I saw this yesterday. I loved it. It was sad, infuriating, and depressing (I probably should have picked a non-hurricane Katrina weekend to see it). The only problem I had with it was the English accents (which I frequently have trouble with).
Has anyone seen it? What did you think of the hand-held camera effect? I thought it was very effective for this film. Comments?
I saw it, it’s probably in my top 5 of the year. I love Ralph Fiennes though.
The handheld camera affect was cool. It sort of gave the movie a video journal feel to it which worked for me. It was good quality handheld…which is impotant, otherwise you get sick (or I do, anyhow).
I loved the scene where
we go into the hospital room and Tessa is holding a dark skinned baby. It turns out she’s holding someone elses and their baby died. We make the same assumptions about Tessa and Arnold as Ralph did.
It was a nice and I felt like a bit of an idiot after that part.
I wish Tessa’s cousin was in the movie a little more, I liked him. His scene at the end was good, loved it.
Ralph Fiennes did a great job as usual. I highly recommend it.
Awful.
Boring dreck-ola. Point made twelve times over: rich pharma companies have no soul, poor people rule!
Handheld camera drove me nuts, as did the fragmented storytelling. I liked the cute meet scene, the sex scene afterwards, but otherwise–bleagghh.
I literally became motion sick and had to close my eyes for about a total of 30 minutes. My stomach was doing flip-flops and I’ve even seen Blair Witch and didn’t have that problem. I was begging for a tripod in this movie though.
I loathed the ending as well. Why, oh why, did they wait until the actual funeral to bust the guy? Lame dramatic effect.
The person I went with said that the book explained why the movie was titled as such since I didn’t really see the big connection. He said that Justin was more obsessed with gardening and that he purposefully was blocking the outside world until he was forced into it by the death of his wife. I didn’t really get that from the movie at all.
It was a good movie. The conspiracy was believable in scale, though I don’t think it entirely made sense. I mean, if the medicine was that bad, they wouldn’t sell many before they had to go back to the design stage anyway, with their reputation damaged and the competition at their heels, so why try to cover up something they’re going to have to fix anyway? But unlike in a lot of conspiracy movies, we’re not expected to believe that these people can sanction anybody they want to anytime they feel like, just to impress the audience with how serious it all is.
The movie will be frustrating for those who showed up to see a ‘thriller.’ It spends a lot of time on mood and character development, and some fairly artsy cinematography. I didn’t mind the handheld camera, though some spots of overexposure bugged me.
I really liked the way it was shot. I thought the story went along well. Ralph Fiennes did an excellent job. Overall I’d give it a 3.5 out of 4.
If I recall, wasn’t the medicine effective in a lot of cases but had dire consequences for others? I’m pretty sure the company was banking on selling a lot immediately after the outbreak.
I might be wrong. I’m a bit sketchy on that part.
I think it was a Vioxx situation…most people benefitted, but some would get very sick or die. The problem was the competition would come out with the drug before they could fix the problems, thereby missing out on a huge sector of the public who would have purchased it. Greed with a capital “G”.
The camera work took some getting used to, but I liked all the colors and shades they used. The casting was excellent, interesting story, suspense, romance, smart dialogue. I like brains with my thrillers. (Does that sound odd?)
I stayed through the ending credits...Did anyone see the note by John LeCarre towards the end? Something about the story being mild in comparison to what he'd actually found out while going through the pharmaceutical jungle.The Constant Gardner
If that means The Constant Gardener, it was a good movie. I could really recognize the style of the director from having seen City of God, which was a great movie. Bill Nighy did an excellent job portraying somebody who isn’t an interesting villain, just the actual kind of empty, soulless pig bastard that’s running the world these days.
I definitely got the sense that Justin was retreating into his gardening as a way of dealing (or not dealing) with Tessa’s death. And there’s a nice little double-meaning in there: constancy isn’t a quality that’s exceptionally valued today, but Justin had it in spades.
I liked the art direction, I liked that the characters were all very real – Tessa wasn’t a shining angel of righteousness, she was sometimes a self-righteous brat who had no sense of decorum; Justin was a “nice guy” who didn’t want to have to push too hard; Bill Nighy’s character, as Baldwin mentioned, wasn’t the embodiment of malicious evil, but just a corporate suit doing the best thing for the company.
I also liked that we got the information more-or-less as Justin did, both on the “mystery” plot and Tessa’s possible infidelity.
And of course both Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz are so gooey gorgeous as to make any two hours spent watching them a good two hours. 
