The Song Fight Bulletin Board

So does no one talk about movies anymore, or what? I went in with the highest expectations I’ve ever had for a movie, having seen and loved Fernando Meirelles’s City Of God several times; This movie came close. It’s not as stylish as City, but that makes sense, considering this was a much more mainstream effort. The acting is top notch and the locales are beautiful, but the source material isn’t quite my thing. This is easily the best mystery I’ve seen (which isn’t saying too much, as I seldom enjoy the genre). Probably the greatest aspect of the film is Fiennes’s and Weisz’s relationship, which (along with Fiennes’s character) is complex and evolves throughout the movie. But The Constant Gardner has two things going against it: it is deadly slow in places, and it has a downright terrible title. Every time I hear the title I always get terrible musical numbers stuck in my head, ala the one about Constant Stool-Making from Waiting For Guffman: “Always Gardening, never sleeping! Some for hoeing, some for weeding!â€

Puce wrote:So does no one talk about movies anymore, or what?[/b]

i give Puce a B++ for critical facility but only a C- for Having A Life. Four movies in a weekend???

j$ wrote:i give Puce a B++ for critical facility but only a C- for Having A Life. Four movies in a weekend???

If you look closely you'll see it was five.

I only watch movies when my Internet access is limited, making watching movies the closest I get to having a life.

Good movie, but there's kind of an issue I have where ... well, if you're making a fictional movie, you can do any kind of nutty stuff and then blame corporations and countries and shit and you're just aghast and what they've done. But they didn't do anything because it's a fiction. So I mean it's compelling and well-made and all but unless something like what's documented has happened what's the point of the movie?

mkilly wrote:it's fiction... unless something like what's documented has happened what's the point of the movie?

Maybe I didn't parse that sentance right, but can't you ask that question of all fiction? I think the point was adapting Le Carré's novel to the screen. And, of course, having Rachel Weisz disrobe.

Puce wrote:

mkilly wrote:it's fiction... unless something like what's documented has happened what's the point of the movie?

Maybe I didn't parse that sentance right, but can't you ask that question of all fiction? I think the point was adapting Le Carré's novel to the screen. And, of course, having Rachel Weisz disrobe.

Well, maybe you have a point.

My issue is that if the film's meant to tug at your heartstrings at the Europeans and Americans taking advantage of poverty-ridden Africa, as exemplified through this drug thing, then... what? It's fiction, that didn't happen. One ought not be outraged at a made-up scenario. I don't believe it's a roman a clef or anything, I might be mistaken.

But if it's just meant to be a compelling story then it succeeds. The ending suggests to me otherwise. Maybe I'm ineloquent here.

mkilly wrote:One ought not be outraged at a made-up scenario.

Well, maybe I was out of touch with how seriously people took this movie. I definitely share your sentiments when it comes to the Da Vince Code, which people seem ready to kill for. If folks had the same reaction with this movie, than I'd feel the same way. But by default I assume people treat fiction as fiction.