The Constant Gardener (2005) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

We have a strange disagreement on this one. Scoop really liked the movie, although harshly criticizing the fact that it engaged in sermonizing without performing even a perfunctory study of its subject matter. In the end, Scoop overlooked that and realized that the film had left him with a feeling of having experienced something worthwhile, and that he'd like to see it again! On the other hand, Tuna was unimpressed by the film, even though he had no problem with the sermonizing! We both agree that it is a C+ on our scale - a strong film for a highly targeted audience, but lacking in wide crossover appeal because of its arty, wordy, convoluted narrative style.

Scoop's comments in white:

I generally have some patience with paranoid political thrillers when the politics are merely naive and the authors have done at least a little bit of research. I lost my patience with this one. The politics of this movie are not only naive, but frankly downright stupid. Even more important than that, the politics of the film are lazy. There are many genuine concerns one should have about the drug companies' attitudes toward Africa, and the relationship between the profit motivation and human compassion. These are important issues that affect the future of humankind. It would not be difficult at all to incorporate these concerns into the structure of a political thriller, probably even within this film with only minor modifications. The filmmakers were simply too lazy to research these issues, and by presenting problems which do not exist, the film simply distracts attention from the real problems.

First, let's talk about the specific conspiracy which the film treats. A drug company has been testing some new medicines in Africa. The test results show that the drugs work fine, but have some devastating side-effects. The problems could be fixed, but the time-consuming process of redesigning the product, re-testing, and resubmitting the product for FDA approval would cost them their competitive advantage. By the time they manage to complete the process, another company could beat them to the market, or even to critical patents. That means they wave bye-bye to 100% market share and mega-profits. So they decide to falsify the test results. The heroine of The Constant Gardener gets wind of all that, and it costs her her life.

Could this happen?

Well, I've been on this planet long enough to know that just about anything COULD happen, but this scenario is unlikely. First of all, it assumes the the national health services and the FDA will simply accept test outcomes which are handed to them by people with a vested financial interest in the results. Second, it assumes that drug company executives do not respect normal human codes of conduct, and are perfectly willing to circulate drugs which they know to be capable of serious harm to the entire human race. Third, it assumes that a drug company conducting its own testing would hide certain consequences of drug use even though the same consequences would start to appear immediately after the drug was widely marketed. So how would they then manage to explain that the test results failed to show those same side effects? It is the third point which is the critical one. As the script points out correctly, drug companies are not charitable institutions, and thus base their decisions on maximizing their profitability. In the case presented in this film, the liability resulting from lawsuits, especially in the United States, would be hundreds of times greater than the profits they could hope to gain from selling the product. The decision to falsify those test results would be a bad financial decision. And that's not even considering the very real fact that their rival corporations would be sneaking off with the drugs and conducting their own tests. Corporations compete against one another - sometimes viciously. The market has its own sense of balance, even if it does not always seem to produce just results.

Could something similar happen?

Maybe, but it would require a massive collusion between the corporation and various governments, as well as a intricate web of corporate malfeasance. Such a thing is possible. Enron has demonstrated that companies are capable of extremely intricate maneuvering to falsify reports, and Halliburton has demonstrated that corporations can have friends in very high places. Put them together and a scandal like the one pictured in The Constant Gardener could happen, but it would not be a simple matter. If they were going to attempt such a thing, it would require the falsification of results from an independent testing lab, and it would require that no connection could ever be established between the pharmaceutical company and an established, trusted lab. In such a case, the drug company would not be held responsible for the inaccurate reports, because they would have come from a completely independent firm, and therefore, the drug company would reap the profits while being in a position virtually immune from lawsuits. This scenario is virtually impossible, however, because it is not enough simply to create the independent results. The key point is 100% deniability, therefore immunity from lawsuits. That's almost impossible to pull off. First, it would be difficult to keep the guilty knowledge in the drug company confined to one trusted individual, although that would be necessary. Second, it would be difficult to hide the connection between the drug company and the bribed scientists. Sooner or later somebody will drink too much and let something slip, or somebody will buy a house that they shouldn't be able to afford, and then the frazil will hit the fire. Finally, even if I were a complete sleazeball of Enronic proportions, I would not cover up potentially fatal or horrible side-effects. The directors and officers of large corporations may be greedy and under pressure to produce, but they are human beings, just like the rest of us.

So what really could happen?

Here's a real-life scenario. Drug companies currently make enormous market-driven profits from selling items at a vast premium over their cost of ingredients. They sell each AIDS cocktail for several dollars, and the cocktails can probably be manufactured for a few cents. It is the market which determines the price of the medicine. Therefore, you could create a very healthy business by creating the same pills in your basement for the same few cents and selling them for one dollar. In fact, if you were allowed to do so, you could cut the price by as much as 95%, still make a profit, and take nearly 100% of the market. Not only that, but by making the drug more affordable, you would get the drugs into the hands of more people who need it. Of course, you are not allowed to do that. The drugs you wish to manufacture are undoubtedly protected by the international laws and agreements respecting intellectual property. The formula probably belongs to somebody, and you can't just start making it in your basement and selling it from your kids' roadside lemonade stand. This, however, is a complex issue which balances morality and profits. Liberal activists have a very strong point when they say that if we can relieve the worldwide AIDS epidemic, we should do so, even if it means lower profits for the drug companies. For many this is a matter of simple human compassion, as well as a long-range strategy to prevent the epidemic from spreading to the developed nations. Many of the African governments agree with this position, and some are even creating the generic medicines in their own figurative basements. The drug companies are opposed to this, of course, and have in the past even pressured American legislators to create sanctions against South Africa for these allegedly vile infractions.

Of course Africa really is headed for an apocalypse, so one can make a great fictional story from the real issues. In fact, one could have made this same damned movie using plausible circumstances! Rachel Weisz could have been an activist who somehow stumbled on evidence of some dirty dealings between drug company lobbyists and American politicians. Theoretically, her evidence, if revealed to the world, could be enough to persuade South Africa to defy international sanctions permanently for the greater good of its population. As a result South Africa would ignore patent law and opt to produce or import cheap generic knock-offs of AIDS medicine. (They really would do this. Indeed, they really did do this, pretty much.) With billions of dollars and many distinguished reputations at stake, and ol' Rachel in the way, she might easily end up dead, and we would still have the same movie. The authors of the film (including John le Carre, who wrote the source novel) did not choose that route, which would have required presenting a balanced and realistic look at a complex, two-sided struggle which needs to be resolved by compromise and mutual goodwill. (Of course it's two-sided. Not only are the drug companies defending legitimate intellectual property rights, but they also, after all, justify their astronomical gross profits by the fact that those dollars finance current and future research and development, which is a good thing. The top ten pharmaceutical companies spend about 25 billion dollars per year on R&D.) Instead, the story presented some brain-dead one-dimensional paranoid fiction far from the realm of plausibility, if not totally impossible.

