Very mixed bag
Added 2/2/2010
Please note that I saw this movie on HBO so I can't comment on the quality of the video transfer or its features.
This movie, based on the Pulitzer winning novel by Thornton Wilder, has its moments, and also its share of problems. I'll try to detail them here fairly enough so that you can decide if it's really for you or not.
First of all, the movie's greatest strengths are the wonderful sound track, the exquisite costumes, and the very authentic looking sets and interiors. The music, with its distinctive South American flutes and pipes often getting full play in many of the scenes, perfectly sets the tone of the movie. The second major strength is the amazing period costumes and wardrobe, which seem very complete and accurate to the time. Third, the architecture and the building interiors also seem very authentic, possibly true to the Spanish colonial style itself, although I'm not an expert on this period of architecture. I would have liked to know where it was shot.
Now comes the mixed part. The casting, despite the stellar cast, is very uneven, ranging from excellent to wildly miscast. John Lynch as the military captain and Geraldine Chaplin as the mother superior are both superb although they have relatively small supporting roles. Pilar Lopez de Ayala is also quite convincing in her role as the actress, La Perichole.
I'm big admirers of the next three actors, but they're just not well cast in their roles. Harvey Keitel, as the uncle and go-fer for the court of the Peruvian Viceroy, is actually okay, but I think historical movies just aren't his venue. The same goes for Kathy Bates as the Marquesa. But Robert de Niro, as much as I admire his work in general, is just miscast as the Archbishop who prosecutes Gabriel Byrne's case. Byrne himself, though, is excellent in his role as father Juniper. And F. Murray Abraham is very convincing in his role, and here he has a part not that different from the role of Antonio Salieri which he played in Amadeus or the Grand Inquisitor from In the Name of the Rose. If there's anyone who can project aristocratic hauteur better than he I'd like to see it.
The pacing of the movie is quite stately, although certainly not glacial, requiring some patience from the viewer. However, the movie timeline might be a source of confusion to some people, which involves the use of flashbacks, although it's actually done well here. But if you don't know the original story it could be difficult to follow, or to understand why the main characters get the coverage they do, since that's not really revealed until the very end. The movie progresses by this series of flashback-like vignettes or substories, until we reach the very final scene in the courtroom where it all finally comes together.
The dialogue comes off as stilted at times but that isn't the fault of the movie since the dialog in the book was highly stylized also as per the period. The over-arching theme of the book--how love can be a two edged sword in people's lives--either transforming it for good or for evil--makes an interesting idea around which to build the story. That part at least comes off well in the movie.
So there you have it--a very mixed bag of a movie with uneven casting, a complicated, possibly hard to follow story, the slow pace--but based on an interesting idea and with a strong sound track, costumes, and settings. Whether you decide to see it or not depends on how you weigh the good and bad points I discuss here. Whichever way you decide, good luck!
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Who is Mary McGuckian and can we thank her enough?
Added 9/24/2009
(Well, she is the director of this wonderful film.)
I never thought to be able to see Thornton Wilder's novel realized adequately in my lifetime. That it has been done -- and very beautifully -- is a tribute not only to the many gifted artists who contrived it, but to the producers who paid for the attempt. Such men and women deserve medals.
The film is magnificent to look at, and the actors excellent. Some may be disenchanted by listening to these tremendously celebrated people in American POP art, with their so-famous American voices; voices which seem intrinsically wrong in an historical context, but all that can be resolved by listening to the film in Spanish.
Like the character in the story, Uncle Pio, I too am strongly attracted to women's beauty -- why bother otherwise with film -- and find to my delight that Pilar Lopez de Ayala who plays La Perichola is as beautiful as legend might wish, and in the same style as the magnificent Eva Green, whom she closely resembles.
Outside of that what need one say? The Bridge is magnificently costumed and was brilliantly mounted (in Spain) which evokes the vanished magnificence of old Lima. Interiors are astonishing, exteriors are wondrous. The story?
A man of sincere and orthodox faith attempts to use scientific methods to not only demonstrate the working of god's intent in a random, fatal accident involving many, but to justify his method. (Relapsed Roman Catholics may struggle not to fall to their knees and tear their hair. But...) The story is not facile, and though it is profound, it is not difficult. Rather, it is universal. It is a sublime story, and all I can do here, is encourage people to plunge into the experience, and then get out of the way, quickly, before making a fool of myself.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Book or movie?
Added 11/27/2008
Although I appreciate the great stars that were cast in this movie and the tremenous work done with tradional clothing and scenery several centuries ago it did not impress me as much as the book. I read The Bridge of San Luis Rey in my freshman year in high school and I never forgot the power of it - so I just had to see the movie. The ending of the movie is really well done, but the mid section was a bit boring. I would recommend you read the book if you have already seen the movie. It is much more full of moral values, faith and fate of mankind.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Brings back old memories.
Added 5/19/2008
Saw this Movie when it first came out. I was very young but have not forgotten it.Have'nt been able to find it on T.V. so when I saw it here Had to buy it.Very interesting story & Liked the way it was put together. Don't usually like Flashbacks but this was so very well done.Of course most of the actors have become very well known thru the years.Some of my favorites.I highly recommend it.Is one of my very favorites.I've been trying to find some of the pictures I saw as a child. Have found some. Now have a different insight to them because of my age I guess.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Boring movie, dull questioning...
Added 7/1/2007
The first boring movie I have ever seen Robert de Niro act in.
This movie has a star cast, but it never gets off the ground. It plods along till is comes to a whimpering end.
Probably because the novella it is based on, is actually (in spite of all the hype surrounding it) forgettable.
It seems the tale is told in order to do a post modernist sort of "unpacking" of events in order to arrive at some insight into either evil or the nature of randomness.
In other words, why did the bridge break and did those particular people fell to death. Did they deserve it, and so.
I was left with the puzzle why is this question only asked when a bridge collapse? I mean, why did the chicken die crossing the road?
The whole dull attempt at unraveling, however, is invalidated by the fact that never is the question asked why did the bridge ACTUALLY collapse - was it well maintained? Did a rope snap? Was it a new rope, etc.
Hell, maybe the man in charge of checking the rope was drunk?
Maybe the Lima people never actually did any maintenance on the bridge! Then it is of course not all that metaphysical...
Don't watch this movie. Rather go to sleep. Or read Dostoevsky.
2 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
