The Bridge Of San Luis Rey Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Five Lives Bound By One Fate.
Five people are killed in a freak accident when a lofty rope bridge collapses. The film details a priest's journey to discover if there was a divine reason for the bloody disaster. Set in Lima, Peru, during the 18th century. Based on the Thornton Wilder novel, and first made in 1929.
| F. Murray Abraham | Viceroy of Peru |
| Kathy Bates | The Marquesa |
| Gabriel Byrne | Brother Juniper |
| Geraldine Chaplin | The Abbess |
| Robert De Niro | Archbishop of Peru |
| Émilie Dequenne | Doña Clara |
| Adriana Domínguez | Pepita |
| Harvey Keitel | Uncle Pio |
| Samuel Le Bihan | Dona Clara's Husband |
| Pilar López de Ayala | Camila Villegas (La Perichola) |
| John Lynch | Captain Alvarado |
| Dominique Pinon | His Excellency's Fop |
| Mark Polish | Manuel |
| Michael Polish | Esteban |
| Jim Sheridan | The King of Spain |
| Mary McGuckian |
4.90 out of 10 (851 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Chop off the 1st hour, and you have a classic
posted on 23 Feb 2009The first hour or so of this film is terribly boring and pointless. I understand that they wanted to develop the back story of each of the main characters, and the interrelations between them, but they drew it out way too much. If you are using an ensemble cast, you cannot devote so much time developing each one, as your would with a singular lead character. Storytelling has to actually move along the story, and in the first hour or so, this film fails to do so. My review of the first hour: Pretty costumes, elaborate sets, and veteran actors does not automatically make a film entertaining. I'd give the first hour a rating of 1 out of 10. *SPOILERS* The last 50 minutes or so (the box lists the run time as 120 minutes, but the credits start at 1:53) of this film are amazing. We really feel for the characters, as tragedies strike their lives, and moving moments abound, for example twin brothers being separated by death, a beautiful actress contracting a skin destroying disease, a mother realizing she has been totally pushed out of her beloved daughter's life, etc. The last 50 minutes or so are very entertaining. I would rate the second half of this film a 10 out of 10, a masterpiece of cinema and storytelling.Among all the big name veteran actors, I believe the best performances were given by the twins Michael and Mark polish, playing Esteban and Manuel. Also great performances by Geraldine Chaplin as the Abbess and Adrianna Dominguez as Pepita. Gabriel Byrne gave a great performance as Brother Juniper, but his best scenes were in the second half of the film. Also, Harvey Keitel playing Uncle Pio wasn't very good in the first half, but he gave a strong performance in the second half.I'd like to give this film a 7, because the second half was so strong, but I guess to be fair, if over half deserves a 1, and a little less than half deserves a 10, I should probably give it a 5.If you can get through the first hour or so, it is worth it to see the last 50 minutes or so. The first half will not interest you at all, but the second half will interest you a great deal.
Really , really, boring. Nice visuals, though.
posted on 08 Jan 2009No, it's not an action movie full of special effects, but it does look nice. All the costumes and the way people talk and the nice scenery and everything really immerse you into the atmosphere of those times. The problem with the times is that they are utterly boring!The cast: great people make out the cast, but DeNiro has a really small part, while Gabriel Byrne is merely a speaker. He is judged as doing the work of the devil and we all know that to be true in End of Days, but in this case the only bad thing he has done is question the plan of God.The story: the story has a very nice concept. Five people die suddenly in an accident. Since the place is relatively isolated and the people's lives rather public, one can investigate why God chose their death by using scientific methods. A bad part of the plan is that it's Inquisition time. OK, enough chit-chat. The idea is completely lost in a biography of all the characters that died in that accident and ends with absolutely no conclusion. It would have been hard to actually have a conclusion, but who in the right mind has the time in this time and age to watch two hours of biographical data without getting something in return?Conclusion: really boring. Just choose something else.
