find sympathy for either character. Because I despise them both. Sue me, it is just the net result of watching the whole movie. You either relate to one or the other or both or the movie doesn't do anything for you. I did enjoy her "latin" first cousin, he actually had good timing and appropriate depth of emotion, unlike waiting until your wife is dead and than start really giving a drat what she was doing. I mean 62 deaths in Africa? That is one man's daily work with a machete in some parts. People saying how well Ralph Fiennes performed. Playing another impotent, love struck boob ... I am shocked! .Why shouldn't he, he has had lots of practice, hello, The English Patient, Maid in Manhattan, Red Dragon, and those are just the recent ones that come to mind first. Start passing out the oscars again, a befuddled man in love coming. so the exciting conclusion send off the letter your wife wasn't suppose to take, to Sandy from Peligrin (sp?), that you just got from the doctor(why does the doctor have it again? doesnt matter)by way of UN pilot you just met and get dropped off at place of your wife's murder so they can shoot you too, I mean of course just wait there, even unload your gun...the letter winding up being read at his funeral, thus exposing all.. be still my heart Granted it is refreshing change of pace from a film like Transporter 2, but it does not have to be the extreme polar opposite, which it is. the corporate crook curtis helps him, the british spy helps him, the doctor in the sudan helps him and what does he do .. endangers her first cousin and his son again and nails the bad guys by eating 8 bullets after he mails a letter The plot is dull, erratic, and around these parts if you want to hold someones attention don't spare the main character no less than 4 times, than kill him off screen.that just screams artsy foreign film. It was well done in Rachel's characters case, but they just had to do it again didn't they. Something has to be there for you to latch onto, and I recommend you find out for yourself, if it is there or not. Rating: 2.0 Pros: I dont regret renting the DVD, Rachel is easy on the eyes, exotic locales, proper film making, good production values Cons: no real closure, no climax, 2/3rds dull
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2006 01:52
|
|
|
From what I kept reading about this movie, I was expecting some kind of thriller murder mystery. What I got instead was easily the most boring movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some sort of twist toward the end but instead the dull plot just dragged on and on and then finally just sort of... stopped. Don't waste 2 hours of your life watching this. 0.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2006 07:43
|
|
|
The box on this movie said it was an action-packed thriller. Justin, the main character, is shown holding a gun, and there are explosions and a car chase. Let me start by making one thing clear: this was not in fact an action movie. Justin has a gun for about 10 minutes of the movie, and he never shoots it. There were no explosions. The car chase was a friend of his trying to tell him something. First, the basic story. Tessa (Weisz) is married to Justin (Fiennes). Justin is a diplomat, Tessa is devoting her life to helping Africans get proper medical supplies. Unfortunately, there is a drug conspiracy that Tessa gets to close to uncovering, and she is murdered - you find this out in the opening scene. Justin then devotes his life to findout out who murdered Tessa and why, and what secret she was close to revealing. Tessa's acting was good. She's hot, and witty to boot. They kept hinting at her being an unfaithful slut (like when she was pregnant, then it shows her in the hospital holding a black baby when her and her husband are white, and she has a close black friend) but then she's quite the opposite (the black baby was the baby of a black mother dying in the next room, she was breast-feeding it 'cause she could). Justin's acting was not. Maybe it was the character, but he was a total douche. He was poo poo on by the bad guys the whole movie. "Im going to have to take your passport, I think its forged!" says the guy in the airport, who is just saying that so Justin will be forced to not leave the country. "Oh, OK" says Justin. And thats how he is the whole movie. Hell, the at the end he even lets the bad guys kill him, so he can be with his dear Tessa. What the hell kind of ending is that, anyway? Sure he uncovers the sinister plot and makes it public, but the hero is supposed to win, not submit to the bad guys! As previously mentioned, the storyline was alright, lacking in action but there were enough plot twists to make up for it. But there was way too much 'Africa is starving, they need our help' propaganda. It was Tessa's job and all, but if they could show a starving black child with big white teary eyes, holding his dead mother's hand, they did. It gets old after seeing it about 50 times. Overall, it could have been a good movie if Justin actually showed some passion and some prowess, instead of following Tessa's work almost blindly and stupidly. The only reason he even figures out whats going on is because some of the bad guys repent and divulge some critical information to him at a key moment. Its a decent enough movie to watch if your wife insists on renting it, but I would neither watch it again nor suggest it to anybody else unless they were asking specifically for a movie set in Africa about a drug conspiracy and an ambassador's bumbling attempts to uncover it. Pros: Decent storyline, Rachel Weisz's acting was good Cons: Boring as poo poo, pro-Africa propaganda, Ralph Fiennes' acting was poo poo 2/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2006 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
I thought the acting was very well done - and the visuals were stunning. I think the movie would have benefitted greatly from taking more plot from the book. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2006 20:44
|
|