There is one other general point to be made about the film's overview of the relationship between the drug companies and Africa. The film suggests that the drug companies use Africa for their testing and dumping grounds. I'm sure there is a lot of truth to that, but it is a point which is pre-spun negatively by the very phrases which describe it. Is it really a bad thing that the pharmaceutical companies test new products in poor countries? Is giving poor people the latest experimental medicines worse than the alternative - which is for poor people to have no medicine at all? Is the film suggesting that medicines should not be tested? If so, how are the developers to determine whether the medicines are effective and safe, and how are the national health services and the FDA to make informed decisions about approving them? Those are complex questions which cannot be solved with a dismissive wave of the hand, as the Pete Postlethwaite character does in this film. Testing is a complex multi-sided issue. On the other hand, dumping actually is not. It is an issue about which compassionate liberals are simply wrong. Let us assume that the pharmaceutical corporations have vast amounts of still-potent drugs which have passed their expiration dates. Do you want them to destroy those drugs, as the farmers destroyed their rotting, unsellable oranges during the Great Depression, or would you rather they offer them to the world health and relief organizations, who would recommend them to the Third World as their own scientists and doctors see fit? The screenplay of The Constant Gardener seems to indicate that all of that expired medicine is worthless junk, but frankly, that's just a lot of malarkey. That medicine is almost always just as good as the medicine you and I take from our medicine cabinets. (In fact, if you actually look at the bottles in your medicine cabinets, you'll probably find that a lot of your medicine has "expired.") I worked for years in the food industry, and we had a similar controversy. We donated expired food products to organizations like homeless shelters. This was not something which we did publicly in order to reap a harvest of goodwill, but simply our response when charitable organizations asked us, "Say, that stuff you're going to throw out, can we have it? We'll pick it up, and it will be no trouble for you." And yet, inevitably, some crusaders would appear from time to time and accuse us of dumping spoiled food on the poor. The same food, mind you, that I would often take home myself when given the chance. (Expiration dates are not calculated to take products to the very edge of their useful shelf life, to say the least.) What should we have said? "No, we need to destroy it!" There is no way for the food conglomerates to achieve a winning position on this chessboard because the game is rigged. The reason we started donating unmarketable food in the first place is because the liberal activists accused us of immorally destroying perfectly good food while people were starving! (See Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, chapter 25, for the heartbreaking details.) We are immoral if we give unmarketable food to the poor, and we are immoral if we destroy that food while people are starving. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be a correct moral position. The drug companies are in the identical position with regard to expired medicines. Do you want them to throw away that perfectly good medicine when millions of people in the world could use it? That makes no sense to me.

Enough about the film's bizarrely naive and unresearched politics.

Let's discuss the story.

As much as this film irritated me with its ignorance, it impressed me with its skillful manipulation of characters and moods. It is not possible to watch this film without feeling emotionally drawn into the problems and rhythms of Africa - the disease, the overcrowding in the cities, the lack of arable land in the vast unpopulated interior, the poverty, the lack of progress, the corruption, the music, the faces of the children. The director doesn't really editorialize about the conditions. He just shows them. Accurately. That is enough.

Even more important than the effective use of Africa as a character in the film is the simple love story. In essence, The Constant Gardener is about a man who falls in love with a dead woman, one who was already his hastily-wed wife. I'm oversimplifying to avoid spoiling the denouement of the film, but that is the essence of it. Yes, I'm aware that this film has not been marketed as a love story, but that is what it does best. As The San Francisco Chronicle pointed out so eloquently, "It's a love story only in passing. And yet the love story is what lingers in the mind and gives energy and meaning to everything that happens on-screen." The conspiracy-based thriller has some great moments, but is generally boring, uses too many hackneyed devices (supernatural feats of hacking skill, and the presence of so many convenient incriminating letters that they must grow free on the velde), and involves too many minor characters to hold one's complete interest. Two things did stick in my mind: the film's compassion for the poor of Africa, and its limning of a rich and involving love story. Ralph Fiennes plays an apolitical, mild-mannered, junior British diplomat in Africa; Rachel Weisz plays his strident activist wife, a loose cannon who dies a few minutes into the story. He is obsessed by her death and haunted by her memory. As he starts to dig into the circumstances surrounding her murder, he suspects at first that he was her pawn, a convenient lover used as a free ticket to Africa. He seems to uncover painful evidence of her infidelities and a secret life she lived behind his back. He can't believe that he brought this secretive and totally undiplomatic woman into his life in the diplomatic service, thus hurting his career as well as his psyche. Yet he cannot turn away from the investigation and, as he is drawn deeper into his wife's web of intrigue, he finds that things are not what they seemed at first or even second glance.

This script was an excellent vehicle for Ralph Fiennes to show what a good actor can do with a fundamentally undramatic part. This is no Richard Harris role. Fiennes spends no time making emotional speeches to his unborn child or waving his sword at the heavens while cursing God. Fiennes plays an inoffensive man who's really into plants. He manages to create a lot of emotional power despite having a smaller-than-life role as the generator of that power. As the script progresses, the Fiennes character acquires an important legacy from his departed wife - the conscience and backbone he had previously lacked - and this development enables the actor to show the character's growth, not in big broad showy strokes, but in subtle nuances. The best thing an actor can do is to bring the audience right into the heart of the character, and that's exactly what Fiennes did here. He even smiled a couple of times! (Although, it must be admitted, those smiles instantly transformed his handsome face into the visage of a deranged mass murderer. I can see why he hasn't tried it very often in the past.)

This is a good movie but, in my opinion, the critics were unduly impressed. Yahoo voters (B) and IMDb voters (7.6) seem to have it pegged more accurately. It is not a masterpiece worthy of Best Picture honors, as some have suggested. Those sentiments must have resulted from the drought of good films in the first half of 2005, like an awe-filled reaction to ordinary tepid water from a man dying of thirst. It is, however, a memorable film which leaves behind some indelible images.



  • Deleted Scenes
  • Extended Scene: Haruma - Play in Kibera
  • Embracing Africa: Filming in Kenya
  • John Le Carre: From Page to the Screen
  • Anatomy of a Global Thriller: Behind the Scenes of The Constant Gardener


Rachel Weisz shows her breasts and buns (and a belly gravid with child) in a bathing scene.

Tuna's comments in yellow. (Scoop's responses in white, since Tuna's review references my own.)

The Constant Gardener (2005) is a political thriller. The wife of a minor diplomat to Kenya Rachel Weisz, is murdered, and her husband sets out to discover why. The answer lies in her discovery of a conspiracy among a Canadian Pharmaceutical Company, an African independent testing lab, and an African distribution company which many UK diplomats have stock in. It seems company A has developed a new treatment for a new antibiotic resistant strain of TB. It has one unfortunate side effect. It kills some people. It could be fixed with another three years of development, but they would likely be too late for the expected epidemic, and their competition might well beat them to market. Determined not to let that stop them, they are conducting their clinical trials in Kenya, and simply only recording the positive results.

In Scoopy's review, he had several issues with the plot line. First, he pointed out that the FDA would not accept such biased clinical trials. I agree that they wouldn't, which is the reason that many drugs are available all over the world before they can be found in the US, but this film had nothing to do with US distribution.

I'm not quite sure what Tuna is talking about here. I guess he misread my review, which is not focused on the USA at all. My review says "the national health services AND the FDA." The USA is listed last, as an afterthought, and is mentioned separately only because the USA has no direct equivalent of the national health services which exist in the price-regulated countries, so without those last three words America would be excluded. I had originally written the sentence without "and the FDA," but added it to avoid excluding the States.

On the other hand, my comments probably should have focused on the USA, since it's a movie about profit and the States is the one market which is far and away the most profitable for pharmaceuticals! To Tuna's point that "this film had nothing to do with U.S. distribution," this film has everything to do with U.S. distribution, because it is about pharmaceutical profits, and the States are where those occur. Selling pharmaceutical products in the USA is the reason to develop medicines in the first place! Among all First World nations, the United States is the only one which does not regulate drug prices. Medicine costs about twice as much in the United States as in Europe, and about four times as much as in Japan. Combining the enormous profit margins with the size of the U.S. market makes FDA approval essential for any pharmaceutical company which actually intends to get a return of their R&D investments.

At any rate, my original point is not that the drug couldn't get approved in the United States on the evidence shown in the film, but that it couldn't get approved in any country where reasonable safeguards exist (including the USA). Such a drug, with inadequately documented results, could only get approved in certain highly corrupt countries, and those countries have no real profit potential, possibly excepting Russia.

Second, he pointed out that, assuming a drug company was really that evil, they would hire an independent testing lab and bribe them.

Again, Tuna missed part of the quote, "it would involve the falsification of results from an independent testing lab, and it would require that no connection could ever be established between the company and an established, trusted lab." Both elements must be present for the one to be of value, because the purpose of the outside lab would be to insulate the "evil drug company" from lawsuits. Tuna also seems to have missed where I concluded that such deniability is virtually impossible to achieve, and that therefore it is highly unlikely that anybody would try it in real life.

That is precisely what they did here.

Umm ... yeah. That's pretty much the point. It's a silly thing to do, so silly that it could not work and would not happen in the real world, but the company in the film tried it - without even making a half-hearted attempt at complete deniability. Without deniability, there would be no possible reason to do it at all, since the the financial liabilities from lawsuits would have been many times greater than the potential profits they would gain before the side-effects started to appear. In the film's situation, it seemed that every human being on the planet was aware that the tests had been rigged, and those who knew also seemed to know who had given the orders. One person who complained about the rigged tests was allowed to live, at least if you can consider life in Canada to be living, and only killed after she talked to Ralph Fiennes. Even outsiders knew about the rigged tests. That means the company would have been financially liable if found out, and they would certainly have been found out when the real results varied from the test results at levels beyond any reasonable statistical possibility of a chance variation. Their own competitors would have destroyed them even if governments didn't jump on it. The point is that drug companies do not take actions against their own self-interest. What they did in this film would be a poor financial decision - the kind of a thing that a financially-challenged filmmaker thinks corporations would do, without actually understanding how corporations work.

On the other hand, the things that happen in real life, which are just as harmful to Africa, involve financial decisions which are excellent from  corporations' point of view. It's just that they are not the best decisions for Africa or, for that matter, for the human race.

Third, he pointed out that no corporate leader is so cold-hearted as to be responsible for deaths in this way. I think such a personality would find it rather easy to rationalize. "Without the drug, they all die. With the drug, most of them survive."

A corporate president might rationalize deaths in the test situation on that basis. I myself would do so. It is better to save some lives than none. And a corporate president could justify covering up some insignificant side-effects to expedite approvals by the national health boards, on the basis of "Why not make money AND do good at the same time?" But no corporate president, unless completely mad, would justify the mass world-wide distribution of a product which is known to have truly pernicious side-effects, all the while authorizing hit squads to murder people around the world. That would be not only at a Dr. Doom or Lex Luthor level of evil, but would also be completely stupid financially. That is where the film crosses over into science-fiction territory.

Finally, there is a scene where an aide worker burns some donated medicine that has just arrived, as it is long past its "use before" date. Scoopy's point was that foods actually go bad long after their "best if used before" date, and are perfectly safe for a long time after the expiration date. Unfortunately, foods and drugs are not the same. Yellow Fever vaccine in the 60s, for instance, was stable for less than a day, and then became toxic.

My point has nothing to do with food. I simply cited some parallel business circumstances and societal pressures in the two industries. My actual point is that drugs tend to be perfectly safe after the expiration date, except in relatively few cases. In fact, although the food industry is irrelevant to the crisis in the movie, the actual comparison between the two industries is the exact opposite of what Tuna thinks. Drugs are far more likely than food to be good after the expiration date, and are also likely to be good for a much longer time. In general, drugs are far more stable than food, because just about all food degrades rapidly while most drugs degrade very slowly. Food products may be good for days or weeks after expiration, but there are not many foods that can be used years and years after the expiration dates. On the other hand, some studies have indicated that something like 90% of drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, are perfectly good to use after the expiration date - and sometimes as much as 15 years after that date!

You would expect that if you understand the process. The drug companies themselves set those expiration dates, not government agencies, and it is to their benefit to have your drugs "expire" as soon as possible so you will buy more. As a general rule, drug expiration dates are a marketing tactic rather than a set of public safety guidelines. The manufacturers set the shortest period they think they can get away with, without arousing the ire of consumer protection groups. That's usually about 1/2 to 1/3 of the drugs' expected shelf life. It's quite an interesting process to study, and the marketing strategies are quite brilliant. The manufacturers set a short expiration date, then calculate the typical usage for that period, and then package the drugs in a larger quantity than that typical usage. If the average consumer uses 30 aspirin tablets in the "safe" period, for example, the manufacturers might push the bottle of 100 as their standard size. The 70 left in your expired bottle will be good for years and years after the expiry date, but the manufacturer doesn't want you to know that because it's simply not as profitable for the drug companies if you are aware that you can still use medicine you bought many years ago. The ominous date motivates you to discard-and-restock, thus lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical company.

Tuna's Yellow Fever vaccine is a completely irrelevant example, because the film's example and my points refer to packaged products with sell-by dates. Yellow Fever vaccine is not the kind of product that sits on a shelf with a sell-by label. There are some valid examples of quasi-shelf products which really do have a short life cycle. Drugs like insulin, nitroglycerin, and water purification tablets really must be used within a certain time period, but those products are in a tiny minority, and people in the industry know very well which ones they are.

Getting back to the movie ...

What the scriptwriter doesn't understand is that if the drug companies think a product is good for ten years, they would love to stamp it with an expiration period of one year, or less if they can get away with it, simply because they want you to think you need to restock. While consumers in the developed world get bamboozled by these shenanigans, the Third World countries are very fortunate to obtain the ancillary benefits. In essence, the poor countries get the benefit of the drug companies' greed, which is reflected in the vast difference between the true shelf life of the medicine and the marketing shelf life on the label.

The scriptwriter also doesn't understand that the drug companies would much rather discard expired products than redistribute them. Three reasons (1) It's an expensive and time-consuming process to collect stuff and re-distribute it. It's cheaper and easier simply to order it destroyed. (2) It is not completely clear whether manufacturers are free from liability lawsuits concerning those donated products. (3) When the manufacturers donate perfectly good expired drugs to corrupt Third World countries, the still-potent drugs seem to find their way back to the developed world - at a reduced price, thus deflating profits!

Finally, the scriptwriter doesn't realize that the World Health Organization advises the poor countries about which expired drugs they should accept. If the drugs are not potent, it is that organization which is to blame, not the pharmaceutical companies, and they should advise the countries to accept less. In fact, the "real world" problem is the exact opposite of the problem portrayed in the movie. Most experts believe that the W.H.O. should tell the poor countries to take MORE expired drugs, not less!

In short, nothing about the plot line stretched my suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking.

Yes, I can see that, but the point is that it SHOULD have, and would have if you understood the situation. My real problem with the film is that, in offering the science-fiction plot as a misdirection, it draws attention away from the real problems in Africa.

First of all, most sub-Saharan African families simply cannot afford the drugs, not even at deeply discounted prices, not even at cost. A years' supply of antiretroviral drugs in the developed countries costs as much as $15,000. The average annual income per family in sub-Saharan Africa is around $400, and that doesn't allow a lot of discretionary income. Even lowering the price of the drugs from $15,000 per year to $200 still leaves the price out of financial reach for the vast majority of those who have the disease.

Second, it is really the internal corruption in those Third World countries which causes the problem, just as much as the drug companies. Cheap or free drugs intended to provide charitable relief in places like Nigeria often end up getting hijacked and sold in more developed countries for a massive profit, all the while hurting legitimate pharmaceutical sales in those developed markets. As a general rule, the poorest countries are also the most corrupt, and the aid never seems to get to the people for whom it is intended. When the pharmaceutical companies think it is good business to sell deeply discounted products for a tiny margin in Africa, as Coca-Cola does, they will (and sometimes already do) do it, because a little profit is better than none at all. In fact, because their actual cost of goods is so low, the drug companies could probably be persuaded to give drugs away in the Third World - IF their contributions would stay in the Third World. The problem is that they fear that those tiny profits and/or losses in sub-Saharan Africa could cause market disruptions elsewhere.

The film got everything wrong, but Africa really does have major problems related to the pharmaceutical companies, and there has to be a solution for this crisis. Unfortunately, it cannot be a facile, simple-minded solution because the root cause doesn't involve cartoon evil, fake tests, and hit squads. It simply involves the fact that the drug companies operate for profit, and there's no way to get an adequate return on investment in the Third World. Of course, the process of watching reasonable people hammer out compromises doesn't make for good cinema, but a real-life solution will have to be crafted with compromise on both ends, because the drug companies have valid gripes. They are guarding their legitimate financial interests.

To be fair, we should note that the pharmaceutical companies have taken some actions to alleviate the suffering in Africa. Merck, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Glaxo have contributed millions of dollars to the fight against AIDS in developing nations. The assistance has taken various forms: donating drugs outright; reducing their price to cost; investing in medical infrastructure and education programs; and voluntarily waiving patent rights so that generic, less costly versions of their drugs can be sold. The question is, however, "how much more  should they do, given the enormous profit margins in pharmaceuticals?"

The stakes they play for are enormous. The top ten pharmaceutical companies average about forty billion dollars per year in profits, and they put nearly twenty cents of every sales dollar on the bottom line. (The average for a Fortune 500 company is two cents.) Merck, for example, puts almost as much on the bottom line as Wal-Mart, which is the world's largest company, as defined by sales or by the number of employees. Look at the differences in scope, from Forbes Magazine's annual info.

  Merck Wal-Mart
Sales $30 billion $256 billion
Net profits after taxes $7 billion $9 billion
Employees 63,000 1,530,000

How do they do it? Can you say "margins," boys and girls? I knew that you could.

The question posed above, namely "what should the pharmaceutical companies do?", is complex and nuanced, because the pharmaceutical giants don't actually make any of that profit in impoverished nations. Indeed, they would like to ignore those countries altogether. The solution therefore requires both sides to approach the negotiations with an open mind and a sensible eye to compromise, concepts which are anathema to the filmmakers involved in The Constant Gardener.


Critics and most genre fans loved this movie, but I wasn't impressed and didn't particularly like it. The sights, sounds and rhythms of Africa were wonderful, and Weisz was very believable as the rabid activist, but ...

  • My main problem with the film is its narrative style. The director used constant flashbacks, and flashbacks within flashbacks, to tell the story, and he did not use them skillfully. I had trouble figuring out the order of events.
  • Second, I had some trouble accepting that Ralph Fiennes would suddenly grow testicles after losing his wife, and finding out that she might have been having affairs with one or more men. I can see a switch from "drat" to "son-of-a-bitch," but not all the way to "I am am going to get you, you low-life motherfuckers, if it is the last thing that I do."
  • Finally, the script couldn't decide if it was a love story, or a political diatribe against drug companies. While I am basically pro love and anti-drug companies, the mix of the two seemed jarring.

The Critics Vote ...

  • Super-panel consensus out of four stars: three and a half   stars. James Berardinelli 3/4, Roger Ebert 4/4, BBC 4/5.

  • It has been nominated for three Golden Globes, including Best Director and Best Picture, Drama

he People Vote ...

  • Box Office Mojo. It grossed $33 million, which is impressive given that it is long, talky, and opinionated.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, both reviewers called it a C+. I (Scoop) considered a higher grade, but rejected it because the film is basically too slow, preachy, and arty to have powerful crossover appeal. Nonetheless, it is a gripping love story which exists within a framework of international intrigue and social consciousness. While it is somewhat ill-informed, it is never really wrong-headed. Unfortunately, the infinite distance between the film and reality keeps it from being a great movie rather than merely a good one. Its heart is in the right place, but it has no brain.

Return to the Movie House home page