The Constant Gardener
Focus Features | Release Date: August 31, 2005
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 294 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
192
Mixed:
54
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
9
alejandro970Sep 18, 2021
Although it is based on a novel, the film leaves the idea of whether it was inspired by real events. Something to be thankful for is how it combines elements of romantic story with suspense and conspiracy. That without forgetting the work ofAlthough it is based on a novel, the film leaves the idea of whether it was inspired by real events. Something to be thankful for is how it combines elements of romantic story with suspense and conspiracy. That without forgetting the work of the cast.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilipeNetoAug 23, 2018
When I watched this movie I already had some expectations because I had read good reviews and I knew that it had a strong cast. The story also seemed to be very interesting: a British diplomat trying to discover his wife's murderers discoversWhen I watched this movie I already had some expectations because I had read good reviews and I knew that it had a strong cast. The story also seemed to be very interesting: a British diplomat trying to discover his wife's murderers discovers a corrupt plot between the British government and the pharmaceutical industry, working in Kenya. Needless to say, I think, I was very pleased with the movie. The plot's main subject is strong, moving and human. Actor's work is very competent. The two central characters are affectionate, romantic and passionate, especially Tessa, who defends her ideas with great conviction. This helps a lot to make them dear to the audience, holding our attention until the end. How much of this is pure fiction is something I kept thinking about later. We know that the pharmaceutical industry generates millions, and this causes me (at least to me) some distrust. Has it ever happened, in recent past, something like what happens in this movie? Is it happening now and we don't know? Even if its not, its always a good reason to think on how some countries and regions are exploited. Going back to the film itself, I liked the way it visually explores African landscapes, with cinematography toasting us with scenes of a very beautiful light and color. The work of Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles (in my opinion, the best Brazilian film director today) is very competent and gives the film a soft aroma of documentary that tastes good, even though its no more than an illusion. Errors or problems? I didn't feel many, but I think it would improve if it had been kept for longer the mystery surrounding the conspiracy. The public soon realizes what's going on and the real reasons behind Tessa's death, and that takes away the interest and logic of her husband's demand.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SpangleJun 5, 2014
"The Constant Gardener" is a slow burning political thriller that is a little confusing in the first half, but as more and more gets revealed in the second half, things begin to make a lot more sense and the puzzle pieces really begin to come"The Constant Gardener" is a slow burning political thriller that is a little confusing in the first half, but as more and more gets revealed in the second half, things begin to make a lot more sense and the puzzle pieces really begin to come together. Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz are both great in this one, as expected. It is not hard to believe that Weisz won an Oscar for her performance here. The cinematography is also gorgeous as they were able to extract every bit of beauty they could out of their African location. As mentioned, this one is a tad slow, but it never really failed to have my attention. Throughout the film, I was completely hooked as I tried to follow every twist and turn before the big conclusion at the end. The great part about this one is that the second half really does explain much of what we see in the first half. It is a tad confusing, but the answers to any questions we have are ultimately provided and things begin to make a bit more sense. In addition, the film brings a lot of ethical concerns surrounding drug companies and their operations in Africa to the forefront, as you know the plot of this one is not too far-fetched. While the film was very thrilling, it also makes you feel a lot of empathy for those who are exploited in the name of medicine. Ultimately, "The Constant Gardener" is a good film with a strong plot, strong acting, and strong direction.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
worleyjamersJun 7, 2013
The great political thriller of 2005. Rachel Wiesz is fantastic in her Oscar winning performance, she is excellent here. Great script and good editing. Well-done drama, one of the best of 2005. Nominated for 4 Academy Awards, The ConstantThe great political thriller of 2005. Rachel Wiesz is fantastic in her Oscar winning performance, she is excellent here. Great script and good editing. Well-done drama, one of the best of 2005. Nominated for 4 Academy Awards, The Constant Gardener is a must see.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Trev29Dec 17, 2012
For what is supposed to be a suspenseful mysterious type movie, it was anything but captivating. The directing style and the script made the entire movie seem like a boring blur. Rachel Weiz did quite an excellent job when she was on screen,For what is supposed to be a suspenseful mysterious type movie, it was anything but captivating. The directing style and the script made the entire movie seem like a boring blur. Rachel Weiz did quite an excellent job when she was on screen, but nothing about this movie would make me ever want to see it again.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
9
MennoV.Dec 4, 2007
Impressive movie, though a bit slow to start. Excellent casting, very good camerawork. It's been a while a movie sucked me in this deep!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DanS.May 26, 2007
