Sorry, this movie sucks

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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?

One would have thought that it would be impossible to produce a poor film with such a star-studded cast, yet inexperienced Irish director Mary McGuckian manages to pull it off. And "poor" does not quite hit th mark, this film is almost criminal in the way these (brilliant) actors are squandered on a dull script with turgid pacing. I watched for the first half an hour trying to work out if it was a "Spinal Tap" type joke which I wasn't getting. There is beautiful scenery, there are beautiful costumes, there is some of the finest talent ever assembled on screen and yet...if you aren't weeping with boredom within twenty minutes you must have zen-like stamina. Avoid like a medieval plague.

Have you ever spoken with a person who relates a long drawn out event but seems more intent on throwing in reams of peripheral details and window dressing rather than coming to the point? Well this production does exactly that. Artistically and dramatically this film is sound and in some respects exemplary, however I constantly found my mind wandering as the scenes dragged on. In addition, the setting was flawed. The filth, squalor and disease that permeated Spanish colonies was largely hidden in favor of a squeaky clean environment of immaculate costumes, elaborate furnishings and polite and orderly peasantry.Part of me was tempted to re-view the production to gain a heightened appreciation of the characters and their interaction but I quickly dismissed the thought, lest I fall asleep and miss something more gratifying.

Although the story is very very interesting and different than other movies, although it has some very special things to give us, it has some problems with casting. First Robert De Niro, was not at all matching to his role. Also, the actor "Perichole", was not such a diva that should have been to create the atmosphere that such a play would really need.. Imagine this play with Monica Belluchi as Perichole and an other Archbishop, lets say Antony Hopkins! Kathy Bates was really VERY good and she saved the situation. I vote for this movie be played again with an improvement in the cast ( just the 2 above)... The story about the search on the deaths is something unsolved until today. The way that the poor protagonist and researcher is dying is not a phenomenon of the past, if you imagine what is happening today in modern research... This movie was good, even with these problems because offered things to the audience.