Le pont du roi Saint-Louis

This is one of my all time favourite books. I found it in our attic when I was 17 (some while ago) and devoured it in a sitting, finding it had that rare power to take one completely into it's world and make the real world a shadow around you. I found myself saying the beautiful, polished phrases out loud. They demand to be spoken. I've read periodically ever since. Thus, I was delighted when I heard a modern film was to be made of it with such a magnificent cast.

Oh dear though. The idea of putting the narrator's voice into different characters was a clever one and almost worked but it fell down at the end because of course no one who is actually involved is meant to see the invisible pattern of the lives. The acting is very disappointing from such able stars. The Perichole was far too Dresden shepherdess and not fiery or Latin enough. Robert de Niro was crashingly miscast as the Archbishop. He looked every inch a prelate if you wanted Richielieu or Mazarin but the Archbishop of Lima should be enormously fat, as physically corrupt as he is morally and certainly not an inqusitorial type. Furthermore he is an effete scholar and his lapidary lines should have been delivered that way. When I saw de Niro's name I confidently expected him to play Captain Alvarado where he would have excelled whereas that splendid character was underplayed and underused. the same might be said of Manuel and Esteban (why were they not allowed to speak?. Harvey Keitel was another miscast or at least misdirected. A character who loves the beauty of the Golden Age of Spanish Drama demands a frankly more classical delivery. The marvellous Cathy Bates was another disappointment, she should have looked older and crazier. The performance was very flat and lacking the eccentricities and slovenliness for which she was laughed at and condemned. The only two who approached the spirit of the novel were F Murray Abraham's Viceroy and Gabriel Byrne's sad friar.

The look of it was very pleasant. gorgeous costumes and settings although everything and everyone looked a bit too clean for that time. The music was good too but overall it was very disappointing. The woodeness, the throwing away of beautiful lines and tedium of it all must be laid squarely on bad writing and worse direction. Don't bother, read the book instead.

The movie has an excellent cast - a cast which precedes any mention of the film - which, I think, actually takes away from the movie. It makes us very difficult critics.

The Bridge over San Luis Rey is not a traditional drama. It is predominantly philosophical; the emotions in the novel and in this film are fleeting. When the characters fall in love, and when they die, we are very quickly drawn away from it. Life is fleeting. This is unlike most dramas where we are given plenty of time to reflect and consider. This movie can leave you behind, both with regard to plot details and these moments of attachment to the characters.

It may feel as though they tried to cram a whole array of interesting characters into a two-hour film. I think that they did, and this is how the story reads - to Brother Jupiter (the story's quasi-narrator) all the characters are "incidental" to him. His investigation (and yours, as a viewer) is to pry into their lives and the intimate details of their biographies. Other reviewers here have complained that the characters "seemed to appear and disappear;" I think this is intentional - Brother Jupiter only gets a vignette into the lives of these people, just as we only have small pieces of the lives of our friends. Have some sympathy, and these characters will truly seem alive.

The point is that this movie requires some effort to be enjoyed; you have to keep up with it. I think, however, that if you are willing to actively try and suspend disbelief and - just as if you were actually reading the novel - try to scry something more from the characters and plot, you will be well-rewarded. The film is remarkable in that it expresses the fact that this was, originally, a novel; I can't expect a novel to simply play itself out before me. This movie is an intellectual adventure.

The movie felt very much like a stage production. There are few attempts to match an accent appropriate to the time and place - which I find most forgivable; they are, after all, speaking English to begin with. The lines are delivered as though the actors were in a play - particularly de Niro's lines. This, too, can take away from one's ability to be easily immersed in the film's experience unless you make the effort.

No one can fault the ability of the director in creating a visually stunning film. The camera, though, was annoying from time to time, particularly in the opening and ending scenes.

The movie did a remarkable job of portraying the relationship between Manuel and Esteban; for having no lines whatsoever, the actors (who I have never seen before) were incredible. Kathy Bates, Harvey Keitel, and F. Murray Abraham are magnificent.

I was not so impressed with Robert de Niro and Gabriel Byrne. Whether this was due to their (difficult) characters, the director's failing to direct, or their own flaws as actors, I don't know. I do think that they were not given enough screen time - which is regrettable. I think that, given the privilege the writer and director had in having these actors, it would have been more than forgivable to take some liberties from the novel just to flesh out these characters and let these actors play for a bit more. Also, Captain Alvarado - though he certainly looks the part, is a bit over the top, in the few scenes he appears.

I don't understand the 1's that reviewers, here, have given this film. The movie is simply not _that_ bad, and I cannot see what possible reasons can bring such a negative conclusion out, other than that people cannot resist the opportunity to make pithy remarks about a movie in which the main characters fall off a bridge. Take such reviews with a grain of salt, and when you watch the movie, try a little.

Greetings again from the darkness. Although I do understand why many grade the film so harshly, for a few reasons I did enjoy it. First, the cast is straight out a Woody Allen Movie. Stars include Robert Deniro, Kathy Bates, F Murray Abraham (all Oscar winners) and Harvey Keitel, Gabriel Byrne and Geraldine Chaplin. Second, relative newcomer Adriana Dominguez is a pleasure to watch as Pepita. Third, the challenge of following the story line and time line kept my brain working non-stop for two plus hours. Although the presentation is a bit convoluted, if a movie keeps me engaged for its entire duration, it has done something right.

The downside, other than the muddled script, was the lackluster performance of Deniro. Most of the time his scenes were straight out of Saturday Night Live - cue cards and all. Bates and Keitel, on the other hand, were mesmerizing.

Based of course on Thornton Wilder's 1929 novel (he also wrote "Our Town" and "Hello, Dolly!"), the film suffers from spotty direction by (relative unknown) Mary McGuckian. Visually the picture is terrific, but she obviously has no feel for story telling.

Flawed film worth seeing for the acting (other than Deniro) and interaction between the characters.

A profound story and an extraordinary cast. But never have I been so disappointed. With actors like Abraham, Bates, Byrne, Chaplin, De Niro and Keitel, one would have expected a masterpiece, but the scenario writer and director seem to be amateurs (actually, it is the same person). The result is a very confusing storyline which does little justice to Thornton Wilder's masterpiece. If I had not read the book years ago, I would be very confused. However, I suspect that the reason for this film's disorganization is not the director, but the number, fourteen (14 !!!), of the people acting as producers in some capacity, all coming from three countries that have been at war against each other for the better part of four of the last five centuries. Avoid, unless you have just run out of pills for insomnia.

Now here is potential for a great, intellectually stimulating movie. Based on the book by Thornton Wilder, a respected American novelist, and exploring the philosophical problem of evil - namely, why did God permit the demise of five people in the collapse of the Bridge of San Luis Rey? The priest investigating the question, the Archbishop accusing his research findings as heresy, the cast of characters with their human strengths and failings; all of this could have made the movie a really rewarding watch. Instead, I fell asleep about two-thirds of the way through, only to wake up just before the end for the credits! I can hardly believe it myself, because I was definitely intrigued by the central question, but for me it was a frustrating, incomprehensible viewing experience with only the scenery, costumes and famous cast as its redeeming features. My disadvantage as a critic is that I haven't read the book, so I can't say if Wilder had done a better job exploring this crucial human issue. Certainly the film was a disappointment. When you want to know the meaning of life, the last thing you wish to be shown is a group of gallivanting fools and hysterics with whom you are unable to engage. At times it really felt like a baroque farce of some sort. Maybe I just didn't get it, but surely much more can be made of the problem of evil on screen. Two out of ten for the costumes, but I'm thinking of reading the book just to avoid nurturing the impression I was left with: that Thornton Wilder lacked substance.