John Le Carre was by far my favorite narrator of how the Cold War corroded the humanity of everyone involved. The screen adaptations of his novels of those times, starting with the brilliant "Spy Who Came In From The Cold", showed clearly John Le Carre was by far my favorite narrator of how the Cold War corroded the humanity of everyone involved. The screen adaptations of his novels of those times, starting with the brilliant "Spy Who Came In From The Cold", showed clearly how most involved lost their idealism along the way...if they ever had any. They also explored so well about why and how decent people betray friendships and even love. "The Constant Gardener" tells us how far a huge pharmaceutical company will go to make more profits and, in any case, to cover up unethical, illegal practises when they go wrong. It has similar themes to Le Carre's earlier tales. The film was especially well-acted, with Fiennes and Weisz at their finest, while the cinematography and intelligent dialogue added a lot. Yet, I'm not surprised that the viewers gave this an average score of only 6.7, lower than the 82 by the critics. The basic premise of the tale is that the large pharmas will go so far as to murder those who are attempting reveal the cover-up. "Big pharma" these days have few fans outside Bush's White House, but it's really hard to imagine that they are up to assassinating those they fear. That's really seems to go too far. Yet, I can't bring myself to give this one a score of less than 9. Maybe it's because of Rachel Weisz, my nominee for the thinking man's heart throb. Maybe, like Le Carre, I'm just a sentimental old lefty. So I just can't help myself: "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (Evil to him who evil thinks.)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RirenMar 17, 2007
International pharmaceutical companies have been exploiting poor Africans in need of medicine for decades in order to test their drugs, regardless of their potentially crippling or lethal side effects. If the preceding sentence interested International pharmaceutical companies have been exploiting poor Africans in need of medicine for decades in order to test their drugs, regardless of their potentially crippling or lethal side effects. If the preceding sentence interested you, read a book about it. Don't see this movie. It's neither informative, nor an actually good film. The first half hour is a nearly incomprehensible exercise in flashbacks and flash forwards, setting up a disconnected chronology to excuse all the later scenes in the film from having to occur along a realistic timeline. It works with the naivety of an action movie, but reaches insultingly for the depths of a conspiracy movie, and comes away with the satisfaction of neither. It decomposes into sentimental trash by the end, with its great cast… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JudithH.Feb 25, 2007
A good, rather than a great film, but I'm surprised few people have mentioned the novel. There were some strange decisions made in the adaptation, such as NOT including Lara, the beautiful Russian scientist. And now I've typed that A good, rather than a great film, but I'm surprised few people have mentioned the novel. There were some strange decisions made in the adaptation, such as NOT including Lara, the beautiful Russian scientist. And now I've typed that I can see why not - it sounds too James Bond.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MikeR.Feb 18, 2007
This was the SLOWEST MOST BORING movie I have ever seen. If you didn't see the movie I'll save you two hours. Drug companies are bad. There that's it, that's all the movie had to say. Terrible movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DavidH.Feb 3, 2007
Le Carre's most disappointing book turned into a disappointing film. Odd collection of villains, some nice scenery, and a couple of pretty actors brooding.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LoildoT.Feb 2, 2007
Great Movie, unquestionably! But, of course, this kind of movie requires maturity and patience, as for most interesting things.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
[Anonymous]Aug 27, 2006
terrible, as unoriginal as discussing one's hatred for political correctness, don't see it, it sucks, i knew how it was going to end, within the first minute, but it didn't for a long long time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JoeC.Jul 16, 2006
Great movie. Works as a thriller, romance and drama. Great performances by Fiennes and Weisz and Meirelles is proving himself as a master of filmmaking!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JonS.Jul 10, 2006
Pay no attention to those whose beef is with the film's politics. This is a masterpiece of filmmaking: personal, abstract, technicially marvelous, with an amazing story and as much suspense as one could ask for. Yes, the movie is hugely Pay no attention to those whose beef is with the film's politics. This is a masterpiece of filmmaking: personal, abstract, technicially marvelous, with an amazing story and as much suspense as one could ask for. Yes, the movie is hugely critical of some pharmaceutical company practices, but it never asserts this is what all companies do. Most impressively, the movie ties together a man's journey to know his wife into a journey to understand the world. Truly beautiful. Those that dislike the humane, intelligent, passionate politics of this film . . . well, they're part of the problem.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ANApr 28, 2006
I disagree with all of you. It is a moving romance sorty, involiving some of the best actors. It presents the terrible side of politics, hiding everything from the public. It shows how badly the poor Africans are treated. It is magnificent, I disagree with all of you. It is a moving romance sorty, involiving some of the best actors. It presents the terrible side of politics, hiding everything from the public. It shows how badly the poor Africans are treated. It is magnificent, beautifully filmed. Exactly what it should be.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SteveP.Mar 31, 2006
This was the worst movie, that the academy awards clamed was good, that I every saw. What I hated the most was how the trailers for it depicted it as a cool mystery film about secret corporate practices in Africa, [***SPOILERS***] then you This was the worst movie, that the academy awards clamed was good, that I every saw. What I hated the most was how the trailers for it depicted it as a cool mystery film about secret corporate practices in Africa, [***SPOILERS***] then you watch it and find it to be a really stupid romance between a super liberal woman and a guy who Gardens Constantly. The story was my biggest complaint, they skip around so much that after a wile it seems less like a movie and more like a bunch of random pictures of Africa with some actors in it. They didn… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TigranH.Mar 20, 2006
A fragmented cinematic effort. At times a beautiful postcard of Africa, a love story that never emerges fully, a theme that never reaches a crescendo or a climax, and acting that is just above the average. An excellent theme ruined by a bad A fragmented cinematic effort. At times a beautiful postcard of Africa, a love story that never emerges fully, a theme that never reaches a crescendo or a climax, and acting that is just above the average. An excellent theme ruined by a bad script and not so great directing. Compared to Munich (which also carries an anthemic and current affairs theme) this is just a shadow of a movie. Ralph Fiennes is the only light in this wasted opportunity. He carries the movie and all the actors around him. The fundamental problem is that this movie wanders off aimlessly or without any real destination. The pharmaceutical "villans" are not portrayed as they should have, the suffering of the African people without proper medication is not given as it should and there is no real momentum in this whole story. I don't think Fernando Meirelles nor John Le Carré really worked together here. All in all a wonderful opportunity wasted.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PatC.Mar 6, 2006
I agree with Heather & Joe below. I am so tired of movies righteously asserting they advance the rights of a class of victims, then use such a claim of concern as an excuse for not doing their jobs. If I'm going to believe the people I agree with Heather & Joe below. I am so tired of movies righteously asserting they advance the rights of a class of victims, then use such a claim of concern as an excuse for not doing their jobs. If I'm going to believe the people who run drug companies are evil, I want to know how they're evil, how their minds work, how they got that way. The mindset of this movie is exactly why the liberals are getting their butts kicked in more and more elections. Stop insisting you're so smart and do your homework. Having been to Nairobi and being aware all hell is breaking loose in the Sudan, I appreciated the underlying feelings this film sometimes captured, and the film means well, but it's way too obtuse.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GabrielK.Mar 4, 2006
Bad acting, bad script, switched it off after half an hour before it ruined my night. It was so full of it's own self importance yet so bad it was unbelievable. A complete insult to anyone with a brain. The opening Bad acting, bad script, switched it off after half an hour before it ruined my night. It was so full of it's own self importance yet so bad it was unbelievable. A complete insult to anyone with a brain. The opening 'interaction' between the two leads set the level for the whole film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
HeatherW.Feb 28, 2006
Well, given the attention this movie has gotten, I was pretty disappointed. It was very mediocre in every way: writing, cinematography, acting. Loaded with cliches and one-sided predictable characters. And did anyone else want to slap Tess? Well, given the attention this movie has gotten, I was pretty disappointed. It was very mediocre in every way: writing, cinematography, acting. Loaded with cliches and one-sided predictable characters. And did anyone else want to slap Tess? I'm as much of a liberal as anyone out there and a bit of a saber-rattler, too, so it wasn't her politics that got up my nose. I just didn't believe her. She was someone's fantasy of what an Amnesty International do-gooder is all about, and an annoying fantasy to boot. But more than anything, it was the way the story moved from one half-explained, half-realized scene to the next that really got on my nerves. The only interesting aspect of the movie was the scenes of African poverty juxtaposed with the scenes of a faded British imperialism and a sterile, removed U.N. That was well done. But the story itself was a snoozer. Wasn't invested in the political thriller *or* the tedious Ralph Fiennesian romance, which could have "The English Patient" all over again, except this time in subsaharan Africa instead of north Africa. Yawn.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JoeS.Feb 25, 2006
It's like being tied to a chair and hit on the head with a hammer while a political statement is repeated forcefully in your face. It gets a 2 only for the cinematography. The most serious accusations are made against "the drug It's like being tied to a chair and hit on the head with a hammer while a political statement is repeated forcefully in your face. It gets a 2 only for the cinematography. The most serious accusations are made against "the drug companies" without any evidence, as if they're facts. If it were just some fictional company in the story, that would be no problem. But this is one of those Michael Douglas-type movies where everyone _acts_ like "it's just a movie" but the viewer is obviously supposed to get the message that "this is how it really is." Suspicions, sentiments, and "feelings" are the only basis given for what we're asked to believe is a major international conspiracy. With all the reporters and newspapers out there looking for a big story, wouldn't someone expose that? Oh yeah- they'll be assassinated by the drug companies if they try. Pathetic. The other truly pathetic thing about this movie is, they're supposedly presenting a realistic picture of Africa, and it's somehow supposed to evoke sympathy. These people are supposedly starving and in dire poverty, yet virtually every one of them is running around in brightly colored, freshly cleaned new-looking clothes. Hard to believe professional filmmakers could be that stupid. Then again consider the movie they made.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PaalF.Feb 20, 2006
Excellent plot, excellent lead actors, excellent setting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TimK.Feb 16, 2006
Gripping, suspenseful, nuanced, real. Another fabulous Ralph Fiennes movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
thegr8estFeb 11, 2006
The anti war stance must have been why this movie got such great critical acclaim. From the motion sickness I got from the bobbing camera to pressing my ear to the speaker to hear the dialogue only to be blasted by the next scene, I was The anti war stance must have been why this movie got such great critical acclaim. From the motion sickness I got from the bobbing camera to pressing my ear to the speaker to hear the dialogue only to be blasted by the next scene, I was mildly entertained.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SalmanH.Feb 8, 2006
Incredible. just watched it on DVD. film was so moving. but it is for mature audiences. not the type of movie u wanna watch with all ur friends on saturday nite stay etc.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnV.Feb 7, 2006
