list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Constant Gardener on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Constant_Gardener/246003/default.aspx Title: The Constant Gardener
Year: 2005
Director: Fernando Meirelles
Plot: A man discovers a deadly secret when he tries to find out who killed the woman he loves in this suspense drama based on a novel by John Le Carré. Justin Quale (Ralph Fiennes) is a low-level British diplomat who has been given a new assignment in Kenya. Justin's wife, Tessa (Rachel Weisz), is an activist with a keen interest in issues of poverty and social justice; Justin urges her to avoid getting too deeply involved in the people living in Kenya, who are constantly dogged by poverty, but she shows little interest in obeying these instructions. This isn't the only area where Tessa has disregarded her husband, who suspects that she may have had an affair - for she started spending time with a handsome doctor once they settled in Kenya. One day, Tessa disappears, and is found brutally murdered; officials believe that she was murdered by the doctor after some sort of argument. However, before long Justin becomes convinced that there was a larger scheme that led to Tessa's death, and he begins digging into areas where he's not especially welcome, given his reputation as a man willing to let the wealthy and powerful do as they will. The Constant Gardener was the first English-speaking feature from Brazilian filmmaker Fernando Meirelles, who directed the international success City of God. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 68
Number of Lists: 50
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:24:55 GMTThe Constant Gardener2005Fernando MeirellesA man discovers a deadly secret when he tries to find out who killed the woman he loves in this suspense drama based on a novel by John Le Carré. Justin Quale (<a href="/players/P____23390/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ralph Fiennes</a>) is a low-level British diplomat who has been given a new assignment in Kenya. Justin's wife, Tessa (<a href="/players/P___216376/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rachel Weisz</a>), is an activist with a keen interest in issues of poverty and social justice; Justin urges her to avoid getting too deeply involved in the people living in Kenya, who are constantly dogged by poverty, but she shows little interest in obeying these instructions. This isn't the only area where Tessa has disregarded her husband, who suspects that she may have had an affair - for she started spending time with a handsome doctor once they settled in Kenya. One day, Tessa disappears, and is found brutally murdered; officials believe that she was murdered by the doctor after some sort of argument. However, before long Justin becomes convinced that there was a larger scheme that led to Tessa's death, and he begins digging into areas where he's not especially welcome, given his reputation as a man willing to let the wealthy and powerful do as they will. The Constant Gardener was the first English-speaking feature from Brazilian filmmaker <a href="/players/P___292499/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fernando Meirelles</a>, who directed the international success <a href=/films/209829/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>City of God</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide68Tag Target (>10)50913http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t70740gb0tn.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Constant_Gardener/246003/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/anaki/archive/2009/7/29/43309.aspx Post By: Anaki
Post To: Anaki Blog
Post Date: 7/29/2009 11:24:55 AM
Body: This is a really good movie, with a solid story (based on Le Carré's book), good acting, suspense, drama, love, action, good music... all you need for a great film!
]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:24:55 GMTAnakiAnaki Blog7/29/2009 11:24:55 AMThis is a really good movie, with a solid story (based on Le Carr&eacute;'s book), good acting, suspense, drama, love, action, good music... all you need for a great film! http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_December_8_Good_Old_Fashioned/625/38151/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 12/9/2008 6:23:40 PM
Body: I feel like Austin Powers is the greatest of all espionage movies (I'm sorry, I said it...). I laugh every single time I see that one..."Russian intelligence, are you mad?!" I'm sorry rjsprague, but I think Quantum of Solace had a case of the sucks. The story took second pier to an angry James Bond, killing people for fun and throwing his friends in dumpsters and stealing their money. Some scenes were great, such as the opera house one, and the entire desert sequence. But there was no cohesive story holding anything together, and nothing was really solved besides Bond's heartache. There was no sexual tension and no great villain--Mathieu Almaric was decreased to a bit part with no memorable scenes. I'm sorry for the rant, but Bond was completely compromised in that one. I guess that's what they get for choosing Marc Forster to direct an action movie...he was completely out of his element. The Constant Gardener was a decent exercise in spydom concerning pharmaceuticals...Ralph Fiennes is great in that one, as is the typically underwhelming Rachel Weisz(?). On the subject of John le Carre movies, has anyone seen The Spy Who Came in From the Cold?
]]>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:23:40 GMTSmooth_JWeekly Theme12/9/2008 6:23:40 PMI feel like Austin Powers is the greatest of all espionage movies (I'm sorry, I said it...). I laugh every single time I see that one..."Russian intelligence, are you mad?!" I'm sorry rjsprague, but I think Quantum of Solace had a case of the sucks. The story took second pier to an angry James Bond, killing people for fun and throwing his friends in dumpsters and stealing their money. Some scenes were great, such as the opera house one, and the entire desert sequence. But there was no cohesive story holding anything together, and nothing was really solved besides Bond's heartache. There was no sexual tension and no great villain--Mathieu Almaric was decreased to a bit part with no memorable scenes. I'm sorry for the rant, but Bond was completely compromised in that one. I guess that's what they get for choosing Marc Forster to direct an action movie...he was completely out of his element. The Constant Gardener was a decent exercise in spydom concerning pharmaceuticals...Ralph Fiennes is great in that one, as is the typically underwhelming Rachel Weisz(?). On the subject of John le Carre movies, has anyone seen The Spy Who Came in From the Cold? http://www.spout.com/blogs/joem18b/archive/2008/11/23/37569.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 11/23/2008 10:04:39 PM
Body: I was jogging the other day, listening to Filmcouch #97, and the boys on the program asked whether there are any movies being made in the old spy genre anymore. Pure spy movies, as I think they put it. Or are we now left with, through evolutionary Hollywood transmogrification, only action spies (Bourne), humorous spoofy spies (Powers), and a few self-referential takes on the old genre, viz., The Constant Gardener.So for a few blocks I mentally recapitulated the efflorescence of the spy genre in the Sixties, as I remember it. Fleming, who started it all when JFK told an interviewer that he read the Bond books before bed at night, Len Deighton (Michael Caine as Quiller), the Flint movies. Richard Burton in the first La Carre effort.Then I spent a couple of blocks coming up with the following list:Spy Kids (2001, 2002)Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)The Tailor of Panama (2001)Spy Game (2001)Breach (2007)Later I did a power search of 2000-2008 in IMDB for "spy" and "spies." Didn't see much.My conclusion: There was a period, beginning with Dr. No and ending, perhaps, with Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, (1979) and Smiley's People (1982), when a true (Bond-inspired) spy genre existed. Since then, from time to time, a movie involving spies appears, but only conforming to the conventions of the old genre, if at all, by accident. This is similar to comparing Hollywood genre romantic comedies (which conform to a strict set of rules) to French romantic comedies (which don't).
