Mike summed up this movie rather well, he "fell asleep during a commercial" for it. While I was somehow able to stay awake, it didn't do much good. I think I could've watched this with Cliff Notes or director's commentary and still be lost.
I make an effort to see the films that are nominated for the main Oscars, each year. The Constant Gardener was one of those films. Rachel Weisz took home Best Supporting Actress for her role as, Tessa Quayle, an activist investigating shady pharmaceutical practices in Kenya. I thought she did a fine job. I'm not sure I'd call it Oscar worthy. So far all I have to compare it to is Brokeback Mountain actress Michelle Williams. I'd say Michelle beats Rachel. I'd love to be in the mind of the people who are voting for these things. Or I'd at least like to hear rationales. Maybe they have a very good reason that I'm overlooking. Anyway... I digress.
Ralph Fiennes plays Tessa's husband Justin who is trying to figure out why she died and who killed her. As he uncovers more and more and what Tessa's work really involved he puts his own life in jeopardy.
The movie starts out very convoluted. There are flashbacks showing how Tessa and Justin got together. Plots within plots are being exposed. Businessmen. Government officials. Doctors. Everyone is having a very bright line shone on them. Everyone is having to answer Tessa's questions. It's like a half dozen plot lines all come running at each other and finally coalesce into a movie in the last half of the film.
Kaz sat down half way through it and asked a question about the movie and I didn't know where to begin explaining it.
The cinematography was also half good / half not-good. I understand there are certain styles used to portray or send the message of certain emotions, but... I don't typically get that. I don't understand the need to see part of the movie being filmed the angle of what appears to be a pygmy holding a Super 8 camera. The sweeping landscape shots of Kenya are beautiful. Such films always make me wonder if the locals have any idea what's going on. Typically when little kids see a camera they all come running to stand in front of it, smile, and wave ecstatically. I presume someone tells them it's a movie and not a documentary or that Sally Struthers isn't anywhere around.
The story is intriguing. I said this to a friend and they asked if that was a good or bad thing. I guess, I really don't know. The idea of drug companies 'helping' the sick by testing various drugs on them is a powerful topic. The story was not only dramatic for the point it was trying to get across, but also very political. People taking a stand against shady government activities. Also powerful. Not something I'd go for in just any old movie I'd watch. So... I say intriguing. It might mean more to someone who was more passionate about such topics.
I'm glad I watched it. I probably wouldn't buy it, because I don't see it as a film I'd want to pop in some boring weeknight.
I posted this @ 1:00 PM.............Need a link?..........
I'm a 30-something student of human nature. A music-lovin', groove-shakin', laugh-inducin', dish-cookin', gossip-slingin', type of guy. This is my diary of sorts...