The Constant Gardener is not the usual flare with which Hollywood treats Africa. It is not Lord of War, Tears of the Sun, or some other ethnocentric garbage. I think its very much in your face glimpse of what the world is doing in Africa. The Constant Gardener is not the usual flare with which Hollywood treats Africa. It is not Lord of War, Tears of the Sun, or some other ethnocentric garbage. I think its very much in your face glimpse of what the world is doing in Africa. Having just returned from West Africa myself after several months, I feel as though this movie really did try and present Africa in a real sense, with real heart. An excellent film in every sense.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChrisS.Feb 5, 2006
Very over-rated. Very slow. Very over-the-top. Just when you thought it was about sex it switched to a thriller--WITH RALPH FIENNES?? come on...that man does a lot of boring shows.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
CliveR.Feb 4, 2006
It had me in suspense all the way through but looking back it's such a depressing film! Bizzarly though I found the end quite satisfying.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BurkeFeb 3, 2006
Odd that this is so well rated by the professionals. I made it through the first hour and then gave up. Disjointed, badly photographed, oddly paced, bloody slow (at least through the hour I survived), and as nuanced as being hit with a Odd that this is so well rated by the professionals. I made it through the first hour and then gave up. Disjointed, badly photographed, oddly paced, bloody slow (at least through the hour I survived), and as nuanced as being hit with a hammer. Unfortunately, I suspect this movie rates so high because most reviewers like its political stance (especially the early anti-war monologue), rather than its actual merits as a movie. Odd that Lord of War, which is theoretically just a big dumb action movie, is slightly more nuanced.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BorisC.Jan 31, 2006
I'm not sure which would be more exciting watching this movie again or being in a coma or 2 hours. I do believe it would be the coma.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JamesB.Jan 29, 2006
Slow? I walked out on this, and it was playing on my TV. After 45 minutes in, just a low-grade soap opera. If you have the patience to stick with it, maybe you'll like it more. My time is much too valuable. This is what I get for Slow? I walked out on this, and it was playing on my TV. After 45 minutes in, just a low-grade soap opera. If you have the patience to stick with it, maybe you'll like it more. My time is much too valuable. This is what I get for listening to other reviews.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GregT.Jan 24, 2006
Fiennes and Weisz perform admirably and energetically. But I was not engaged during this movie. Critics state that this movie is all about "intrigue and romance". There is no intrigue here because every movie about Africa has the same theme Fiennes and Weisz perform admirably and energetically. But I was not engaged during this movie. Critics state that this movie is all about "intrigue and romance". There is no intrigue here because every movie about Africa has the same theme - the corruption of African Governments, the corruption of any company that does business in Africa, continual genocide and dog-eat-dog tribal warfare. This is not intriguing; It is a well established predictable movie format. Romance? The heroine treats her husband like a dense cousin visiting from Appalachia, not like a lover. She doesn't even remotely confide in him at any level. It also always amazes me that in these movies about Africa that the starving and panicky Africans are always desperately running towards airplanes which are dispensing parcels of food and foreign aid and yet these individuals are always somehow dressed to the nines in flowery and immaculate tribal gowns and festooned with not one necklace but 40 rows and rows of them. Presumably when one is starving and rushing to a plane for food, one dons one's best wardrobe and jewellery beforehand, lest one not make a good impression on the North American viewers of this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BJS.Jan 22, 2006
Very thought provoking but a little slow. Iwould not mention it as an oscar.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DarkmageJan 20, 2006
You may want to enjoy this movie by yourself and not watch it with a date you don't want to disappoint. This movie is quite slow moving in many instances, with a lack of background music at times and British accents thick enough to make You may want to enjoy this movie by yourself and not watch it with a date you don't want to disappoint. This movie is quite slow moving in many instances, with a lack of background music at times and British accents thick enough to make you miss dialogue if you're not accutely paying attention. All these glowing reviews make the movie look amazing -- and it is! -- but it certainly isn't a movie for any occassion.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SandeepK.Jan 14, 2006
This movie is to remain my personal favorite for a long time to come. Deftly made with its heart in the right place, the film awakens the ignorant and apathetic mind to a harsh, bitter sweet reality. The plight of Africa is again underscored This movie is to remain my personal favorite for a long time to come. Deftly made with its heart in the right place, the film awakens the ignorant and apathetic mind to a harsh, bitter sweet reality. The plight of Africa is again underscored in this work, although I feel that it would take more than mainstream movies to expand the narrow horizons of the common man steeped in the tar of consumerism. Media is definitely the way to go though.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JonathanB.Jan 12, 2006
Very great, and good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LaDonaG.Dec 31, 2005
Rachel Weisz gives the best performance of all time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AliM.Dec 24, 2005
Outstanding .... A serious contender for BEST PICTURE WINNER at the oscars this year. Well done to both Rachel Weisz and Ralph fiennes for delivering an ASTONISHING performance !!! A must-see!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
bertl.Dec 18, 2005
One of the best movies i've seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
DaveC.Dec 15, 2005
