Der ewige Gärtner

Ein höllisch ernstes und höllisch gutes Drama. Ich würde mich nicht wundern, wenn die zurzeit proklamierte Gefahr der Geflügelpest-Pandemie nur eine falsche Medien-Bombe wäre, damit die Pharmagesellschaften viel Geld durch den Verkauf von Impfstoff verdienen. Dieser Film ist eine Kritik der Kommerzialisierung unserer Gesellschaft und gleichzeitig eine traurige Geschichte der Liebe von zwei guten Menschen, die mit ihr gekämpft haben. Beide Ebenen werden zu einem langen und anfangs ziemlich kalten Drama. Allmählich strömt aber das Blut in seine Adern und es kommt ein schönes Ende. Eine ausgezeichnete "verwackelte" Greengrass-Kamera, außerdem mit effektvollen Filtern (das kalte und düstere London / das sonnige rot-gelbe Afrika). Bravouröse Schauspielleistungen von Rachel Weisz und Ralph Fiennes. Ein Film, der das Publikum nicht zu Tränen rühren muss, um schön zu sein. (21.10.2005)

Of the many recent political dramas commenting on contemporary problems of civilization, this film is one of the best, along with Syriana. This one deals with the problems of today's Africa, with the growing influence of multinational pharmaceutical companies and the harmful interference by corrupt officials and governments in the work of NGOs. Unlike the somewhat aloof and cold Syriana, however, Meirelles's film is told more clearly (without a barrage of names) and, thanks to the big theme of love beyond the grave, is more emotional, including an impressive ending that lifted the final impression to the absolute. I didn't think Rachel Weisz's performance was Oscar-worthy, but I kept the scenes with her in front of my eyes even after the film was over. Maybe I’m in love? :) (09.01.2007)

A socially critical drama set in the environment of Sub-Saharan Africa, where wealthy countries gladly export their waste and problems. I don't consider the film's motif as excessive, although it is necessary to emphasize that it is not always wise to put pharmaceutical companies in a difficult position. Researching new medicines is damn expensive and uncertain, so, for example, widely spread ideas that companies should distribute their products for free, would lead not so much to a decrease in profit (which the companies would ensure otherwise), but rather to a halt in the development of new medicines. As for bypassing strict security measures in research, patients themselves often have an interest in reducing waiting time and receiving timely help. While Ralph Fiennes is convincing in his role as an acting chameleon and it is truly a joy to watch him at times, Rachel Weisz reaches the limits of her acting abilities and the chemistry between the married couple does not work for me as it should. I also have a problem with the behavior of the film's characters, for example, the final act of resignation and passive waiting for execution somehow doesn't make sense. It's a decent film, but I never considered giving it four stars. In addition to the points mentioned above, the film deserves a more critical edit - at least 15 minutes could easily be sacrificed out of those 130 minutes. Overall impression: 60%. (26.01.2013)

An incredibly shot thriller that intelligently grafts an uncompromising indictment of big pharmaceutical companies making millions off of disease-ridden Africa in a basic conspiracy shell. Director Meirelles manages to bring this optic of social issues into focus in such a way that even viewers least familiar with the topic will feel that they just untied the Gordian Knot, and the intelligence officer does not have to have a heart attack even with the (inevitable) simplification of the whole intricate machination. It’s a perfectly balanced blend of compelling content, well-managed form (authentic handheld camerawork), and, as a bonus, the excellent acting tandem of Fiennes and Weisz. After Hotel Rwanda, the developed world received another unflattering postcard signed with "Africa." (05.01.2007)

It lacks emotion, The Constant Garderner isn't completely heartfelt, and unfortunately, in such a tuned film, it’s a major flaw. The mystery of why Rachel Weisz received an Oscar is about as big a puzzle to me as a similar escapade in 1997 when Kim Basinger won a statue literally for nothing (maybe it's a new trend?). The handheld camera is not as sophisticated, and beneath several filtered shots, there is a relatively frequent slight hesitation and a search for the right style. The prosecution of pharmaceutical companies is now outrageously trendy, so it suited the creators perfectly. Yes, the theme is simply and powerfully executed, a few scenes are impressive, the braided chronology of the story is surprisingly not a hindrance, but the true heart is missing, and that is a significant reason for the average rating. (11.07.2007)