Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

mxsuba26 To experience this without watching, put a pot of cold water on the range, turn the heat on low and wait for it to boil. This is a long, dull movie loaded with stereotypes and liberal propaganda. It begins with Ralph, a British government official giving a speech about diplomacy. As he ends, Tessa goes on a long autistic rant about the invasion of Iraq, war for oil, how great the UN is, etc. Rather than being irritated, Ralph/Justin hits on her and ten minutes later they are shagging away. Ten minutes more into the film, they are married. Ten minutes more into the film, she is pregnant doing her liberal white do-gooder visit to a slum in Kenya. After hugging some kids and fawning over a junkie mobile she received as a gift, she goes about her mission.

Red-125 The Constant Gardener (2005) directed by Fernando Meirelles and based on a novel by John le Carré, is an international thriller. It also had international locations--England, Germany, Kenya, and Sudan.The movie is what you'd expect from Le Carré--gripping, powerful, and hard to predict. However, this film also had a statement to make. The statement is that the governments of wealthy nations collude with Big Pharma--and, of course, with other corporations--to use poor people in poor nations for their own profit.According to the website, The British High Commission in Kenya "maintains and develops relations between the UK and Kenya." In the movie, Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a British diplomat who is posted to Kenya. His wife, Tessa, (Rachel Weisz) accompanies him.Tessa is like a terrier, as Justin says. She knows there is dirty business going on in regard to the distribution of a new medicine for tuberculosis. The plot moves forward from there. Bad things happen when you least expect them, no one has clean hands, and virtue is rarely rewarded.Both Fiennes and Weisz are extraordinarily talented actors, and they bring their talents and skills to their parts. (Weisz won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in this film.) Bill Nighy brings his great acting skills to the role of Sir Bernard Pellegrin, who is Quayle's boss. Pellegrin may have the dirtiest hands of all.There were several flaws in the plot. (I didn't read the book, so I don't know if they were Fernando Meirelles's or John le Carré's flaws.) A scene at a diplomatic reception wouldn't have happened. Tessa is a diplomat's wife. She wouldn't confront one of the bad guys in so vicious and public a fashion. A seasoned diplomat has a letter that will ruin him if revealed. He might have shown it to someone, if the reward were great enough. However, he would never let it out of his hands. Still, most of the film appears realistic, and the plot is fascinating.I had a problem with the editing between two scenes. (Granted, the editor was nominated for an Oscar.) We see Quayle being brutally beaten in one scene. In the next frame, he has a few minor nicks on his face. How much time has passed? I don't like to quibble, but this was a major film with talented actors. We overlook matters like this in Indie films, but not in blockbusters.As I've written, the acting was superb. However, even with all this acting talent, The Constant Gardener would be just another good film adaptation of one of James Le Carré's thriller novels. What makes the difference is the on-location photography. Director Meirelles pulled out all the stops to show us Africa. We see scene after scene of the African people and the African landscapes . This movie literally has a cast of thousands. It's one of the most exciting and colorful on-location movies I've ever seen. The film also contains some great African music. Many people don't bother to watch the movie credits, especially if they're at home. I suggest that you watch the credits, because they have a remarkable sound track of music from Africa.Because of the photography, this film will work best on the large screen. We saw it on DVD, because, realistically, that was the only way to see it. It still worked, but I wish I had seen it in a theater when it was released.However, large screen or small screen, The Constant Gardener is a winner. Seek it out and watch it!

Prismark10 The Constant Gardener has ingredients that we have seen before but director Fernando Meirelles gives it a mix that gives this thriller a refreshing sheen. It is an adaptation of a John Le Carre novel.Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a mild mannered British diplomat in Kenya. His wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is a social activist/lawyer involved in poverty and ethical issues. She gets involved as an activist in Kenya much to her husband's misgivings and turns up dead.The evidence points to a doctor that Tessa might have been involved with but Justin decides to dig deep and asks difficult questions to the wealthy and powerful in the region and discovers that his wife was compiling data against a multinational drug company using Africans as guinea pigs for drugs with serious side effects.With flashbacks we get a sense of man discovering who his wife really was, a woman he married more on impulse and were polar opposites. Its a subtle performance from Fiennes. Weisz on the other hand gets to give an earnest and a more showy performance which won her a best supporting actress Oscar.Its an ambitious and even cynical film. You kind of get a sense who the bad guys will be and they cared very little about Justin's plight, the man who was obsessed with his garden until he decided to lift his head out of the soil and see his corporate world-view shift.

carbuff A watchable disappointment. This film is slow, but I like plot development, so that didn't bother me much; however, the frequent extended flashbacks became jarring and annoying. The premise was weak too. First, I believe that large drug and medical device companies are in the business of making money, not saving or improving lives--that's just how they make their money. Second, executives reach the top due to ambition, aggression, manipulation, and supreme but generally unjustified self-confidence, not because they're the most competent, most accomplished, or the best and most visionary leaders. But still, they are narcissistic and greedy, not truly evil or completely stupid. Given those two realities, the level of malfeasance in this movie is just too unrealistic for anything more than a James Bond flick. Assuming the initial conspiracy and cover-up depicted in this film succeeded, the absolutely inevitable, intense, in-depth investigation of this literally fatally-flawed product that would have followed after it's widespread distribution and concomitant deaths would inevitably have brought the entire shaky house of cards down. The very self-interested C-suite execs might not be the geniuses they think they are, but they would definitely foresee the criminal, not just civil, prosecutions that they themselves would eventually be facing. They simply wouldn't be this blatantly, transparently, and unquestionably evil with absolutely no plausible explanations or excuses to hide behind. Not to mention, once the problems started showing up, the company's net worth would have been vaporized along with their compensation. (A lot less severe problem than this nearly did in Merck.) While I guess it's still possible that high-functioning sociopaths might risk the monetary loss, the near certainty of a cold, hard, jail cell is another thing entirely. So you've got a slow, long, disjointed, nonlinear movie built around an unrealistic premise, but, on the other hand, the cinematography and acting are both very good and the film is emotionally powerful (actually too maudlin). Might be good to watch with your girlfriend though--it'll show how sensitive you are.