]]>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:04:39 GMTjoem18bjoem18b Blog11/23/2008 10:04:39 PMI was jogging the other day, listening to Filmcouch #97, and the boys on the program asked whether there are any movies being made in the old spy genre anymore. Pure spy movies, as I think they put it. Or are we now left with, through evolutionary Hollywood transmogrification, only action spies (Bourne), humorous spoofy spies (Powers), and a few self-referential takes on the old genre, viz., The Constant Gardener.So for a few blocks I mentally recapitulated the efflorescence of the spy genre in the Sixties, as I remember it. Fleming, who started it all when JFK told an interviewer that he read the Bond books before bed at night, Len Deighton (Michael Caine as Quiller), the Flint movies. Richard Burton in the first La Carre effort.Then I spent a couple of blocks coming up with the following list:Spy Kids (2001, 2002)Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)The Tailor of Panama (2001)Spy Game (2001)Breach (2007)Later I did a power search of 2000-2008 in IMDB for "spy" and "spies." Didn't see much.My conclusion: There was a period, beginning with Dr. No and ending, perhaps, with Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, (1979) and Smiley's People (1982), when a true (Bond-inspired) spy genre existed. Since then, from time to time, a movie involving spies appears, but only conforming to the conventions of the old genre, if at all, by accident. This is similar to comparing Hollywood genre romantic comedies (which conform to a strict set of rules) to French romantic comedies (which don't). http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/4/26966.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/4/2008 4:01:17 PM
Body: Here is the new teaser trailer for Blindness, the latest film from Fernando Meirelles (City of God; The Constant Gardener). Normally I wouldn’t be so excited about something that reminds me of Val Kilmer’s post-eye-surgery point-of-view shots from At First Sight, especially when such visuals are accompanied by generic outbreak plots, but I’m so excited about Meirelles’ work that I’d have seen Alvin and the Chipmunks – poop-eating included — if he’d been behind the camera. All this despite the fact that I was extremely disappointed with The Constant Gardener the first time I watched it on account I had such high expectations. Maybe I should calm down my anticipation before Blindness hits theaters this September. Anyway, I know there are some other outbreak films coming out soon, including M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening and the enticingly titled Zombie Strippers, but neither of them come from a Nobel Prize-winning novel, like Blindness does. Of course, the greatest novels are often those which cannot be adequately adapted into films, so maybe Zombie Strippers (which is merely based on, loosely, the non-Nobel-winning play Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco) will actually be better. Which should make Meirelles, the producer, realize: the Rio favelas would sure be a good setting for a zombie movie. May I suggest the obvious title City of Zombies? It fittingly fills out an unintended trilogy. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/4/2008 4:01:17 PM Here is the new teaser trailer for Blindness, the latest film from Fernando Meirelles (City of God; The Constant Gardener). Normally I wouldn’t be so excited about something that reminds me of Val Kilmer’s post-eye-surgery point-of-view shots from At First Sight, especially when such visuals are accompanied by generic outbreak plots, but I’m so excited about Meirelles’ work that I’d have seen Alvin and the Chipmunks – poop-eating included — if he’d been behind the camera. All this despite the fact that I was extremely disappointed with The Constant Gardener the first time I watched it on account I had such high expectations. Maybe I should calm down my anticipation before Blindness hits theaters this September. Anyway, I know there are some other outbreak films coming out soon, including M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening and the enticingly titled Zombie Strippers, but neither of them come from a Nobel Prize-winning novel, like Blindness does. Of course, the greatest novels are often those which cannot be adequately adapted into films, so maybe Zombie Strippers (which is merely based on, loosely, the non-Nobel-winning play Rhinoceros, by Eugene Ionesco) will actually be better. Which should make Meirelles, the producer, realize: the Rio favelas would sure be a good setting for a zombie movie. May I suggest the obvious title City of Zombies? It fittingly fills out an unintended trilogy. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/mswallack/archive/2008/1/24/24308.aspx Post By: MSWallack
Post To: MSWallack Blog
Post Date: 1/24/2008 2:43:24 PM
Body: Ralph Fiennes is a fabulous actor and he gives a tremendous performance. The story is not a bright, shiny happy tale and if that is what you are hoping for, go see a different movie. The story isn't as complex as most John LeCarre stories, but then I suspect that it was simplified for film. I would not be surprised to see Fiennes' performance nominated for an award next spring.
]]>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:43:24 GMTMSWallackMSWallack Blog1/24/2008 2:43:24 PMRalph Fiennes is a fabulous actor and he gives a tremendous performance. The story is not a bright, shiny happy tale and if that is what you are hoping for, go see a different movie. The story isn&#39;t as complex as most John LeCarre stories, but then I suspect that it was simplified for film. I would not be surprised to see Fiennes&#39; performance nominated for an award next spring. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2007/12/29/23307.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/29/2007 11:36:36 AM
Body: The Constant Gardener was my Netflix movie of the week, no doubt inspired by the fact that it was an Oscar-winning flick (Rachel Weisz won Best Supporting Actress). I had not watched this movie around the time of its release, but for no particular reason other than I had not cultivated any special interest in seeing it except for the fact that Oscar paid attention to it. I read the plot synopsis, though, and thought it might be an interesting movie.It's based on a novel of the same name that I have not read. In fact, I rarely pick up politlcal thrillers, so it is doubtful that I would have read it anyway. Also, I have never seen any of Fernando Meirelles' previous films, including City of God (contrary to analogzombie's particular assertion, which I read in the review below mine). I had little to no information on what to expect this time around, which I don't mind. I like to expand my horizons as much as possible, and watching a film you have little to no interest in or information about is a good way to do that.My immediate reaction upon viewing this movie, however, is numbness. I don't really feel anything. I'm not sure why.Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a British diplomat working for the High Commission who prefers not to ruffle feathers. He is married to Tessa (Weisz), a woman with a "revolutionary spirit," who is quite passionate when she has adopted a cause. When Justin is assigned to go to Kenya, Tessa goes with him, and while Justin warns Tessa to not become too involved in the lives of the poverty-stricken villagers she meets, Tessa and a handsome native doctor, Arnold, take up the cause of exposing a pharmaceutical company's efforts to test a trial, dangerous, and, more often than not, fatal tuberculosis drug on Africans. Tessa is brutally murdered, however, and Justin, in his grief, adopts her cause, despite growing suspicions that Tessa was having an affair with Arnold. As Justin begins to dig deeper, looking for the culprit behind his wife's death, he also discovers a larger conspiracy he could never have begun to fathom. Oh, and the title comes from the fact that Justin is an avid gardener, to the point of cultivating his own garden in Africa. His garden is where he finds solace.I think I feel numb because, again, this movie and, perhaps, the novel could not decide what it wanted to be. On the one hand, it was a love story, though the viewer spends a long time trying to guess at whether or not Tessa is having an affair, leaving that love story disconnected from engaging the viewer most of the time. On the other hand, it's a politlcal thriller, implicating high-ranking British officials in a financial and humanistic conspiracy. Actually, the film felt much like Syriana (George Clooney was Rachel's counterpart in 2005), except told from a different angle and about a different industry. On still another hand, the film felt like a documentary, painting the plight of Africa as a whole. In fact, Tessa's cousin Hamm, who enters the picture briefly at points of interest to provide plot-specific information to Justin, offers a long diatribe about why Africa is a "continent of guilt" for the rest of the world. In addition, Meirelles liberally used a handheld camera during many of the scenes in Kenya, which was interesting artistically but also distracting.This film was not as complex as Syriana, though, because I think the love story was the heart of the movie, but it was still largely didactic. The performances were very good, and Rachel displayed a wide range of emotions in this role. In fact, her character was as multi-layered as the film itself, and she, no doubt, deserved her Oscar.All in all, the film was well done - well written, well acted, well shot, but it was not a film that engaged me as much as I thought it would. Also, the pacing was slow and long as the plot simmered before it was brought to a boil. I just don't have a strong reaction to it either way, and sometimes that happens, but I'm at a loss for words here.My rating for this film will be an 8 for minor flaws/very good, for much the same reasoning that I gave Sin City an 8 even though I didn't particularly care for the movie. It was well put together and highly original but just not my cup of tea, and I feel the same way about the Constant Gardener. Perhaps it was the frame of mind in which I watched it, but I just wasn't engaged; it, therefore, does not pass the test. City of God is on my queue somewhere, though, and I look forward to watching that one. Also, I think this film is worth watching; I just wish I had connected with it on a more constant basis.
]]>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:36:36 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts12/29/2007 11:36:36 AMThe Constant Gardener was my Netflix movie of the week, no doubt inspired by the fact that it was an Oscar-winning flick (Rachel Weisz won Best Supporting Actress). I had not watched this movie around the time of its release, but for no particular reason other than I had not cultivated any special interest in seeing it except for the fact that Oscar paid attention to it. I read the plot synopsis, though, and thought it might be an interesting movie.It&#39;s based on a novel of the same name that I have not read. In fact, I rarely pick up politlcal thrillers, so it is doubtful that I would have read it anyway. Also, I have never seen any of Fernando Meirelles&#39; previous films, including City of God (contrary to analogzombie&#39;s particular assertion, which I read in the review below mine). I had little to no information on what to expect this time around, which I don&#39;t mind. I like to expand my horizons as much as possible, and watching a film you have little to no interest in or information about is a good way to do that.My immediate reaction upon viewing this movie, however, is numbness. I don&#39;t really feel anything. I&#39;m not sure why.Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a British diplomat working for the High Commission who prefers not to ruffle feathers. He is married to Tessa (Weisz), a woman with a &quot;revolutionary spirit,&quot; who is quite passionate when she has adopted a cause. When Justin is assigned to go to Kenya, Tessa goes with him, and while Justin warns Tessa to not become too involved in the lives of the poverty-stricken villagers she meets, Tessa and a handsome native doctor, Arnold, take up the cause of exposing a pharmaceutical company&#39;s efforts to test a trial, dangerous, and, more often than not, fatal tuberculosis drug on Africans. Tessa is brutally murdered, however, and Justin, in his grief, adopts her cause, despite growing suspicions that Tessa was having an affair with Arnold. As Justin begins to dig deeper, looking for the culprit behind his wife&#39;s death, he also discovers a larger conspiracy he could never have begun to fathom. Oh, and the title comes from the fact that Justin is an avid gardener, to the point of cultivating his own garden in Africa. His garden is where he finds solace.I think I feel numb because, again, this movie and, perhaps, the novel could not decide what it wanted to be. On the one hand, it was a love story, though the viewer spends a long time trying to guess at whether or not Tessa is having an affair, leaving that love story disconnected from engaging the viewer most of the time. On the other hand, it&#39;s a politlcal thriller, implicating high-ranking British officials in a financial and humanistic conspiracy. Actually, the film felt much like Syriana (George Clooney was Rachel&#39;s counterpart in 2005), except told from a different angle and about a different industry. On still another hand, the film felt like a documentary, painting the plight of Africa as a whole. In fact, Tessa&#39;s cousin Hamm, who enters the picture briefly at points of interest to provide plot-specific information to Justin, offers a long diatribe about why Africa is a &quot;continent of guilt&quot; for the rest of the world. In addition, Meirelles liberally used a handheld camera during many of the scenes in Kenya, which was interesting artistically but also distracting.This film was not as complex as Syriana, though, because I think the love story was the heart of the movie, but it was still largely didactic. The performances were very good, and Rachel displayed a wide range of emotions in this role. In fact, her character was as multi-layered as the film itself, and she, no doubt, deserved her Oscar.All in all, the film was well done - well written, well acted, well shot, but it was not a film that engaged me as much as I thought it would. Also, the pacing was slow and long as the plot simmered before it was brought to a boil. I just don&#39;t have a strong reaction to it either way, and sometimes that happens, but I&#39;m at a loss for words here.My rating for this film will be an 8 for minor flaws/very good, for much the same reasoning that I gave Sin City an 8 even though I didn&#39;t particularly care for the movie. It was well put together and highly original but just not my cup of tea, and I feel the same way about the Constant Gardener. Perhaps it was the frame of mind in which I watched it, but I just wasn&#39;t engaged; it, therefore, does not pass the test. City of God is on my queue somewhere, though, and I look forward to watching that one. Also, I think this film is worth watching; I just wish I had connected with it on a more constant basis. http://www.spout.com/blogs/analogzombie/archive/2007/7/13/14048.aspx Post By: analogzombie
Post To: analogzombie Blog
Post Date: 7/13/2007 8:41:00 PM
Body: Most people, like myself, will be interested in this film for one reason only: City of God. The director of that stellar work, returns to familiar visual territory with The Constant Gardener, trading in the gritty slums of Rio for the gritty shanty towns of Kenya. The story, however, is very different from City of God, and that's a good thing. After all who wanted to see City of God 2: The Rewolvening? Not me. The film, based on a best selling novel apparently, is centered around Ralph Fiennes as a British diplomat living in Kenya with his young, idealistic wife, Rachel Weiss. Weiss is one of those young, naive, crusaders who believes that corruption should combated and stamped out. The character is drawn very one-dimensionally at first, but as the film progresses and we learn about her, as her husband does, she becomes much more likable and complex. Still the worn character of college idealist planning to save the world is old hat, and Meirelles tries so hard to drive it home that it ends up feeling like a jack hammer. The truth is though, hippie chicks ARE like that: naive, very very naive. Meirelles attempts to create suspicion among the audience to mirror that of Fiennes. It seems that this is a marraige of convenience. The married couple have an agreement, they both protect each other. She protects him from the potentially career threatening, common people crusading she is involved in, and he protects her ability to pursue this do-gooding. But keeping so much of your work can be damaging. As she begins to spend more and more time with an African Doctor friend who is helping her root out the nefarious doings of global drug companies, her husband begins to question the stability of their marriage. And we begin to question whether she really loved him, or if she just wanted diplomatic protection for cause. This comes off so hevay that it gets a little annoying at the front end of the film. Fortunately it dies when she does, and the film really gets going from there.After his wife turns up dead while on a research trip to uncover the true nature of the drug-trials being conducted on the poor of Kenya, Fiennes begins a quest that will ultimately lead him to a greater understanding of his wife, his marriage, his friends, and his government. His entire bedrock will be shaken, and the ending of the film is quite fitting for the sea change he experiences when he truly exposes himself to the reality of the country he has been living in for years.The Constant Gardener is a good movie. It's shaky camera, and gritty textured landscapes really succeed. The political thriller aspect of the film though is only average. This is a classic case of style over substance. Meirelles has made a decent follow-up to a film that is now a modern classic, something that is always hard to do.
]]>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:41:00 GMTanalogzombieanalogzombie Blog7/13/2007 8:41:00 PMMost people, like myself, will be interested in this film for one reason only: City of God. The director of that stellar work, returns to familiar visual territory with The Constant Gardener, trading in the gritty slums of Rio for the gritty shanty towns of Kenya. The story, however, is very different from City of God, and that&#39;s a good thing. After all who wanted to see City of God 2: The Rewolvening? Not me. The film, based on a best selling novel apparently, is centered around Ralph Fiennes as a British diplomat living in Kenya with his young, idealistic wife, Rachel Weiss. Weiss is one of those young, naive, crusaders who believes that corruption should combated and stamped out. The character is drawn very one-dimensionally at first, but as the film progresses and we learn about her, as her husband does, she becomes much more likable and complex. Still the worn character of college idealist planning to save the world is old hat, and Meirelles tries so hard to drive it home that it ends up feeling like a jack hammer. The truth is though, hippie chicks ARE like that: naive, very very naive. Meirelles attempts to create suspicion among the audience to mirror that of Fiennes. It seems that this is a marraige of convenience. The married couple have an agreement, they both protect each other. She protects him from the potentially career threatening, common people crusading she is involved in, and he protects her ability to pursue this do-gooding. But keeping so much of your work can be damaging. As she begins to spend more and more time with an African Doctor friend who is helping her root out the nefarious doings of global drug companies, her husband begins to question the stability of their marriage. And we begin to question whether she really loved him, or if she just wanted diplomatic protection for cause. This comes off so hevay that it gets a little annoying at the front end of the film. Fortunately it dies when she does, and the film really gets going from there.After his wife turns up dead while on a research trip to uncover the true nature of the drug-trials being conducted on the poor of Kenya, Fiennes begins a quest that will ultimately lead him to a greater understanding of his wife, his marriage, his friends, and his government. His entire bedrock will be shaken, and the ending of the film is quite fitting for the sea change he experiences when he truly exposes himself to the reality of the country he has been living in for years.The Constant Gardener is a good movie. It&#39;s shaky camera, and gritty textured landscapes really succeed. The political thriller aspect of the film though is only average. This is a classic case of style over substance. Meirelles has made a decent follow-up to a film that is now a modern classic, something that is always hard to do. http://www.spout.com/blogs/vhsparrow/archive/2007/6/22/11725.aspx Post By: vhsparrow
Post To: vhsparrow Blog
Post Date: 6/22/2007 3:59:38 PM
Body: O.k. you pinko, librul ‘Murica-haters and anti-Capitalists — this is your movie. Why? Because screenwriter Jeffrey Caine and Director Fernando Meirelles reveal that the 21st c. is built as much upon the commodification of the 3rd World as it is Oil. All of those ‘miracle drugs’ that you buy over the counter and through expensive prescriptions HAD to have human trials. Yes, those trials are often expensive and setbacks often run the cost of those trials up, but by the tens of millions of dollars. You see, Big Pharma is a lot like the Bush Administration — if they’re running a survey up a proverbial flag-pole and they don’t like the results, they’ll take the thing down, apply weights to it and repeat the process until they get their desired results. So it was with Nigerian Yellowcake, WMDs Vioxx and Paxil. But if you’re testing drugs in the West, companies sometimes become accountable to the test-participants. Just as Western Capitalism is 85% dependent upon petroleum to get the seed from the market, plant it in the ground and market it again, so it goes with the drug industry: Drug trials are no longer the province of rabbits and mice - 21st c. Pharmacology is the arena of human test-subjects. They need human livestock to test their new cocktails on, be it Vioxx, Viagra or some new AIDS remedy. Yet human trials for experimental drugs are expensive and participants often hard to find, particularly if a company is trying to rush something to the market ahead of the competition. Such is the half-spoken backdrop of ‘The Constant GardenerThe ‘Gardener’ in this case is Ralph Fiennes’ Justin Quayle, a man who has taken on horticulture as a prophylactic to the skullduggery and unintentional hardship that he emits as a member of the British Foreign Service (and possible spy). What derails him and gets the story going is that he starts to care for something other than his potted-plants. On shore-leave from the Nairobi consulate, Quayle meets the lovely Tessa (Rachel Weisz), and thus begins his own rehabilitation from the objectivist role of a career diplomat. When Tessa joins him in Africa she - unbeknownst to him - initiates her own world-saving agenda. And no good deeds go unpunished. ‘The Constant Gardener’ is most definitely a ‘by/for’ effort of adult calculation - there are no running gun battles, no wire-fu and only one hand-to-hand confrontation, which our hero loses. There is no Bennifer, no Tomster no Halle, no Samuel J. calculation, just unfiltered story - solid thespians performing their roles within the confines of believability. Surely, Globalism and its sibling, Poverty deserve screen credit here, alongside Fiennes and Wiesz. Does being ‘Western’ mean that others have to die for your sins? **** out of 5.
]]>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:59:38 GMTvhsparrowvhsparrow Blog6/22/2007 3:59:38 PMO.k. you pinko, librul &lsquo;Murica-haters and anti-Capitalists &mdash; this is your movie. Why? Because screenwriter Jeffrey Caine and Director Fernando Meirelles reveal that the 21st c. is built as much upon the commodification of the 3rd World as it is Oil. All of those &lsquo;miracle drugs&rsquo; that you buy over the counter and through expensive prescriptions HAD to have human trials. Yes, those trials are often expensive and setbacks often run the cost of those trials up, but by the tens of millions of dollars. You see, Big Pharma is a lot like the Bush Administration &mdash; if they&rsquo;re running a survey up a proverbial flag-pole and they don&rsquo;t like the results, they&rsquo;ll take the thing down, apply weights to it and repeat the process until they get their desired results. So it was with Nigerian Yellowcake, WMDs Vioxx and Paxil. But if you&rsquo;re testing drugs in the West, companies sometimes become accountable to the test-participants. Just as Western Capitalism is 85% dependent upon petroleum to get the seed from the market, plant it in the ground and market it again, so it goes with the drug industry: Drug trials are no longer the province of rabbits and mice - 21st c. Pharmacology is the arena of human test-subjects. They need human livestock to test their new cocktails on, be it Vioxx, Viagra or some new AIDS remedy. Yet human trials for experimental drugs are expensive and participants often hard to find, particularly if a company is trying to rush something to the market ahead of the competition. Such is the half-spoken backdrop of &lsquo;The Constant GardenerThe &lsquo;Gardener&rsquo; in this case is Ralph Fiennes&rsquo; Justin Quayle, a man who has taken on horticulture as a prophylactic to the skullduggery and unintentional hardship that he emits as a member of the British Foreign Service (and possible spy). What derails him and gets the story going is that he starts to care for something other than his potted-plants. On shore-leave from the Nairobi consulate, Quayle meets the lovely Tessa (Rachel Weisz), and thus begins his own rehabilitation from the objectivist role of a career diplomat. When Tessa joins him in Africa she - unbeknownst to him - initiates her own world-saving agenda. And no good deeds go unpunished. &lsquo;The Constant Gardener&rsquo; is most definitely a &lsquo;by/for&rsquo; effort of adult calculation - there are no running gun battles, no wire-fu and only one hand-to-hand confrontation, which our hero loses. There is no Bennifer, no Tomster no Halle, no Samuel J. calculation, just unfiltered story - solid thespians performing their roles within the confines of believability. Surely, Globalism and its sibling, Poverty deserve screen credit here, alongside Fiennes and Wiesz. Does being &lsquo;Western&rsquo; mean that others have to die for your sins? **** out of 5. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2007/3/3/5953.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 3/3/2007 4:02:00 AM
Body: I had great expectations for The Constant Gardener (2005). I really like espionage-type movies, I like John Le Carre novels, critics liked this film, and Rachel Weisz was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (she won). Even the plot sounded good: A British diplomat’s young activist wife is murdered in Kenya, and he comes out of his shell when he continues her work investigating multi-national pharmaceutical companies’ use of Africans for clinical trials. While the movie is worth watching, it has two major weaknesses. First, Le Carre’s novel and Fernando Meirelles’ direction clash. Typically, Le Carre is understated and complex; undercurrents are everything. Typically, Meirelles’ direction is energetic and in-your-face. He has lots of hand-held documentary shots of Kenyans, ultra-close-ups, and rough transitions from one shot to the next. Although Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes say they thrived on the freedom they were given in their acting, the cinematography and editing clash with the novel’s tone. The second problem is also a strength, but a complicated one. Throughout most of the movie, we are not quite sure if the young activist loves her husband and is faithful to him, or if theirs is a marriage of convenience so that she can pursue her radical agenda. While this is realistic and adds depth to the film, it also lessens the emotional involvement of the viewer—again a classic Le Carre technique which translates to the screen with mixed results. Jim Bell
]]>Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:02:00 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog3/3/2007 4:02:00 AM I had great expectations for The Constant Gardener (2005). I really like espionage-type movies, I like John Le Carre novels, critics liked this film, and Rachel Weisz was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (she won). Even the plot sounded good: A British diplomat&rsquo;s young activist wife is murdered in Kenya, and he comes out of his shell when he continues her work investigating multi-national pharmaceutical companies&rsquo; use of Africans for clinical trials. While the movie is worth watching, it has two major weaknesses. First, Le Carre&rsquo;s novel and Fernando Meirelles&rsquo; direction clash. Typically, Le Carre is understated and complex; undercurrents are everything. Typically, Meirelles&rsquo; direction is energetic and in-your-face. He has lots of hand-held documentary shots of Kenyans, ultra-close-ups, and rough transitions from one shot to the next. Although Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes say they thrived on the freedom they were given in their acting, the cinematography and editing clash with the novel&rsquo;s tone. The second problem is also a strength, but a complicated one. Throughout most of the movie, we are not quite sure if the young activist loves her husband and is faithful to him, or if theirs is a marriage of convenience so that she can pursue her radical agenda. While this is realistic and adds depth to the film, it also lessens the emotional involvement of the viewer&mdash;again a classic Le Carre technique which translates to the screen with mixed results. Jim Bell http://www.spout.com/blogs/hairylime/archive/2007/2/5/5270.aspx Post By: HairyLime
Post To: HairyLime Blog
Post Date: 2/5/2007 11:24:00 AM
Body: I have to admit, I have been away from the Bond franchise for some time. The last one I saw was 'Goldeneye', and while I thought it was a cut above the previous few entries, I was getting a little tired of the concept, thinking "how long can they keep milking this?" -- Well we had heard that this new Bond Daniel Craig was worth a look, so we ventured out to our local multiplex to check him out around December. Additionally, the 'Encore' channel started running all the old Bonds around the New Year (and if you got the 'on demand' option with your cable service, you could watch all of them at your leisure in widescreen no less!), so around here, we've been thoroughly drenched in Bond for the past few months. This weekend, we were snowed in and watched one of the more recent Pierce Brosnan entries, so with all this is mind, I thought I'd do an overview of the 007 pantheon (at least the ones I've seen, who knows how many times by now).I have to start by qualifying some of my prejudices about the series. I cut a lot of slack for the early ones. Budgets were low, the mindsets were different, audiences weren't quite so demanding of constant 'bang for the buck' as they are today. Sean Connery is still the favorite, and I will never understand how Roger Moore survived as long as he did.Dr. No (1962) - The franchise started the year I was born, but I didn't actually see this film until the mid-eighties video boom. Recently revisited it thanks to the Encore channel last month. Sean Connery sets the standard for the cool playboy secret agent, handles himself well in fights, makes snappy double entendres and Ursula Andress in her bikini and knife-belt combo is probably the most iconic of 'Bond girls'. Action-wise, the film is a little slow, but it has the proto-typical 'evil genius' and 'hidden island lair'. From Russia With Love (1963) - Haven't seen this one since the seventies, so its not fair to review this one. I seem to remember Robert Shaw was an impressive baddie, and the weird little woman with the pointy shoes was probably the model for the female evil sidekick character in the 'Austin Powers' movies.Goldfinger (1964) - Good villain, wierd henchman (with a lethal bowler hat no less), and Bond girl with the best name ("Pussy Galore") - Great car, good memorable lines "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond!" and the best of the theme songs.Thunderball (1965) - Remade as 'Never Say Never Again' in the eighties. Never a good idea to include scuba chase scenes, they really slow down the action. Good Tom Jones theme song. Haven't seen this one since the eighties, so I'll pass on more comments.You Only Live Twice (1967) - The goofiest of the Sean Connery films. Check out Bond in Japanese makeup made to pass as a native. Very cliche villain and volcano hideaway which was probably the model for Dr. Evil in the 'Austin Powers' films. Bond flies around in a mini helicopter with 4 distinct weapons onboard, and is chased by and dispatches - you guessed it - 4 helicopters. You can usually tell how weak the franchise is getting by how many techno gadgets get introduced.Casino Royale (1967) - A testament to how stale the franchise was becoming, it was ripe for lampoon. Not worth a look, this is a total mess. But maybe worth a peek at the final reel just to catch Woody Allen's bit as the evil 'James Bond Jr.'On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - Saw this for the first time last month. Not as bad as I was expecting. Telly Savalas makes a rather lame villain which is probably the biggest flaw. Diana Rigg is appealling and a nice tough mate for James. George Lazenby is a little on the dry side, but handles himself well, has a lot of good one liners. Ski chase scenes aplenty (and we'll be getting many more of them in the future, unfortunately).Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Connery comes back, looking a little pudgy, but still holding his own. This one has my favorite Bond double entendre when he comments on Jill St. John's wig change : "as long as the cuffs and collars match" - colorful villainous henchmen, just bordering on spoofery, the usual evil genius villain with an exotic hideaway that needs to be stormed. Not bad, but needs fresh ideas badly.Live and Let Die (1973) - Enter Roger Moore. Great theme song. Colorful villains and voodoo setting. A nice boat chase. Overall though, this Bond seems to play everything a little too much for laughs. A constant smirk on his face and the fact that he never looked believable in the fight scenes always left me a little cold on Roger Moore.The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) - More silliness. Killer midgets, another boat chase with the same southern sherrif along for the ride. We are in serious 'sequel-itis' territory now. Just treading water.The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Tried watching this one last month, couldn't get interested. 