Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

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?

rah882 Stunning period drama set in decadent colonial Peru. It is all very confusing with continuity problems, but nevertheless a wonderful piece. But Kathy Bates as a Spanish aristocrat! please!!! Kept expecting Harvey Keitel to jump into a yellow cab any moment. Robert DiNiro as a Bishop .... what a disaster... who were the twins? what was that all about? The bridge scene is great though. I thought the art direction was impeccable and a great score. The DVD has some interesting behind the scenes views. All in all the set locations were well done all shot in Andalucia and southern Spain, all very authentic except that Kathy Bates comes blustering in straight off the set of Frazier trying so hard to be some how all Spanish, Catholic and Aristocratic (ie everything she is not) and blowing it completely

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.

piggy-7 The most stunning thing about this film is that with all the talent gathered together none is at all visible - with the exception of Pilar Lopez De Ayala, who is literally the only believable persona in this unimaginatively directed, unintelligently constructed adaptation of what I would imagine is a delicate and resonant piece of literature, reading between the lines. Shockingly, the American actors lumber through the whole non-event looking like they're in the middle of rehearsal for some middle-aged pantomime forced on them by some Mid-West theater group, lacking any kind of dedication or true understanding of the words blustering from their lips. The performances are gruesomely ham-fisted and horribly one-dimensional - the pivotal "trial" featuring DeNiro, F. Murray Abraham and (non American) Gabriel Byrne as exciting and as heart-felt as watching the real-life trial of someone being accused of stealing the wheels off a tricycle. Even the ending smacks of: "Right, film's done, let's get on with the end scene", it's that dismally executed. The whole thing smacks of a cynical "film packaging" ethic - grabbing as many "names" as possible - the only passion perhaps the desire of the cast to have a bit of a "get-away" on a location they haven't been to as yet in their careers, all expenses paid. "Let's put bums on the seat, who cares about the film really, it'll look good on the DVD cover, we'll put nothing into it and it'll still sell". Among the countless excruciating presences include the clichéd non-acting of identical twins The Polish Brothers - who seem only to exist in order to fulfill such hideously stereotypical moments in film - and the wastefully camp presence of Dominique Pinon who at least assures us his English is fabulous. No texture, no taste, no sensation of the world or time we are supposed to be in is ever allowed to filter in this worst of TV movies and we are left absolutely care-less of any singular person we have been forced to watch for what seems to be a whole mini-series length of time. With all the disinterest on display from both sides of the camera, one wishes the tiny presence of John Lynch was expanded to obliterate all the rest: he conveys such a world of emotion in a single glance it makes you wish the story was about him, not the fumbling cast collecting their pay checks and drinking with the "natives" around him. A shame on everyone: if this were the first film that Deniro, Byrne, Keitel, Bates, and the rest were in, they would never have made it out of the D-list.