Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

lealing This is essentially an epic love story which was supposed to have transcended time and space. Josh Hartnett plays dual characters: one as a diver/archaeologist type in the 21st Century and the second being a Scotsman working under the British colonials in the Indian subcontinent in the 17th Century. Tamsin Egerton plays his wife in the 21st Century and Bipasha Basu plays his love interest in 17th Century India. Having read an interview by director Roland Joffé about the film, I was expecting much more involvement of quantum physics to be present in the film. Not necessarily the entire film to be explaining the theory but at least more play on parallel universe and different realities. I was expecting more sci-fi along the lines of the Source Code or Interstellar. Instead what we got was Titanic crossed with Bollywood. If you are a sci-fi fan then you may be disappointed but if you are a romance fan then you may enjoy the film. Think Time Traveller's Wife, The Age of Adaline and other paranormal romances.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) Sadly, all the tragedy and drama in this 2015 movie did not really manage to escape the screen and really make me feel involved. "The Lovers" is Roland Joffé's newest work and I have to say I really enjoyed his "Killing Fields" and you may also have heard of or seen his film "The Mission". It's his first film in 4 years, but he turns 70 this year, so no surprise he's a bit on the slow side now, especially as he also wrote the script for "The Lovers" and it is only the third time in his long career that he has done so.The central character is played by Josh Hartnett, once a big rising star, but by now disappeared a bit. Here he returns to the big screen and I saw he is also currently playing in the successful television series "Penny Dreadful". I've never been too big on him in the past, but here he is okay and his performance is certainly not one of the major flaws of this movie. Tamsin Egerton is one of Britain's rising stars, but this film will probably not propel her career any higher right now. It's basically a film about the clash of two worlds: on the one side we have marine scientists today and on the other we have ancient India. The cinematography and costumes are fine, but story-wise I never felt a really well-done significant connection between these two at any point during these 110 minutes. That's why I cannot recommend this film. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest taking a look at Ben Kingsley's "The Physician" from 2013. It's Persia ad not India, but I thought this was very well done.

formatt2007 I was surprised at the bad review when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting storyline, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to ave or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? the whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.

dave355 The score is terrific, the scenery is gorgeous, the acting is mostly pretty good, and the story is... nonsensical.There are two story timelines. The opening story timeline is set in the fairly near future, sometime later in the 21st century, with what appear to be Americans. But we spend very little time there. The main story timeline is 18th century India.The backdrop of the main storyline, in India in 1778, was interesting and realistic, except that the British East India Company leaders were all hopelessly one-dimensional villains. The lead roles were well-played, the lead characters were sympathetic, and the story was drew me in.But when you tell a great, big, long story, it ought to have a point. It ought to have something to do with the climax. This one left me wondering, "what was the point of all that?"Plus, there was almost no meaningful connection between the two timelines. It just didn't make sense.And the story made a promise that it didn't keep. At the beginning, we see an interesting artifact -- a ring -- in the wreck of a long- sunken ship. Someone with the initials "D.E." must have greatly valued it, we're told, because he or she drowned while clinging to the purse which contained that ring.So, who was D.E., we wonder, and what was his story? The next scene takes us back in time, to 18th century India, and we settle back expecting to learn the story of D.E. and the ring. But we never do.We do, indeed, hear a great long story -- but we never find out about D.E. and the ring, or how it got onto that shipwreck. That was very annoying.And what's with the two names for this movie, anyhow? Is it called "The Lovers" or "Singularity?"As Maxwell Smart would say, "missed it by THAT much." I'll be generous and give it a 4, mainly just because I liked the music.