'Jaws' makes his first appearance. It just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Moonraker (1979) - More 'Jaws'. Slow motion outer space climax (pardon the pun). Tied for a three way "worst bond film ever" award.For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Almost palatable Roger Moore bond. (more skiing though - probably easier to hide the stunt man beneath all the protective gear). Topol makes a good ally/sidekick. Revenge seeking crossbow weilding bond girl is a nice touch.Octopussy (1983) - More silliness. Maud Adams again for some reason (wasn't she killed off in 'Golden Gun'?) Girly Circus Troupe. Ok. (three way "worst bond film ever" winner)Never Say Never Again (1983) - To underscore how badly the franchise needs a facelift, but not quite the facelift it needed, Sean Connery goes back at it again in this 'unofficial' remake of 'Thunderball'. Beats the current 'official' Bond movies hands down, but still needs a younger actor in the role. Good villain turn by Klaus Maria Brandauer. A View To a Kill (1985) - Badly in need of a makeover now. Roger Moore is looking quite old and frail by this time and the pairings with the young girls is starting to earn catcalls. Grace Jones and Christopher Walken and Duran Duran title song. (three way "worst bond film ever" winner)The Living Daylights (1987) - Timothy Dalton takes over. While he has a good British theatrical delivery and seems to have a lot of severe intensity, he strikes me as being a bit of a 98 lb weakling in the brawn department. 'AIDS awareness Bond' spends much more time out of bed in the next few movies and more time with small potatoes bad guys and outlandish action sequences. An improvement on Roger Moore at any rate.Licence to Kill (1989) - Revisited last month. Good final chase scene (if not a little improbable - semi trucks doing wheelies?) - Grim determined Timothy Dalton goes on a revenge spree and brings Q along for the ride. Good creepy villain. Funny cameo by Wayne Newton as a new age guru.Goldeneye (1995) - Pierce Brosnan takes over. Refreshing to see the sex jokes back in the mix. Good over the top action sequences (love the tank chase scene). Bond is back in a good way. But oddly enough its not enough to sustain my interest and I end up missing the next three at the theater. Nice touch bringing in Judi Dench as M. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - haven't seen it yetThe World Is Not Enough (1999) - Saw this one last weekend. Good villain, good 'bad bond girl' - extremely silly 'good bond girl' (who buys Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist?) - Good enough Bond flick, but we seem to be getting back to a bit of Roger Moore-ishness in the spoof/seriousness ratio.Die Another Day (2002) - haven't seen it yetCasino Royale (2006) - Wow. Bond taken a bit more seriously ala 'Batman Begins'. Daniel Craig actually looks like he can 'take a licking and keep on ticking'. And I love the 'Bond with an attitude' persona he puts forward, reminds me of Connery in his youth. Favorite line: Bond: "give me a vodka martini" Bartender: "shaken or stirred?" Bond: "do I look like I give a damn?" - And doesn't everyone need a car with a built-in defibulator?Looking forward to where this goes next... addendum: A few other 'Spy Films' that might help take away the bad taste of 'too much Bond' - "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" with Richard Burton, "Three Days of the Condor" with Robert Redford, and recently "The Constant Gardener" with Ralph Fiennes -- they treat the 'glamorous world of spy-dom' with a generous dose of skepticism and a refreshingly bleak world view.
]]>Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:24:00 GMTHairyLimeHairyLime Blog2/5/2007 11:24:00 AMI have to admit, I have been away from the Bond franchise for some time. The last one I saw was &#39;Goldeneye&#39;, and while I thought it was a cut above the previous few entries, I was getting a little tired of the concept, thinking "how long can they keep milking this?" -- Well we had heard that this new Bond Daniel Craig was worth a look, so we ventured out to our local multiplex to check him out around December. Additionally, the &#39;Encore&#39; channel started running all the old Bonds around the New Year (and if you got the &#39;on demand&#39; option with your cable service, you could watch all of them at your leisure in widescreen no less!), so around here, we&#39;ve been thoroughly drenched in Bond for the past few months. This weekend, we were snowed in and watched one of the more recent Pierce Brosnan entries, so with all this is mind, I thought I&#39;d do an overview of the 007 pantheon (at least the ones I&#39;ve seen, who knows how many times by now).I have to start by qualifying some of my prejudices about the series. I cut a lot of slack for the early ones. Budgets were low, the mindsets were different, audiences weren&#39;t quite so demanding of constant &#39;bang for the buck&#39; as they are today. Sean Connery is still the favorite, and I will never understand how Roger Moore survived as long as he did.Dr. No (1962) - The franchise started the year I was born, but I didn&#39;t actually see this film until the mid-eighties video boom. Recently revisited it thanks to the Encore channel last month. Sean Connery sets the standard for the cool playboy secret agent, handles himself well in fights, makes snappy double entendres and Ursula Andress in her bikini and knife-belt combo is probably the most iconic of &#39;Bond girls&#39;. Action-wise, the film is a little slow, but it has the proto-typical &#39;evil genius&#39; and &#39;hidden island lair&#39;. From Russia With Love (1963) - Haven&#39;t seen this one since the seventies, so its not fair to review this one. I seem to remember Robert Shaw was an impressive baddie, and the weird little woman with the pointy shoes was probably the model for the female evil sidekick character in the &#39;Austin Powers&#39; movies.Goldfinger (1964) - Good villain, wierd henchman (with a lethal bowler hat no less), and Bond girl with the best name ("Pussy Galore") - Great car, good memorable lines "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond!" and the best of the theme songs.Thunderball (1965) - Remade as &#39;Never Say Never Again&#39; in the eighties. Never a good idea to include scuba chase scenes, they really slow down the action. Good Tom Jones theme song. Haven&#39;t seen this one since the eighties, so I&#39;ll pass on more comments.You Only Live Twice (1967) - The goofiest of the Sean Connery films. Check out Bond in Japanese makeup made to pass as a native. Very cliche villain and volcano hideaway which was probably the model for Dr. Evil in the &#39;Austin Powers&#39; films. Bond flies around in a mini helicopter with 4 distinct weapons onboard, and is chased by and dispatches - you guessed it - 4 helicopters. You can usually tell how weak the franchise is getting by how many techno gadgets get introduced.Casino Royale (1967) - A testament to how stale the franchise was becoming, it was ripe for lampoon. Not worth a look, this is a total mess. But maybe worth a peek at the final reel just to catch Woody Allen&#39;s bit as the evil &#39;James Bond Jr.