Some of the faux-English mannerisms in the film made me wince (somebody get a British screenwriter) while some of the narrative delineations were more smug than interesting, Rachel Weizs character meanwhile is idealised. That aside however, Some of the faux-English mannerisms in the film made me wince (somebody get a British screenwriter) while some of the narrative delineations were more smug than interesting, Rachel Weizs character meanwhile is idealised. That aside however, I thought this was a timely film which grips you from the very beginning. Pacing, strong performances and skillful direction, these elements combine to make a highly entertaining thriller, so much so that its easy to forgive the lack of dimension to the lead characters and the film's overall fancifulness.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MikeW.Dec 11, 2005
Incredibly somber, real, and featuring a brilliant performance by Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener is the best film of the year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WallyS.Dec 6, 2005
One of the best movies of the year. Gripping, absorbing and extremely intelligente. A love story that runs away from stereotipes, and convinces the audience with sheer wit and deep suspense.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MathewD.Dec 3, 2005
This film is brilliant...I saw this movie with one other person, and we were joined by one bystander, sitting 3 rows up, nearly comatose...If you have any political persuasion whatsoever, or appreciate the melding of politics and filmmaking, This film is brilliant...I saw this movie with one other person, and we were joined by one bystander, sitting 3 rows up, nearly comatose...If you have any political persuasion whatsoever, or appreciate the melding of politics and filmmaking, see this movie--you won't regret it. Lovely, moving, painful, and appealing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PerspicaciousCriticDec 1, 2005
If I'm to judge this as a romantic thriller, I would say The Constant Gardener is a good film. If I'm to judge this as a thriller/romance, I would say it was a disappointment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AndrewT.Nov 29, 2005
I'm a sucker for 4 star movies, but I sat through a half hour of this movie, waiting for it to make sense, or to get more interesting, or something. They're in the past, the future, who knows? And who's that guy? How could I I'm a sucker for 4 star movies, but I sat through a half hour of this movie, waiting for it to make sense, or to get more interesting, or something. They're in the past, the future, who knows? And who's that guy? How could I have seen this much of the movie without knowing who anybody is? I walked out and caught 40yr Old Virgin instead.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RichardJ.Nov 29, 2005
Beautifully shot film of a superb Carre novel. Fiennes' acting was (as usual) very good, but he was supported by a great crowd of other actors. Well worth seeing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
NigelP.Nov 28, 2005
An excellent portrail of the West's exploitation of Africa. Superb acting, brilliant scenery and great plot. Was hooked all the way through, and would thoroughly recommend this film to anyone.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TomG.Nov 27, 2005
This is a great film. If this film doesn't win an Oscar in any number of categories they should never give the award out again. They should make more LeCarre novels into books.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KelvinlNov 24, 2005
Pretty boring really. Although Ralph Fiennes does his best, there is little chemistry between him and Miss Weisz and subsequently you don't really feel any of Ralph Fiennes pain. There really is too small a plot to sustain interest for Pretty boring really. Although Ralph Fiennes does his best, there is little chemistry between him and Miss Weisz and subsequently you don't really feel any of Ralph Fiennes pain. There really is too small a plot to sustain interest for 2 and a half hours. After about 45 mins when most of the story had been revealed, I just wanted it to end quickly, instead it just went on and on, showing unecessary flash backs of Rachel Weisz. Ralph Fiennes gives his usual solid performance but the rest of the cast give standard by the numbers performances of their very sterotypical characters. In the end the film potrays merely little more than a political message which is repeated many times in the film and is something your average TV documentory would probably have done better. I did nearly fall asleep but the few actions scenes in the film seemed out of place and were put in as a safeguard to prevent people nodding off. Avoid!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AlexPNov 23, 2005
Can't believe I saw the same film as those rating 0. Beautiful in every way - script, cinematography, acting. Why can't a film be a romance, a travellogue, a political drama & a conspiracy theorist simultaneously? If you want Can't believe I saw the same film as those rating 0. Beautiful in every way - script, cinematography, acting. Why can't a film be a romance, a travellogue, a political drama & a conspiracy theorist simultaneously? If you want single genre films then don't see this one. I can't remember the last film that tried to be many different things & succeeded so well. Anyone who believes that drug companies are solely motivated by altruism should probably get out more. Or read medical journals. Or investigative journalism. Or use Google. If you can't admire the subtlety then maybe Michael Moore is more your thing. The expression on Fiennes' face on being told of his wife's death is worth one of those little golden statues alone. A defining moment in English reserve. Also refreshing to see a film bereft of Americans for those of us not from the US. Can't recommend it highly enough. If you're expecting car chases & gun fights & believe drug companies 'just want to make people better' then probably best not to go see this film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PaulHNov 22, 2005

It took a while for me to get into it, but eventually it won me over, mostley due to the wonderful performance by Fiennes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JakMNov 20, 2005
Brilliant direction and cinematography make for a beautiful and moving film. You can see that director Fernando Meirelles and cinematographor Cesar Charlone lovingly thought about every single shot. The depiction of Africa was realistic, Brilliant direction and cinematography make for a beautiful and moving film. You can see that director Fernando Meirelles and cinematographor Cesar Charlone lovingly thought about every single shot. The depiction of Africa was realistic, with several scenes including the raid by the Janjaweed, hitting this home. Great acting by the two leads made you give a damn about them. The best film I have seen all year.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
