Focus Features | Release Date: August 31, 2005
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 263 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
171
Mixed:
44
Negative:
48
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
6
manuelp.Nov 18, 2005
The subject deserved a better filmmaking.
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
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
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
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
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
5
StanleyS.Sep 18, 2005
Anyone that has read an article or two about the subject matter which this movie deals with (i.e. drug testing on 3rd world populations) will be bored-silly by this movie. Some may find that the interplay between the personal and political Anyone that has read an article or two about the subject matter which this movie deals with (i.e. drug testing on 3rd world populations) will be bored-silly by this movie. Some may find that the interplay between the personal and political aspects of the film to be interesting, but for me it leaves the movie muddled. The ethical issues are oversimplified, character development is MIA and the plot is not tight or thrilling. Judging from the critics' response, this is the most over-rated movie of the year. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
CriticsRmadSep 16, 2005
The relationship between the two characters was touching and believable, but the movie as a whole was okay. Very slow, with a seemingly simple plot played over 2+ hrs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
StanC.Sep 9, 2005
Not a great mystery...not very likeable characters; yet beautifully filmed, with great acting. A real mixed bag...glad I saw it, I think!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BobSep 6, 2005
Way overrated for my taste. Slow moving, boring, and tedious. Why didn't they just go to the newspapers? Big Yawn!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JonSep 1, 2005
Maybe someone who doesn't work for Focus features should chime in here. It's not a very good movie at all, but unfortunately it's what passes for one now. Add Mireilles to the list of directors (Ridley Scott, anyone?) who make Maybe someone who doesn't work for Focus features should chime in here. It's not a very good movie at all, but unfortunately it's what passes for one now. Add Mireilles to the list of directors (Ridley Scott, anyone?) who make films that small minded critics can rave about. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful