"The Constant Gardener"

I just found the film so b o r i n g...............................

The elements were there but they just dropped the ball. How can you guys say it was 'Good' much less 'Great'?

This ishonestly one of those films where I have to ask "Are you insane?"
 
Not insane. Just comes down to taste. Just like while I enjoy a good zombie film every now and again, it's not the first thing I'll choose to see. Just remember, we don't all share the same tastes in film. But of course some may call your love of zombies a little insane. :evil:
 
The English Patient is a film I have a mixed reaction to.

The Good:
1.Solid Acting (With some major exceptions)
2.Excellent Cinematography
3.Wonderful Musical Score by Gabriel Yared

The Bad:
1.It is sooooo slooooow..

Keep in mind, I have taken many college classes on film history and have had to sit through many slow films (including silent films), and I have watched thousands of films, but The English Patient is one of the rare films that just BORES me. I feel like it will never end. However, I do admire some of the technical aspects of it. But, don't confuse the dullness of The English Patient as a quality of The Constant Gardener, which really is a great film.
 
Got around to watching THE CONSTANT GARDNER

I was bored. It failed to hold my attention. I just found it deliberately a waste of time.

It was beautifully shot. Technically the film stands up; actings, score.....

But it was just lacking in any real high's or low's; no creshendos (sp?)

I went into with the usual OSCAR hype ready to roll and left wondering what the hype was all about
 
John_Hudson said:
Got around to watching THE CONSTANT GARDNER

I was bored. It failed to hold my attention. I just found it deliberately a waste of time.

It was beautifully shot. Technically the film stands up; actings, score.....

But it was just lacking in any real high's or low's; no creshendos (sp?)

I went into with the usual OSCAR hype ready to roll and left wondering what the hype was all about
Click to expand...

I watched this movie last night and my review is about as same as Johns. I was bored as hell through out the whole movie.

Its almost like they left a few major scenes out of the movie or something.

I was really looking foward to seeing this one too.:embarasse
 
Hi Cash

Me too. I thought I may be the only one; and of course the Academy and Ebert and the rest of the free world is freakin out about it.

I found it stifling.
 
I liked this movie a lot. But then I'm a Le Carre fan. To read him, you have to be a fan because he takes his time with a story. I can understand where you are coming from with you opinion of this movie. I moves at the pace of the book. Funny, I like this and HATED The English Patient. I'm willing to admit that I have a blind spot when it comes to Le Carre's stories:

The Constant Gardener
The Tailor of Panama
The Russia House
The Little Drummer Girl
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Smiley's People
A Murder of Quality
The Spy Who Came In From the Cold

He's not for everybody. I imagine you feel about this movie like I felt about American Beauty. :thumbsup:
 
I bought the dvd and watched it this week. Technically its interesting but I was bored too. So far I'm solidly against the majority on this years films. Proving once again I have no taste.(I was disappointed in Kong after all). I voted for all the wrong films in Zombiefest(Uzraa, Fistfull of Flesh and Red Meat). I did enjoy some of the Indie films(Hustle and Flow, Murderball) And I secretly ordered and watched "Radar Men from the Moon" volumes I & II. I love Shoulin Soccer,Harold & Kumar,Family Guy and Futurama. Geez I'm 51 and I still have a kids view of the movies.

My Rant:
Is anyone else as tired of Hollywood retread movies? Old tv shows made into movies redoing old movies that were marginal at best. What is going on? I know they always do it but I'd rather see one "Sin City" than ten "Dukes of Hazard". Originality whenever possible please.
 
Bigmagic said:
My Rant:
Is anyone else as tired of Hollywood retread movies? Old tv shows made into movies redoing old movies that were marginal at best. What is going on? I know they always do it but I'd rather see one "Sin City" than ten "Dukes of Hazard". Originality whenever possible please.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no original thought left. :thumbsup:
 
I usually only watch trailers once (so as not to spoil the movie). Anyways, I had no idea who the director was when this hit the theatres. I remember the poster and the silhouette with the gun, and thinking, "I don't really want to see Ralph Fiennes cap people."

Anyways, I heard a lot of good things so I checked out the DVD. Fernando Meirelles takes a pretty stuffy, boring story and injects life into it with the handheld shots, the African locations, and his color palette. In the end, it's a love story wrapped in a political thriller. It felt a little long, but Meirelles takes this genre against the grain and makes an original movie. I can't wait to see what he does next.
 
I remember seeing the Constant Gardener in theaters. I'll say this, the photography was great. I loved the contrast of colors between the different locations (Africa and England.) I like how certain movies do that. I remember Steven did that in his movie Traffic. (... I hope I didn't start a debate on the that movie, lol) I like the hybrid between documentary and film. The result is creative realism that can really grab you into the story and the character's perspective. The "evil pharmacutical company" thing bored me too, but I always enjoy seeing something that's original. I just watched this movie called "Manic" (It was shot with a Sony VX200) Don Cheadel's in it. When you have great acting partnered with a good story and creative imagery, you get a great movie. I feel that the Constant Gardener had the acting and creative imagery. I felt the story was lacking something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top