The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2005)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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.

Breathtakingly stultifying. I'm amazed the Principals could even get through the script reading. How do they decide to do such horribly boring movies? Harvey Keitel, what were you thinking ? Possibly a chick film, in which case my testosterone level has been decreased 10% for sitting through the first hour of this abysmal ego romp. Find this writer and drop him/her into the same chasm as the bridge fell into. How does one create 10 lines of claptrap to communicate how completely awful a film such as this might be? Yet try I must, to warn all my brothers that this movie can only be gotten through if you 1) are taking Estrogen therapy 2) have been de-nutted, 3) Are not even minimally heterosexual, 4)Are a big Kathy Bates fan. There .. 10 lines.

It is a well know fact that classic Books can become the foundation of a well rounded education. Read the book, absorb the knowledge and converse intelligent to other about them, and you will find yourself not only well read, but an erudite scholar. One such book for your edification is The Bridge of San Luis Rey. The book was Thornton Wilders' best work and earned him a Pulitizer Prize. When a great director takes a classic and ascribes to make a film, he must have all the ingredients for it. This novel, first hit the silver screen in 1928, with Henry Walthall, Lili Damita and Duncan Renaldo. It returned again in 1944 with Donald Woods and Joan Lorring. Result, a very good effort. I have seen each and yet the 2004 version is by far the best, perhaps due in part to the use of Technicolor. Adding to the newest version is the fantastic cast. This time, we have, F. Murray Abraham, who is devilishly duplicitous as the Viceroy of Peru. There is also Kathy Bates, who is marvelously convincing as The Marquesa. Geraldine Chaplin as The Abbess. Robert De Niro, plays the devil's disciple in both the political and religious arena as the Archbishop of Peru. Harvey Keitel is the sympathetic Uncle Pio. But the actor who steals the show is Gabriel Byrne who plays Brother Juniper. His rendition of the sympathetic, but tragic character is the stuff that warrants academy awards. With so much star power included is is difficult to understand why this film did not garner any. Nevertheless, the film is the best rendition of Wilders' book I've seen to date. It's worthy of viewing by any student in search of a true classic novel. ****