LastingAware The greatest movie ever!

Chatverock Takes itself way too seriously

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

dnitzer-465-412648 Thornton Wilder's novel on which this movie is based, asks what is probably the most fundamental questions that nearly every human who has ever lived has struggled with at some point: why are we here, and why do we die? Are life and death random accidents, or does Someone have a plan for us? The questions can't possibly be solved; the answers can only be believed because they remain unproven.This is the third attempt to make a film adaptation of Wilder's book, and each of those three have tried to impose answers on Wilder's questions, completely missing the point of the novel. Knowing that they are unanswerable, Wilder makes no attempt to answer his own questions, but instead reassures us that is enough to have lived and loved. Why then do those who wrote the scripts for these movie adaptations feel compelled to try answer the impossible questions? The 1944 version swaps, replaces, and re-writes Wilder's characters, putting "wrong" (ie, different) characters on the bridge, inventing entirely new characters at times, even introducing one victim about whom we learn nothing whatsoever. Then why put him there; did his life not matter as much as the others? Why change the story at all? This 2004 version attempts to find the "reason" that the bridge claimed the victims it did. It seems to want to point to one character in particular (I won't reveal which one) as being the influence that caused the five people to be on the bridge at the climactic moment, even though Wilder's novel makes no such suggestion. Indeed, Wilder's novel leaves us wondering Why? He didn't try to come up with a solution. This adaptation tries too hard and fails.On the plus side, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the "mis-en-scene" of this version is beautiful. Some of the acting is good, some is embarrassing. It feels as if all the attention was given to the set dressing, the look and feel, and not much attention was paid to the actors or the script or the delivery of their lines. At times it seems they are acting in different movies, and nobody seems to be in charge.The script meanders without focus, trying to fit the disparate lives into one cohesive, linear story. The novel does not do that; in fact, the novel avoids that approach entirely. There is a prologue, an epilogue, and in between, Wilder tells us three distinct stories, each one ending at the characters' arrival at the bridge. It is left up to us to decide if the three stories fit together or not, and if so, how?Would it be too much to ask for a script that follows Wilder's structure?

clanciai This is a fascinating film which you'll have to watch very carefully, since every detail, especially in the conversations, is important and vital to the very complex sieve of intrigue and amazing diversions into constantly deeper waters of metaphysics, relationships and complications. Formally it is an ordinary inquisition piece with a scoundrel of an inquisitor trying to come to terms with an impossible reality without succeeding, of course, while Gabriel Byrne is the scapegoat for investigating the truth and ending up with amazing findings, intolerable for their humanity and revelations of love. But the film is much more than just this meaningless investigation into an endless labyrinth of unfathomable heart secrets of humanity. The famous novel of the 20s by Thornton Wilder (sadly unknown and forgotten today) has been filmed three times, but Mary McGuckian from Nothern Ireland has chosen to take a very personal view and simply concentrated on making a masterpiece of beauty. Many can't follow the intricate turns and windings of this web of complications, but it isn't necessary to grasp it all. The point is the love and the beauty, overwhelmingly enhanced and embellished by Lalo Schifrin from Buenos Aires in his finest score of subtle sensitivity. This is a masterpiece of beauty of Mary McGuckian's and Lalo Schifrin's, and there can be no doubt about it, no matter how many get lost on the way in trying vainly to follow the details in this inextricable enigma of interwoven human destinies. This is definitely a film to see over and over again to discover new aspects and hidden clues to the mystery of love, life and death.It gives interesting associations, though, in its labyrinthine architecture to Powell/Pressburger's "A Canterbury Tale", another winding system of improvised labyrinths, and in character to Jane Campion's "The Piano" from New Zealand, another marvel of beauty and mystery made the more fascinating and effective by its amazing music.It was all filmed in southern Spain, but its South American character is genuine. The actors are all excellent, perhaps most of all Kathy Bates as the Marquesa, seconded especially by Pilar Lopez De Ayala and Gabriel Byrne as the honest doubter. Another clue to its understanding is its pictorial beauty throughout. In the beginning of the film there is a key scene, when the Marquesa visits a painting by Velazquez, from which she miraculously retrieves a beautiful golden necklace in the intention to offer it to her daughter. It's the one detail in the film which is surrealistic, but it opens the film to its marvel of pictorial beauty - the whole film is like paintings by Velazquez. In America the film was massacred since no one could understand it, especially not American critics, since this is a very European and most of all Spanish film in character. If you know anything about Spanish painting, you'll understand and relish the film. Another aspect is its metaphysical character, which you can't understand if you don't read the book. It's short of only 200 pages but extremely concentrated. You must wonder why brother Juniper is prosecuted by the inquisition for having just so carefully documented the fates of the five casualties, and the obvious reason is this: what united these people was only love, they were penitents for nothing but undeserved feelings of guilt, one of them being even a small child, and they were all looking forward to a bright future of a better and nobler life, especially the Marquesa, who had only loved and that too well; while the about 150 survivors, who had to follow the caravan crossing the river down in the gorge and therefore did not cross the footbridge, were in overwhelming magnitude less deserving of life. The inquisition found the insinuation that this could be a case of divine injustice unacceptably blasphemous , and therefore burned the book and its author. Well, the book and the author lives the more for that. Unhesitatingly 10 score.

tsennekikke I was influenced by the rating 4.9 out of 10 - so, I didn't expect much of it.However I gave it a 10/10, simply because it's a magnificent movie, well acted, good story, and beautiful music.I have to admit that's it not a movie for everyone...It has such a deep meaning - especially about the subject Love - that this movie won't reach the hearts of those who never ever had a taste of it.It also gives us a viewpoint in regards to the meaning of life. It takes us into another dimension and shows us the bridge between the living and the dead.In any case: if you think you're ready for it... watch the movie - give it a try. You might love it!

jrushrd BORING BORING BORINGIf you plan on watching the entire movie I suggest some sort of chemical assistance. Choose your poison... amphetamines, cocaine, trucker speed, red bull or espresso... whatever, you will need helping staying awake through this one. I mean, I can sit through golf and bowling on TV and not fall asleep. But this movie was like trying to overdose on Valium. DISAPPONTMENT DISAPPONTMENT DISAPPONTMENTWhat a amazing cast. What an astounding let down. Deniro's performance is laughable. Actually, if you don't burst out laughing the first time Deniro comes on screen you should seek medical attention... you may be dead. Other performance are better, hell, even good. But a great performance by a great actor means nothing when the movie is crap.The cinematography is also excellent. Still, all the beautiful scenery in the world cannot distract one from the fact that the movie is completely pointless.I was surprised to find so many good reviews of this movie. I found that many people who enjoyed this movie had read the book. So, I read the book. The book is in fact very good. But nothing about it screams "Make me a movie." Some books should stay books and not be made into movies. This is a perfect example. This movie should have never been made. It is a discredit to the book on which it is based and the cast that did the acting.