I read half the quote before it scrolled off the screen. “The persons and organizations depicted are fictitions, thank god, but in my travels…” I didn’t get the rest. I tried to look it up on the IMDB but no luck. If anyone has the quote, post it, could you?
Stpauler, I felt very ill after watching Blair Witch and Next Stop Wonderland, so I know I’m sensitive to such things, but this movie didn’t bother me. Very weird! I guess everyone reacts differently.
For the most part I enjoyed the movie.
I’m amused that the movie poster shows a silhouette of a man pointing a handgun, but there’s no such action in the movie. I was expecting him to go Rambo at some point, but I’m glad he didn’t; that would have been cheesy.
It did feel like it was belaboring things a bit, but perhaps that’s just because I’m used to action movies where once you have a vague idea who the bad guy is, it’s time to rush in with guns blazing. In this case, it was more detailed than that.
I had a little trouble following his investigative path…he’s going where now, to talk to who, why? I was willing to believe that it all made sense, but it would have been more fun if it’d been made a bit more clear, I think.
I think the last part of the quote was like this (paraphrased): “but my travels through the pharmaceutical jungle make this film seem like a fairy tale (?)” or “greeting card.” (?)
Thanks for jogging my memory.
Saw it last night and loved it. Visually stunning – the handheld bits (and they were just occasional bits, most of it was shot conventionally) didn’t bother me particularly.
Tearjerkers ordinarily piss me off, but this one totally got to me. The scene when he goes back to Tessa’s house – my god. And then, of course, the ending.
I don’t care for thrillers, really, or political movies – I’ve never read a single book by Le Carre, and doubt I ever will – but this is wonderful. Got home and shot off a “thank you” email to one of the people who strongly recommended it – will thank the other when I get to work.
FINALLY. . .after my third attempt to go see this. . .finally got to see it.
My wife and I were pretty much blown away. I thought this was an astounding movie, and probably the best film I’ve seen this year.
The direction: first of all, when is the last time you saw locations like this and people like this. It made Hotel Rwanda look like it was shot on a Hollywood set. Mierelle’s angles and camera locations. . .wow, I loved City of God too, so obvious that style appeals to me. It was nothing more shaky than I saw on NYPD Blue in 1990. The close ups gave it such a feeling of immediacy, and the camera was unrelentingly close in the most emotional moments of the film.
The story: this story made sense. The drugs weren’t just killing people. The pharma’s were using Africa as a cheap testing ground. I don’t think this was far-fetched at all. I think that they could have just kept it to “KDH-Gov’t” instead of tyring to form a “KDH-Three Bees-Government” triumverate. The extra layer just made it more confusing, but didn’t add anything. I suspect it was more fleshed out in the book.
Also, if I had to say there was one overriding theme to John Le Carre’s work, it might be the idea that the layers of beaurocracy allow people to do really rotten stuff and feel somewhat absolved from it. That theme can be found in his work from the 1960’s about the cold war.
There’s even a touch of that idea in “The Spy Who Came in From the Cold” (a book and movie I’d recommend to anyone who liked Constant Gardener, although it’s been 10 years since I’ve seen it and sometimes opinions change. . .)
Also, I was totally guessing about Tessa. I was really thinking, “oh, she’s a conniving bitch who is using everyone she can to forward her own goals. . .noble though they may be.” My wife said she never thought that, but they got me.
Great directing, great acting, great story, great locations, great movie.
I absolutely hate the handheld camera effect. That totally ruins a movie. There is a reason that the Steadi-Cam was invented.
I would have rated TCG much higher on IMDB than I did, but when I have to close my eyes for big chunks of a movie to avoid motion sickness, it kinda detracts, know what I mean?
But there are shortcomings to it. It’s a more sterile shot. I think the handheld gives you a sense of being there, being in the moment, being in the crowd.
I could see being more critical of the handheld if he was one of these guys who thinks it is the end-all and be-all of directing. But I found it’s use restrained and justified in this movie.
When handheld is interwoven with shots that are tripod, helicopter and “dolly shots”, I think they can be an effective tool. In the wrong hands, they’re a mess, but in this movie (and also “City of God”, same director and cinematographer) I think they’re expert.
JMO. I can fully see how they can upset people. It just seems so common nowadays in TV and flims, that I guess I’m just used to it.
I’ve got nothing against hand-held shots, but a little goes a long way. this movie almost went over the line with the artsiness of the camerawork and the editng, but the story and the performances more than make up for that.
Typically for LeCarre, anyone who acts on their ideals or principles stands a good chance of being crushed or co-opted by the cynicism and–at best–amorality of the system.
Overall, a near-great film. I gave it an 8.5.