No way I would have liked this movie, even if...
posted on 15 Nov 2008... the inaccuracies weren't so crippling and blatant. There are movies where suspension of disbelief and glossing-over of inaccuracies is important. This is not one of those. You'd think that an author could have better researched basic historical facts in order to bring his point across.This movie is based on a period novel. As such, the author of the book should have done his research. It appears that he didn't. I cannot believe that in 1927, when the book was published, information about Perú's famous people and places wasn't widely available in other parts of the world. This smacks of another "Celestine Prophecy", however less juvenile and for-the-gullible than that particular narrative was.Perú has always been proud of its historical figures and places, and information about them has always been readily available, including correct spelling of names. "La Perichola" is fictional while "La Perricholi" is not. It does not surprise me that Hollywood would gloss over this and many other inaccuracies and still go ahead with this project (thrice, once in 1929, again in 1944 and now in 2004) disregarding the sensibilities of their audience, especially Peruvians.If you don't speak Spanish, you might be forgiven if you think that I am splitting hairs with nuances of spelling, but Spanish is a very precise language and if you don't spell things correctly, they mean something else entirely, especially when they are "close" to the real thing. Being "close" doesn't cut it.The real-life actress La Perricholi did have an affair with the Viceroy of Perú, Manuel Amat y Juniet, and she did bear him a son, but she never contracted a pox. Her name was not Camilla, but Micaela, and her son's name was Manuel Amat y Villegas, so he couldn't have been referred to as "Don Jaime", as he is in the story. Don Manuel, as he should have been referred to, did not die as a toddler falling off a bridge.Cluxambuqua is not a town in Perú, and the name of the fictional town in the story could have been chosen as something more Castilian- or Quechua-sounding. Instead it is made to sound Portuguese, Catalán or even Basque, which was never done in Perú, where Castilian influence was so prevalent.If you still think I am splitting hairs, read on.The sole mention of a trek from Lima "to the Atlantic, following an old Inca trail" made me cringe, as it is an impossible trek. (Wait... did he say "the Atlantic"?? I actually repeated the phrase. And yes, he did say the Atlantic, not the Pacific.) A trek?? To the Atlantic?? Whatever for?? Callao, in the Pacific, is a fine port to sail from! The Incas never ventured deep into the jungle, so trails do not exist. Unless one is a die-hard explorer, no one in their right mind would attempt such a trip, let alone in the eighteenth century. You would have to cross the Andes, which would have taken weeks if not months back then, and then cross through hundreds of miles of dense, treacherous jungle before you got to a navigable river. That party certainly wasn't a party of explorers.The Peruvians of the time (and even today) did not need to trek up to remote towns to do their pilgrimages. There were plenty of shrines in the city back in the late 18th century for famous local saints such as Santa Rosa or San Martín de Porres, so a trek to the Sierra wasn't needed. Granted, they may not have been sainted at the time, but Peruvians prayed to them anyway, since they knew they were on their way to sainthood. Such was (and still is) the local fervor.All of these errors are too much for me to gloss over, and have negatively colored my opinion about the movie. Even if I managed to set aside all the poison from these errors, I found that the only crucial point about the movie was letter LVI, the Marquesa's "letter of courage" that she herself writes when she realizes her need to start over, to move on. OK. So is that all? Frankly, I didn't find anything else of value in the story. Please note that the performances of all the actors were OK, but only within the confines of a deeply flawed story. They could have at least tried to film the story in Lima. Instead it was entirely filmed in Spain. The whole thing rang false.For all the era abuses of the Spanish Inquisition, I found it pointless to kick up an Inquisition trial over the conclusions of the biographer priest in his attempts to find a divine connection between the lives of the five victims. I never got a true sense of why the Inquisitor was so incensed about the conclusions. What were the details of the heresy charge? I heard the words and understood the argument, but I still wasn't convinced this merited an indictment by the Inquisition. I am sure somebody wanted a tortured narrator, so the priest was made into an Inquisition victim. To narrate abuses of arrogance by the aristocracy and the clergy in this particular manner was rather hard to swallow.It also begs the question, why was the priest commissioned to do the study in the first place? None of the characters were so important as to merit such a project. Not even the Marquesa, since the point was made that she was not a solid member of the aristocracy. It's not like the Pope or the King of Spain were among the victims.The attempt by the author (and the script writers) at connecting the lives of dissimilar characters as they culminate in a tragic moment was feeble and incoherent. For a much better treatment of human interconnections, and how they fare in a momentous event, I think that the movie "Crash (2004)" does a far, far better job.