&#39;On Her Majesty&#39;s Secret Service (1969) - Saw this for the first time last month. Not as bad as I was expecting. Telly Savalas makes a rather lame villain which is probably the biggest flaw. Diana Rigg is appealling and a nice tough mate for James. George Lazenby is a little on the dry side, but handles himself well, has a lot of good one liners. Ski chase scenes aplenty (and we&#39;ll be getting many more of them in the future, unfortunately).Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Connery comes back, looking a little pudgy, but still holding his own. This one has my favorite Bond double entendre when he comments on Jill St. John&#39;s wig change : "as long as the cuffs and collars match" - colorful villainous henchmen, just bordering on spoofery, the usual evil genius villain with an exotic hideaway that needs to be stormed. Not bad, but needs fresh ideas badly.Live and Let Die (1973) - Enter Roger Moore. Great theme song. Colorful villains and voodoo setting. A nice boat chase. Overall though, this Bond seems to play everything a little too much for laughs. A constant smirk on his face and the fact that he never looked believable in the fight scenes always left me a little cold on Roger Moore.The Man With the Golden Gun (1974) - More silliness. Killer midgets, another boat chase with the same southern sherrif along for the ride. We are in serious &#39;sequel-itis&#39; territory now. Just treading water.The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Tried watching this one last month, couldn&#39;t get interested. &#39;Jaws&#39; makes his first appearance. It just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Moonraker (1979) - More &#39;Jaws&#39;. Slow motion outer space climax (pardon the pun). Tied for a three way "worst bond film ever" award.For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Almost palatable Roger Moore bond. (more skiing though - probably easier to hide the stunt man beneath all the protective gear). Topol makes a good ally/sidekick. Revenge seeking crossbow weilding bond girl is a nice touch.Octopussy (1983) - More silliness. Maud Adams again for some reason (wasn&#39;t she killed off in &#39;Golden Gun&#39;?) Girly Circus Troupe. Ok. (three way "worst bond film ever" winner)Never Say Never Again (1983) - To underscore how badly the franchise needs a facelift, but not quite the facelift it needed, Sean Connery goes back at it again in this &#39;unofficial&#39; remake of &#39;Thunderball&#39;. Beats the current &#39;official&#39; Bond movies hands down, but still needs a younger actor in the role. Good villain turn by Klaus Maria Brandauer. A View To a Kill (1985) - Badly in need of a makeover now. Roger Moore is looking quite old and frail by this time and the pairings with the young girls is starting to earn catcalls. Grace Jones and Christopher Walken and Duran Duran title song. (three way "worst bond film ever" winner)The Living Daylights (1987) - Timothy Dalton takes over. While he has a good British theatrical delivery and seems to have a lot of severe intensity, he strikes me as being a bit of a 98 lb weakling in the brawn department. &#39;AIDS awareness Bond&#39; spends much more time out of bed in the next few movies and more time with small potatoes bad guys and outlandish action sequences. An improvement on Roger Moore at any rate.Licence to Kill (1989) - Revisited last month. Good final chase scene (if not a little improbable - semi trucks doing wheelies?) - Grim determined Timothy Dalton goes on a revenge spree and brings Q along for the ride. Good creepy villain. Funny cameo by Wayne Newton as a new age guru.Goldeneye (1995) - Pierce Brosnan takes over. Refreshing to see the sex jokes back in the mix. Good over the top action sequences (love the tank chase scene). Bond is back in a good way. But oddly enough its not enough to sustain my interest and I end up missing the next three at the theater. Nice touch bringing in Judi Dench as M. Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) - haven&#39;t seen it yetThe World Is Not Enough (1999) - Saw this one last weekend. Good villain, good &#39;bad bond girl&#39; - extremely silly &#39;good bond girl&#39; (who buys Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist?) - Good enough Bond flick, but we seem to be getting back to a bit of Roger Moore-ishness in the spoof/seriousness ratio.Die Another Day (2002) - haven&#39;t seen it yetCasino Royale (2006) - Wow. Bond taken a bit more seriously ala &#39;Batman Begins&#39;. Daniel Craig actually looks like he can &#39;take a licking and keep on ticking&#39;. And I love the &#39;Bond with an attitude&#39; persona he puts forward, reminds me of Connery in his youth. Favorite line: Bond: "give me a vodka martini" Bartender: "shaken or stirred?" Bond: "do I look like I give a damn?" - And doesn&#39;t everyone need a car with a built-in defibulator?Looking forward to where this goes next... addendum: A few other &#39;Spy Films&#39; that might help take away the bad taste of &#39;too much Bond&#39; - "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" with Richard Burton, "Three Days of the Condor" with Robert Redford, and recently "The Constant Gardener" with Ralph Fiennes -- they treat the &#39;glamorous world of spy-dom&#39; with a generous dose of skepticism and a refreshingly bleak world view. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 831

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:29 GMT8748157831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 489

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:19 GMT1643130489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/british/MemberTagFilms.aspxbritish
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 75

Number of times used: 264

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:53:04 GMT61075264Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conspiracy/MemberTagFilms.aspxconspiracy
Number of films tagged: 524

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT5244894Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/corruption/MemberTagFilms.aspxcorruption
Number of films tagged: 1236

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 108

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT123647108Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pregnancy/MemberTagFilms.aspxpregnancy
Number of films tagged: 1306

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 110

]]>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:22:12 GMT130644110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/poverty/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoverty
Number of films tagged: 1505

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 70

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:28:37 GMT15053870Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/long/MemberTagFilms.aspxlong
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 63

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:36 GMT533563Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/political/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitical
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:21:55 GMT512965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/confusing/MemberTagFilms.aspxconfusing
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 34

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:44:43 GMT272834Tag