manuelp.Nov 18, 2005
The subject deserved a better filmmaking.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
wesleyNov 17, 2005
I give it 2 points for putting me to sleep. No chemistry and ridculous plot. He didn't know his wife when she was alive but after she died he became interested? Give me a break.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
AdrianNov 16, 2005
Awful but beatiful scenery.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MikeG.Nov 12, 2005
Interesting for a while, but the movie never decides what it wants to be. It's a love story! It's an intrigue! It's a condemnation of the pharmaceutical industry! All three elements are interesting at times, but the movie Interesting for a while, but the movie never decides what it wants to be. It's a love story! It's an intrigue! It's a condemnation of the pharmaceutical industry! All three elements are interesting at times, but the movie never seems to cohere around any particular theme, and the result is a movie that drags in the middle and fizzles out at the end. You can see the climax coming and, when it does, there's a fizzle rather than a pop. That's a big problem for a movie like "Gardner", which needed more excitement and less verbosity.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
oscarNov 3, 2005
This movie was a terrible one. The premise and shots of Africa were great, but the characters were unlikeable and the cinematography was unwatchable. Halfway through the movie I found myself neither caring nor wondering why Tessa was This movie was a terrible one. The premise and shots of Africa were great, but the characters were unlikeable and the cinematography was unwatchable. Halfway through the movie I found myself neither caring nor wondering why Tessa was murdered. I just wanted it to end. Sad really because the story of what big pharmaceuticals may or may not be doing in Africa is worthy of interest. Chalk this one up to the critics liking something different because good this movie is not.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarileeB.Nov 2, 2005
So earnest... so predictable, as most films about Africa are when made by caucasions. We must see the venal bad Africans undermine the earnest white aid workers... and their few saintly African helpers. I would have given it a lower score, So earnest... so predictable, as most films about Africa are when made by caucasions. We must see the venal bad Africans undermine the earnest white aid workers... and their few saintly African helpers. I would have given it a lower score, but the acting was good. Weisz and Fiennes were good, but their mannered performances were exceeded by the always excellent Pete Postlethwaite in a small but pivotal supporting role. He gave great natural complexity to his character.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
robertd.Oct 28, 2005
Stunning backdrop for a nasty tale.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RamonaCOct 25, 2005
Boring and ridiculous premise in every way. Moronic and overhyped. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CyB.Oct 23, 2005
For those who thought the filme is boring, I may tell u that maybe your brain is a little slow. For those who thought it's sensacionalism, go to Africa, and find yourself. The movie? Excellent is not a word for it. It's For those who thought the filme is boring, I may tell u that maybe your brain is a little slow. For those who thought it's sensacionalism, go to Africa, and find yourself. The movie? Excellent is not a word for it. It's overwhelming. It may let you thinking how worst it could become or how can you keep sat an do nothing while all of it is hapenning? But, you will only think about it if u have at least a little sense of humanity. If you haven't, so u may say the movie is preposterous.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
WelingtonS.Oct 22, 2005
Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles is on the top of the world of cinema industry. He proves with this flick all his talent, originality and social conscience. He took a commercial screenplay and transformed it in a nervous and brethtaking Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles is on the top of the world of cinema industry. He proves with this flick all his talent, originality and social conscience. He took a commercial screenplay and transformed it in a nervous and brethtaking trip through Africa. I had to see it twice in a cinema in São Paulo, Brasil, to get all the informations and characters motivation to immerse into the history. The editing and cinematography are superb, the actors and actress are perfect. Rachell Weizz give the best female performance I saw this year. She shines in every frames. The chemistry between she and Ralph Fiennes rules the movie. Fiennes is also very good. It's a love story, a thriller and a social comment about our world. Unfortunatelly money rules the wold and the government is in their hands (just think in the USA and the war against Iraque, the petrol, the gas, the relation between Bush and the gas corporation. How many had to die for economica profits?). We can imagine that Le Carre and Meirelles are exagerating but if we start think about what is happening maybe they are not. It's an advice to the world: how we (the society, government and corporations) are treating (baddly) the people who lives in poor areas. Remarkable work. Welington Liberato (Sorry for my english)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
GabeS.Oct 19, 2005
This movie left a bad taste in my mouth. I have been browsing the internet for over an hour now, hoping to find a review that reflects my opinion. EdwardT M. comes close. The characters were unlikeable, ecspecially Tessa. She literally This movie left a bad taste in my mouth. I have been browsing the internet for over an hour now, hoping to find a review that reflects my opinion. EdwardT M. comes close. The characters were unlikeable, ecspecially Tessa. She literally married the main character, Justin, in order to get to Africa. Then she continually belittles him while running around with other guys. Is this a woman worth dying for? Well, our hero seems to think so. It is preposterous!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
C.B.BrowneOct 18, 2005
