The Lovers

There's a Neapolitan saying that describes how bad this movie is perfectly: La aqua e pocca e a papera nun galeggia. There is so little water, not even a duck could swim.

This is essentially an epic love story which was supposed to have transcended time and space. Josh Hartnett plays dual characters: one as a diver/archaeologist type in the 21st Century and the second being a Scotsman working under the British colonials in the Indian subcontinent in the 17th Century. Tamsin Egerton plays his wife in the 21st Century and Bipasha Basu plays his love interest in 17th Century India.

Having read an interview by director Roland Joffé about the film, I was expecting much more involvement of quantum physics to be present in the film. Not necessarily the entire film to be explaining the theory but at least more play on parallel universe and different realities. I was expecting more sci-fi along the lines of the Source Code or Interstellar. Instead what we got was Titanic crossed with Bollywood.

If you are a sci-fi fan then you may be disappointed but if you are a romance fan then you may enjoy the film. Think Time Traveller's Wife, The Age of Adaline and other paranormal romances.

While researching on the Great Barrier Reef, Josh Hartnett is injured and rendered comatose. His wife, Tamsin Egerton, is distraught beyond words. But Hartnett is unaware of this. He is in a dream state in which he is an officer in the East India Company in the 18th Century. While his bosses are in a war to gain hegemony over the subcontinent, fighting goes on, and Hartnett and a woman fighter, Bipasha Basu, travel together and fall in love.

Roland Joffe directs, the visuals are superb, the actors are fully committed and up to their roles. And the script is a piece of romantic junk out of a bad romance novel, with a desperate attempt to give it some depth by reference to quantum entanglement that brings people together over the centuries. It doesn't work. It's shocking that Joffe, who has directed some great movies about the power of simple, decent emotions in the context of great and horrifying events, could have fallen for this. I suppose that's the problem with great artists. When they're right, they're magnificent. When they're wrong, they're horrifyingly bad. Here, Joffe was horrifyingly wrong and bad.

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? the whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added more loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? The whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.