Brilliant Movie
posted on 31 Aug 2008I thought the movie was brilliant. I got it right from the word go - it was outstanding in how they brought the message of whether God has a hand in everything or whether our own actions, not only on our behalf but in our reactions towards other people and free will set things in motion that then lead to tragedy (and if we change in our behaviour, could we save or is it destiny and God's Will that overrides whatever we do?)I think it helps to be Catholic with a keen interest in Church history. I can understand that otherwise one would perhaps struggle and end up playing a bit of catch up whilst watching the movie and that could lead to losing one or two important items of information. A better explanation in the beginning in some form would've helped I think.The actors were brilliant. Kathy Bates irritated me in just the right amount and yet one felt compassion for her. Harvey Keitel outstanding and Robert de Niro played the consummate political leading clergyman perfectly. Geraldine Chaplin hit a perfect note.As for the actual death scene, even though I knew how was going to die, it was still an immensely poignant moment and captured just everything perfectly. Gabriel Byrne's lilted narrative was just right. No judgement, nothing of that sort, but just a note of sadness. He wasn't burnt at the stake because he queried, he was burnt because he had found out too much (that's a personal opinion).I am out to find the book soonest.
Very period piece, almost Shakespearean 'play'
posted on 26 Jul 2008To enjoy this movie, you'd best like a heavy period piece of old world costumes and 'heavy' dialogue... it -is- interesting to see this group of actors doing this kind of film, a little 'stilted' initially, not their usual venues. DeNiro may feel a little out of context to some, but if you can make allowance, he still does a decent job... I didn't feel as comfortable with Kathy Bates' character. Harvey Keitel I thought also did well, and F. Murray Abraham a little too 'bubbly' but that -was- his character... everyone a little out of usual character. Overall, esp. at first, it feels more like a play, than a movie... with a hint of stage facades, rather than locations. If nothing else, I savored DeNiro's quote (something to the effect of) "The cessation of these meetings, I find good compensation for death". That one should be in this film's 'memorable quotes' section. This is a staged piece for the actors involved, but fun for them and some of us... probably much too slow for most, and rather simply summed up in the end... as perhaps a play would be.
Beautiful film
posted on 20 Jul 2008Putting aside the other comments I have read on this particular version, I liked it very much. Yes, some of the acting was not great, but the story itself was beautiful and well told. I remember reading the book in school and it follows very closely.The costumes and scenery of the era were well done and realistic. Harvey Keitel was especially poignant as Don Pio. Kathy Bates was a pitiful character who only wanted the love of her daughter, and it was good to see F Murray Abraham again. He has been too long from the screen. Don't cast this movie aside based upon reviews. Watch it and judge for yourself.
Fact versus faith
posted on 18 Jul 2008The story centres around an event that took place in Peru when five people crossing a rope bridge fell to their death. The question then arose.......Was it a chance happening OR was it an act of God? Brother Juniper a man of the cloth attacks the problem in a factual way by door knocking the friends and relatives of the victims and compiling a biography of each individual in the hope that all five may have something in common. When the resultant volume fell into the hands of the Spanish Inquisition, Brother Juniper was found guilty of heresy and subsequently burnt at the stake with all his books.Early in the story we see the swinging bridge high up above a treacherous looking ravine. It is quite ominous and frightening. I for one would never dare to cross it.Thornton Wilder's story of the five victims who for various reasons were in the party ready for the crossing is really heavy going. I watched the DVD a second time for a better understanding, but with no English sub-titles I missed a lot of the dialogue. Basically the film covers the cross examination of Brother Juniper's activities with flashbacks showing details of the lives of the victims. I am not sure if it was the script or the poor editing but I got terribly confused with the characters at times. Robert de Niro as the Catholic Archbishop was unrelentless in his pursuit of the confiscation of the observations recorded by Brother Juniper. The Church he said was built on steadfast faith on which Brother Juniper seemed to cast doubt and should therefore die..Costuming and sets were excellent. I found the linking of the scenes somewhat haphazard and consequently difficult to follow. The final scene in which the frayed ropes of the bridge finally give way is utterly terrifying as we watch the travelers drop to their death in the waters at the base of the ravine. We knew it was about to happen as the tight ropes begin to split and open but at what precise moment the bridge will snap keeps us on the edge of our seat. . I give an extra mark for this scene.Summing up, a good subject but needs to be retold in a more expert manner.
Bridge of San Luis Rey
posted on 02 Jun 2008Stunning 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
Love is the Bridge Between This Life and the Next
posted on 23 May 2008Thorton Wilder's novel of ruminations about the quality of love and the extremes to which it can be played out is more of a philosophical meditation than a story and this is probably the reason many people feel upended by Mary McGuckian's film, a project she both adapted for the screen and directed. If this film seems a bit on the static side there is a reason: the tale is a testimony before court by Brother Juniper (Gabriel Byrne) about his investigation into the deaths of five people when the rope bridge of San Luis Rey outside Lima, Peru collapsed. Brother Juniper stands before the Archbishop of Peru (Robert De Niro) and the Viceroy of Peru (F. Murray Abraham) and poses the question as to whether the incident was an act of God or just a simple accident.In order to present his case he has researched the lives of the five who died (mentioning those five would ruin the suspense of the story). We learn about The Marquesa (Kathy Bates) whose daughter has departed for Spain to marry well (the Marquesa is starving for the love of her estranged daughter); the kindhearted Abbess (Geraldine Chaplin) who gives refuge to the unwanted including identical twin men Manuel and Esteban (the mute Mark and Michael Polish) and Pepita (Adriana Domínguez). We also meet Uncle Pio (Harvey Keitel) who serves as a harlequin for the court and raises Camila Villegas AKA La Perichola (Pilar López de Ayala) who loves the stage and the accoutrements more than she loves Uncle Pio. Through the kindness of the Abbess, Pepita is loaned to the Marquesa's household as a surrogate daughter, the twins share their devotion to the court until a tragedy separates them, La Perichola is impregnated by the Viceroy and banned from the city (she raises her little boy, hiding from the world because of her post-partum smallpox disfigurement), and Uncle Pio eventually assumes responsibility of the child out of fatherly love. Five of these people who are true to love's power cross the fateful bridge. Brother Juniper is condemned by the Inquisition for his treason and the meaning of the story is revealed.The cast is heavy on big names and while they make the most out of the stiff script, they never really touch us the way Wilder's novel characters did. But the trappings of the film are grand and accurately portrayed, the scenery is beautiful, and the costumes are some of the finest period costumes in many a film. This is one of those films that requires careful concentration from the audience, a willingness to not be disturbed by the at times static proscenium stage feeling of the setting, but the rewards of understanding the message are great. There are some fine performances here and the film is definitely worth seeing. It is more demanding than most films - and that is just fine! Grady Harp
Dreadful waste of Talent
posted on 11 Apr 2008I must say that this film is a waste of really good American Actors and a good amount of photography being used.This film is an example of how American actors simply cannot play Spanish roles in a 16th century period film. also I must ad it was poorly directed and the most pathetic story ever written.In films like "Bridge on the River Kwai", "A Bridge too far" and "Force 10 from Navarone" Bridges play a vital role to the story. in the film, the Bridge barely ties into the Title or the storyline.Believe me, this film was a waste of effort from Robert DeNiro, Kathy Bates, Gabriel Byrne, Geraldine Chaplin and F, Murray Abraham.and seeing it will be a waste of your time.
Some good moments and impressions in an overall non-period pot-pourri
posted on 15 Feb 2008Not having read the Thornton Wilder novel, it's hard to compare. There are flickers of good acting, but too many leaden (and unidiomatic) lines too, with the pot-pourri of today's in-your-face accents (none Spanish, none suggesting period Peru or Spain) and acting/speaking styles not heightening the illusion or the involvement. The theme of ambition, self-interest, exploitation, hypocrisy and injustice, together with uneasy (and unsuccessful) attempts to square it with faith and providence is handled well, though, probably thanks more to Wilder than to this film's too often clumsy attempts to evoke the period (nowhere more anomalous than in the acoustics: the lines spoken and the eclectic musical sound-track); visually it seems better (but hard to judge whether these effects are more faithful than the obviously off-base acoustics). Kathy Bates has her moments, as does Geraldine Chaplin (her accent less at odds with her role). The male leads are more memorable for some of their facial expressions than their too often awkward and anomalous lines. The younger parts (apart from the twins) are too thin to do much with, apart from the Perichole role, which seems to have been a missed opportunity to craft into something more memorable. -- Istvan Hesslein
Not That Bad
posted on 14 Jan 2008This film, despite the rep of the novel, was in Paris for exactly one week. Not that that is a description of the film.My verdict is mixed. I did not dislike De Niro. He had a hard part to play. That of the overseas cleric.... far from the fanatical homeland ... trying desperately to stoke up his fervor, which may not have been there really.I thought Kathy Bates was magnificent, playing the lady of letters exactly as i remembered it from my reading of this novel in the sixties....The scenery, as magnificent as it was, was from the Malaga region of South Spain, hardly like the Himalayas.What overwrought critics should remember is that this story is probably the last in a long series of such tales, From Chaucer to the Decameron, even to the recent film about the young Che Guevara finding himself on an epic voyage.
A fate worse than death?
posted on 28 Oct 2007Falling like a stone to your death from a rickety rope bridge suspended high over a merciless gorge is not a lot of fun. Neither is watching The Bridge of San Luis Rey. If I had to make a choice between the two fates I would almost certainly take the rope bridge over sitting in a theatre subjecting myself to this film. Hurtling to your death is all over quickly, the other option is tortuously dragged out to the tune of melodramatic, in your face music and fluffy actors fed only ham for 6 months.Where this film really falls down though is the flaccid script housing the muddled and confused story, if I can call it that. At no point was I really sure what was happening, as characters seemed to appear and disappear amidst the aforementioned self-important rousing music. Someone lost the plot, if it was ever there. Traces were left behind, but not enough to make sense. I felt no empathy for any of the aforementioned characters, save for perhaps F.Murray Abraham, who was mildly entertaining.After the first 30 minutes I gave up trying to follow what was unfolding and tried to concentrate on the camera-work, costumes and scenery, which were extremely beautiful. This only heightened the tragedy. This film could have been a great film. Peru, the Spanish empire, vanity, religion and intrigue - all of these ingredients are extremely potent and framed in a great story and script could have been the stuff of a classic. That opportunity was passed up. Shame.It is obvious that the director has a great talent for visual scenarios and imagery, perhaps working in tandem with a 'story strong' executive producer would be the recipe for their future success. Otherwise, I think it's time to search for another career. The biscuit was finally taken at the 'burning' scene. This drew several bursts of laughter from around around the cinema. It was truly laughable.I don't want to dwell too long on Robert De Niro's role in this film, which I think was the professional equivalent of risking all traversing along a rickety rope bridge suspended high over a merciless gorge and falling 300 feet down the deep hole into a dark lagoon. Good for him he can walk on water.Everything else in this film drowns, and if the makers are lucky, without a trace.
True love in 17th century Peru.
posted on 06 Oct 2007I was somewhat in doubt whether the movie was intended to be tragedy or comedy, historical or philosophical. Whatever, the actors obviously had fun dressing up and "play acting." In any event, although I napped every now and then, this nicely filmed and acted, and very unusual film did have interesting moments, and I think I will watch it again. But my first response was to be intrigued by the name "Perichole." My Spanish dictionary drew a blank on "chole" so I suppose Wikipedia's article quoted in part below suggesting it is a derivative of "cholo" is accurate. The film does have the actress boasting that she was, at least in part, of Spanish blood. However, I don't buy Wikipedia's claim that "perri" derives from "perro," although it might also fit the character. My Spanish dictionary has a slew of words beginning with "peri" but I thought the most applicable was the first entry which says:"1. A beautiful and beneficent fairy in Persian mythology." Wikipedia suggests that Thornton Wilder lifted the basic characters from Micaela Villegas' tale: "La Périchole's title character is based on Micaela Villegas (1748-1819), a beloved Peruvian entertainer and the famous mistress of Manuel de Amat y Juniet, Viceroy of Peru from 1761 to 1776. The name "La Périchole" is a French adaptation of a Spanish-language epithet by which Amat referred to Villegas: "La Perricholi" (the word derives from either perro, "dog," or perra, "bitch," and cholo, "of mixed blood")."And the Tag line in IBMD's article on the 1944 film simply equates "perichole" with "Beautiful . . . Bewitching." Which convinces me that such was Villegas' intent. Puns are so interesting when one is naming characters.
Disappointing Adaptation
posted on 18 Sep 2007This was a disappointing adaptation of a very fine book. Robert deNiro seemed out of place as the Archbishop, a character which I don't recall from the book. There were many fine performances such as that of Harvey Keitel, Kathy Bates, and F. Murray Abraham, but what ruined the film for me was the addition of an Inquisition that did not occur in the book.The whole point of the book is that we cannot tell why bad things happen to good people. With the simple-minded Catholic bashing that was appended to this film, that message became distorted. (It is not, as the film suggests, heresy for Catholics to hold this view.) Better editing and a truer-to-the-book script could have saved this film, even with Robert deNiro as an archbishop. They managed to save the fine opening and ending of the book by putting them into the mouths of some of the characters (such as when the archbishop delivered the eulogy for the dead at the beginning of the film). But the addition of a biased perspective against Catholicism at the beginning of the film ruined this for me. When they burned the monk at the end, I reached to the floor and felt a distinct vibration: Thornton Wilder was spinning in his grave.
Haunted me...
posted on 29 Aug 2007I loved this movie. I did have to watch it twice in order to follow all the names and details. I had a hard time believing Kathy Bates as a Spanish Dona, and found Robert DeNiro's role as a Spanish archbishop also very odd. But that didn't keep me from enjoying it. It left me with a strange sense of awareness at how our lives are all intertwined in one way or another. The music to it stuck with me for days. There was also something about the time and period that grabbed me and stuck in my heart, 'though I don't know why. Call me wimpy or whatever, but I sat there and thought about it for a long time after it was over, and then I cried. I'd watch it again and again if I had the DVD (I rented it).
Movie intrigued me enough to want to read the book...
posted on 11 Aug 2007The movie intrigued me. I would like to read the book so I found out more about the novel. Thornton Wilder wrote the novel to explore the question of "Is there a direction and meaning in lives beyond the individual's own will?". The priest searches for this answer by writing the book about the lives of the five who died on the bridge. As always the Archbishop calls the book heresy because it questions God's will. You as the observer of these lives must decide the answer yourself. I would have liked the movie to show more of the questioning of the priest by the Archbishop. How the lives of the five people crossed paths before the accident had convinced me that it was a real story.
My husband and I were still asking each other what the movie was going on 3/4 of the way through!
posted on 01 Aug 2007It's true that there was great scenery and incredible costumes in this movie. However the casting was terrible and the storyline was nearly invisible. Casting Robert DeNiro as an arch bishop just doesn't fit especially in a period film like this. I don't know if it's his mannerisms or his speaking patterns but it didn't work. And Kathy Bates, while a great actress, didn't work for me either.As for the story line - I had to read a summary of the novel to get what this movie was about. It was too hidden in the unclear dialog to be able to filter out. And I was really concentrating!Overall I tend to really enjoy these types of films but not this one.
Beautifully costumed, dreadfully miscast
posted on 24 Jun 2007A cast of Oscar winners, based on a novel by Thornton Wilder...how could one go wrong? For starters, a script that sounded like gibberish had the actors spouting pages of dialog that sounded like they'd learned it phonetically.Second, DeNiro must have done this because he needs the money, not because the work appealed to him. Even if he hadn't been phoning it in, his performance brought to mind that of Tony Curtis in Sparticus, "I yam a sing-ger of sawngs." Couldn't Oscar winner DeNiro spring for a few diction lessons to get rid of the accent? Harvey Keitel manage to suppress his accent more successfully, but whose idea was it to cast a couple of New York tough guy types as Peruvians? This movie had potential, but it looked as if they put a reasonable sized production budget in the hands of people who became producers after successful careers in costume design and art direction. The costumes are beautiful and the film is handsomely shot. Unfortunately, they neglected to hire a screenwriter who could make sense of Wilder's very complex novel. The writer was just not up to the job. Maybe they ran out of money after all the beautiful sets and costumes had been assembled and just decided to have somebody's assistant crank out a script.What a mess.
Incredible soundtrack by Lalo Schifrin
posted on 20 Apr 2009This is a great story, a beautiful movie, with great stars, a good direction, good photography, but a BAD edition. There are two reasons why I think the movie don't work as well as I wish. First: Language. I don't understand why a movie which is fully related to a Spanish/South American history wasn't recorded in Spanish!!! It is terrible to walk by lost regions of Peru without listening to any single word in Spanish. And second: Edition. The story is a philosophical discussion of faith. It has lots of different characters, with its specific stories told in parallel, with enough material for STRONG and UNFORGETTABLE 3 hours of artistic and contemplative (reflexive) art movie. But the director made an option for fast cutting and edition of the story to a "compact" and commercial format. The result is poor. And most important of all: The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I've seen in a movie for the last 10 years (at minimum). Lalo Schifrin is a great composer, an this is probably one of his best works. Does anyone knows if this soundtrack is available on CDs?