Movie Review

The Constant Gardener

I have to say that I was expecting this one to be good. In this worst of movie years, I thought Constant Gardener might break the monotony and show us that quality stuff is still being produced somewhat regularly. My hopes were pinned onto this flick because of director Fernando Meirelles: I really dug City of God (A/A-), and I thought he could deliver that same vivacious feeling to this white-bread work. Unfortunately, Constant Gardener can't get it right like before. Given its pedigree, this has got to be one of the more disappointing films of the year.

We see the effete diplomat Justin Quayle (a possible relative of Dan?), played by actor Ralph Fiennes, giving an economic lecture in a stately London conference hall. He is interrupted by audience member Tessa (Rachel Weisz, completing the lead duo who both have names that are pronounced different than they read), who takes this milquetoast man to task by bringing up such things as the Iraq war. She's a pretty standard liberal activist type who stands in quite obvious counterpoint to his distant bureaucrat mold. They meet after their spat and go home together. They get married soon after, making them both very happy. Then Tessa gets killed, which plunges Justin deep into her activism and takes him to rugged spots in Africa. He plays the detective game and asks a lot of questions. Other characters come into focus somewhat. And don?t worry, Weisz has screen time even after her character's death is known to all.

The plot is a slow trudge through muddy (read: confusing) waters. It jumps back-and-forth in time from the get-go; this technique isn't confusing here, but it feels like simply that: a technique. This whole production is very standard and straightforward, except maybe for some of the artistic camerawork. The globe-hopping mystery elements are very turgid; it never feels like a fresh and alive adventure. There's just scene after scene of non-engaging dialogue, spoken by actors who are supposed to imbue it with nobility beyond the words themselves, and it just didn't work for me.

I think it's high time that people just admit British movies are often supremely boring. The whole culture is known for its stuffiness, and it comes through in their entertainment. Yes, their actors are expertly trained and highly professional, but that doesn't always mean that they are more captivating onscreen than somebody else. Film acting is more about dynamism than restraint; big emotions grab audiences more so than overly subtle character "nuances." The actors' parts in this movie have that English formality, but it's cut from such cliche and straightforward fabric. There's no mystery as to who the villain is; the heroic characters are uninspired; and the shades of gray are all announced with tiresome and formless exposition.

City of God had a real pace; Constant Gardener lacks such a thing. It is emotionally cold and doesn't generate much energy. Watching it is like staring at nice paintings that you don't care about for a few hours. You are "supposed" to appreciate this content because of the subject matter, and that is why it doesn"t click. The filmmakers cannot ask audiences to get wrapped up in this stuff just because they had the good sense to put in on screen. People want deep and immediate attachment to characters and not a dusty journey through geopolitics. This movie is seen through the eyes of someone who doesn't make much of an impression - and even by the end, he still hasn't.

Scott's Grade: C

A	15.1%
B	59.2%
C	24.5%
D	1.2%
F	0.0%