Beautifully shot & compelling from beginning to end. Dissenters must be tied to the pharmaceutical industry.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveOct 17, 2005
Great film! Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz were superb, probably the best from Fiennes since The English Patient. This proves that Fernando Meirelles is a great director and City Of God was not a fluke. Oh, and for those of you who thought Great film! Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz were superb, probably the best from Fiennes since The English Patient. This proves that Fernando Meirelles is a great director and City Of God was not a fluke. Oh, and for those of you who thought it was boring or slow, while don't you just stick to Vin Diesel movies, or whatever the latest stupid blockbuster hollywood rolls out?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
yvonneOct 14, 2005
If you love to watch moss grow on a rock or paint dry then this is the movie for you. Otherwise stay away from this boring moronic sorry excuse for an action movie. A slide show would have been better. This movie crawls along at a snails If you love to watch moss grow on a rock or paint dry then this is the movie for you. Otherwise stay away from this boring moronic sorry excuse for an action movie. A slide show would have been better. This movie crawls along at a snails pace and is preposterous.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
Rev.RikardOct 13, 2005
Most films provide us with a fleeting escape from reality, or reveal a mirror into which we see reflections of the self. This film offers that rare window through which we gaze upon a world that is startling and worrisome. It is a world to Most films provide us with a fleeting escape from reality, or reveal a mirror into which we see reflections of the self. This film offers that rare window through which we gaze upon a world that is startling and worrisome. It is a world to which we are intimately connected, yet we are unaware of its existence. It is a world from which we are emotionaly disconnected because of the personal contentment within the secure, insulated worlds of our making. Director Mierelles succeeds in giving us that window. He employs "contrast" to keep us in suspence. However, suspence here is used honestly. It is not tossed in to make a film about a serious issue profitable. The suspence arises from the issue itself and the contradictions and contrasts that live within that issue. The viewer witnesses commited love and jealous suspicion; politics as career versus politics as an obstacle to change. We watch individuals deeply concerned about themselves, as the poor are treated like laboratory mice. Perhaps the most potent contrast is the beauty of ultimate commitment to truth for compassion's sake against "altered and adjusted truth" for financial profit. The acting is outstanding and the story is mesmerizing. As we gaze through Mierelles' window, the film dares us to sacrifice our desensitizing manner of living that we might rediscover the power of compassion, and finally capture that ellusive experience in life called "purpose."… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LarryOct 13, 2005
The most boring overrated overhyped movie of the year. Awful and preposterous.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
mpOct 8, 2005
The scene of Fiennes weeping silently when he revisits the Chelsea apt makes up for the flaws. He seems to excel in this existential anguish. I thought the movie worked best in the silent parts when it didn't preach.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LaurenC.Oct 8, 2005
I believe that the movie was slow for a reason. If the film zipped by and crammed all of the conspiracy and tragedy into the usual hour and a half block, it would not have been so suspenseful. You find yourself making assumptions about he I believe that the movie was slow for a reason. If the film zipped by and crammed all of the conspiracy and tragedy into the usual hour and a half block, it would not have been so suspenseful. You find yourself making assumptions about he characters and the actual plot of the movie until the very last minute.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DorothyM.Oct 5, 2005
Excellent from start to finish.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PrudenceK.Oct 4, 2005
Rachel Weisz is absolutely brilliant. She is totally amazing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RFOct 3, 2005
Great photography, too bad the story went very slow towards the end. I think it's a direction mistake. i didn't expect this from the director of city of god.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
davida.Oct 2, 2005
Uh yea i walked out on it, there was some weird scratching noise in the theater that wouldnt stop and im also not smart for this movie, and its one of those types of movies that my parents will like, but since im a teenager i didnt enjoy. im Uh yea i walked out on it, there was some weird scratching noise in the theater that wouldnt stop and im also not smart for this movie, and its one of those types of movies that my parents will like, but since im a teenager i didnt enjoy. im sure it would have been good if i gave it the time of day.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LindaL.Oct 1, 2005
Fiennes is fine, but between the dizzymaking camera work and the silly plot, I felt irritated. Exposing drug companies as Evil would not be a perilous task -- just feed the story to someone at the New York Times!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
TedM.Sep 30, 2005
Dreadfully slow and preachy, I thought that even the Nicholas Cage film "Lord of War" had a more mature (and entertaining) perspective on Western exploitation of Africa.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarcK.Sep 30, 2005
As someone else alluded to before, this film was pretty bad until the last half hour or so, when it became interesting and worth watching. An above average film in a horrible movie year, but that doesn't mean it's a great film, As someone else alluded to before, this film was pretty bad until the last half hour or so, when it became interesting and worth watching. An above average film in a horrible movie year, but that doesn't mean it's a great film, because it's not. The politics of the film is definitely for the Michael Moore crowd, but I didn't think it was that excessive. And since I didn't read the book, it would have been nice to know why the movie was called, "The Constant Gardener."… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JennySep 29, 2005
Excellent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AnnC.Sep 28, 2005
