Pretty Good

People are voting emotionally.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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?

the novel ? the movie ? both ! because each of them is a beautiful embroidery. the book is one of best works of Thorton Wilder. the film is impressive scene for an amazing cast. every actor is master of his lines. every character is a sumptuous gala clothes. only performers list is a show. but after the joy must born gratitude for director. Bridge of San Luis Rey is not exactly an adaptation. but a castle with guns, towers, corridors, secret rooms, dungeon, staircases, boudoirs and cells. one brick in wrong position is source of fall. so, essence is just good balance. and Mary McGuckian is really a master.for art of tension and detail. for image and costumes. for science to explore each actor art. for build an unique movie as gorgeous lily.

Most films are about love but this one is about all kinds of love, how much we need it and how much we can misunderstand it. It's a very, very unusual film. I would think it would be for cinema lovers only but, as a matter of fact, everyone in the theater was touched by it. I live in a very small town and so I knew the people in the audience. As the film went on I thought some people would not understand it, because the edition is very, very original, so I was surprised that, not only everyone did understand but all were captivated by it. You get a sense of wonder and I believe the word for this film is: sublime. The relationship between love and death is clearly rendered. One of the best movies I have ever seen.

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. ****