One of the best films I've seen in a while.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DaveF.Sep 28, 2005
Ralph Fiennes can convey more emotion with a squint and a funny half-smile than most actors can using all of their tools. He and Rachel Weisz are terrific. The story gets a bit convokuted, but you have to love the "bad guys" comeuppance.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ScottS.Sep 26, 2005
Enjoy the images, the superb storytelling and the acting. Since this film aims for mature audiences, you'll also enjoy sitting in a theatre NOT over-ran by 14 year-old boys and girls.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JasonN.Sep 25, 2005
The most incredibly boring movie I have ever seen in life. A significant number of people gave up and walked out during the movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JudyT.Sep 24, 2005
So, so as a thriller. Bad as a romance. I didn't connect with these two are lovers.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GinaA.Sep 24, 2005
Absolutely fantastic. A beautiful, complex film that blooms with skillful directing, innovative editing, and sterling performances. One of the best movies I've seen in years.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LingXSep 24, 2005
For intelligent watchers only. this is boring if you're looking for some suspense and action.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JakeS.Sep 23, 2005
Rachel weisz is stunning, but the tale is poorly crafted and suffers from no plausibly explained threat, other than a vague machinery of TB proliferation. making this an amazing film takes much effort on the part of the viewer. so, suspendRachel weisz is stunning, but the tale is poorly crafted and suffers from no plausibly explained threat, other than a vague machinery of TB proliferation. making this an amazing film takes much effort on the part of the viewer. so, suspend your disbelief and enjoy this film!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WilbertW.Sep 22, 2005
Thoughtful, subtle and provacative. A pleasure to contemplate this intelligent and cynical film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TyroneL.Sep 22, 2005
Absolutely awful. Boring to the point that I wanted to puke. No chemistry at all between the stars. Overacted and sensationilized against the drug companies. Give me a beak as I could hardly keep my eyes open. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DeVonSep 20, 2005
Ralph Feinnes is quiet brilliance. Cinematography-breath taking. Subject matter- so much more worthy than the wasting the millions spent on typical hollywood fare.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveH.Sep 19, 2005
Astounding and breathtaking and terrifying. I was holding my breath through some scenes because it was so intense. It's even better than the last film Fernando Meirelles directed, "City of God." Ralph Fiennes is in top form.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WayneW.Sep 19, 2005
Hands down, the best film I've seen in 2005. Finally, something worth seeing in the theater. This movie is so rich and detailed I'm going to see it a second time, and it will be a must-own when it comes out on DVD. Jeffrey Hands down, the best film I've seen in 2005. Finally, something worth seeing in the theater. This movie is so rich and detailed I'm going to see it a second time, and it will be a must-own when it comes out on DVD. Jeffrey Caine's screenplay is positively terrific, and Fernando Meirelles's direction is fantastic. Top-notch performances from Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. Don't miss it!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
KrisS.Sep 19, 2005
This movie is real. Between the simpel plot is a mosaic of beautiful camera-work and splendid editing. It's an intense african experience.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ElmoL.Sep 19, 2005
Fabulously directed, mesmerizing cinematography, tight performances. One of the best films to come out in years.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JasonH.Sep 19, 2005
Jack open your eyes. It was a horrible film, slow, tedious and very boring. And that was its good points. What truth were you referring to? The Hollywood spin zone? Do you really think pharmaceutical companies are hell bent on murdering Jack open your eyes. It was a horrible film, slow, tedious and very boring. And that was its good points. What truth were you referring to? The Hollywood spin zone? Do you really think pharmaceutical companies are hell bent on murdering underpriviledged third world nations? If you do I have a bridge to sell you! Awful movie in every sense of the word.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CarlCSep 19, 2005
I thought it was incredibly boring. Kept waiting for something to happen and nothing ever did. Great cinematography though. They should call this movie "beautiful footage of Ralph Fiennes riding in cars".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RickC.Sep 19, 2005
A well-filmed, fairly well-directed and acted movie of a completely implausible story that reeks of politics. If the politics were removed, it would have been a much better film, but then there would have been no story at all.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SusanD.Sep 19, 2005
Best movie thus far of the decade.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JackM.Sep 18, 2005
A fabulous, beautiful film which never shrinks from telling difficult truths. An absolute masterpiece -- don't miss it!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EdwardTM.Sep 18, 2005
I give it a 1 only for the cinematography. I am shocked and amazed at the scores this unbelievably horrible film is getting. What does anyone see in this? The narrative is rambling and incoherent, the characters are phenomonally unlikeable I give it a 1 only for the cinematography. I am shocked and amazed at the scores this unbelievably horrible film is getting. What does anyone see in this? The narrative is rambling and incoherent, the characters are phenomonally unlikeable and the plot is messier than the sink at the Burger King on Saturday night. Could some explain to me what was to like? The female charachter was such a piece of dreck I am at a sincere loss as to why anyone in the film would find any single thing to like, or even admire, about her. I think the sentiment for anti-globalization has washed over everyone's brains and led them to believe they have seen a good movie. Good subject, bad movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

82 Critic Reviews

7.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL