Le pont du roi Saint-Louis

Thorton 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

The movie has an excellent cast - a cast which precedes any mention of the film - which, I think, actually takes away from the movie. It makes us very difficult critics.

The Bridge over San Luis Rey is not a traditional drama. It is predominantly philosophical; the emotions in the novel and in this film are fleeting. When the characters fall in love, and when they die, we are very quickly drawn away from it. Life is fleeting. This is unlike most dramas where we are given plenty of time to reflect and consider. This movie can leave you behind, both with regard to plot details and these moments of attachment to the characters.

It may feel as though they tried to cram a whole array of interesting characters into a two-hour film. I think that they did, and this is how the story reads - to Brother Jupiter (the story's quasi-narrator) all the characters are "incidental" to him. His investigation (and yours, as a viewer) is to pry into their lives and the intimate details of their biographies. Other reviewers here have complained that the characters "seemed to appear and disappear;" I think this is intentional - Brother Jupiter only gets a vignette into the lives of these people, just as we only have small pieces of the lives of our friends. Have some sympathy, and these characters will truly seem alive.

The point is that this movie requires some effort to be enjoyed; you have to keep up with it. I think, however, that if you are willing to actively try and suspend disbelief and - just as if you were actually reading the novel - try to scry something more from the characters and plot, you will be well-rewarded. The film is remarkable in that it expresses the fact that this was, originally, a novel; I can't expect a novel to simply play itself out before me. This movie is an intellectual adventure.

The movie felt very much like a stage production. There are few attempts to match an accent appropriate to the time and place - which I find most forgivable; they are, after all, speaking English to begin with. The lines are delivered as though the actors were in a play - particularly de Niro's lines. This, too, can take away from one's ability to be easily immersed in the film's experience unless you make the effort.

No one can fault the ability of the director in creating a visually stunning film. The camera, though, was annoying from time to time, particularly in the opening and ending scenes.

The movie did a remarkable job of portraying the relationship between Manuel and Esteban; for having no lines whatsoever, the actors (who I have never seen before) were incredible. Kathy Bates, Harvey Keitel, and F. Murray Abraham are magnificent.

I was not so impressed with Robert de Niro and Gabriel Byrne. Whether this was due to their (difficult) characters, the director's failing to direct, or their own flaws as actors, I don't know. I do think that they were not given enough screen time - which is regrettable. I think that, given the privilege the writer and director had in having these actors, it would have been more than forgivable to take some liberties from the novel just to flesh out these characters and let these actors play for a bit more. Also, Captain Alvarado - though he certainly looks the part, is a bit over the top, in the few scenes he appears.

I don't understand the 1's that reviewers, here, have given this film. The movie is simply not _that_ bad, and I cannot see what possible reasons can bring such a negative conclusion out, other than that people cannot resist the opportunity to make pithy remarks about a movie in which the main characters fall off a bridge. Take such reviews with a grain of salt, and when you watch the movie, try a little.

This is one of my all time favourite books. I found it in our attic when I was 17 (some while ago) and devoured it in a sitting, finding it had that rare power to take one completely into it's world and make the real world a shadow around you. I found myself saying the beautiful, polished phrases out loud. They demand to be spoken. I've read periodically ever since. Thus, I was delighted when I heard a modern film was to be made of it with such a magnificent cast.

Oh dear though. The idea of putting the narrator's voice into different characters was a clever one and almost worked but it fell down at the end because of course no one who is actually involved is meant to see the invisible pattern of the lives. The acting is very disappointing from such able stars. The Perichole was far too Dresden shepherdess and not fiery or Latin enough. Robert de Niro was crashingly miscast as the Archbishop. He looked every inch a prelate if you wanted Richielieu or Mazarin but the Archbishop of Lima should be enormously fat, as physically corrupt as he is morally and certainly not an inqusitorial type. Furthermore he is an effete scholar and his lapidary lines should have been delivered that way. When I saw de Niro's name I confidently expected him to play Captain Alvarado where he would have excelled whereas that splendid character was underplayed and underused. the same might be said of Manuel and Esteban (why were they not allowed to speak?. Harvey Keitel was another miscast or at least misdirected. A character who loves the beauty of the Golden Age of Spanish Drama demands a frankly more classical delivery. The marvellous Cathy Bates was another disappointment, she should have looked older and crazier. The performance was very flat and lacking the eccentricities and slovenliness for which she was laughed at and condemned. The only two who approached the spirit of the novel were F Murray Abraham's Viceroy and Gabriel Byrne's sad friar.

The look of it was very pleasant. gorgeous costumes and settings although everything and everyone looked a bit too clean for that time. The music was good too but overall it was very disappointing. The woodeness, the throwing away of beautiful lines and tedium of it all must be laid squarely on bad writing and worse direction. Don't bother, read the book instead.

Greetings again from the darkness. Although I do understand why many grade the film so harshly, for a few reasons I did enjoy it. First, the cast is straight out a Woody Allen Movie. Stars include Robert Deniro, Kathy Bates, F Murray Abraham (all Oscar winners) and Harvey Keitel, Gabriel Byrne and Geraldine Chaplin. Second, relative newcomer Adriana Dominguez is a pleasure to watch as Pepita. Third, the challenge of following the story line and time line kept my brain working non-stop for two plus hours. Although the presentation is a bit convoluted, if a movie keeps me engaged for its entire duration, it has done something right.

The downside, other than the muddled script, was the lackluster performance of Deniro. Most of the time his scenes were straight out of Saturday Night Live - cue cards and all. Bates and Keitel, on the other hand, were mesmerizing.

Based of course on Thornton Wilder's 1929 novel (he also wrote "Our Town" and "Hello, Dolly!"), the film suffers from spotty direction by (relative unknown) Mary McGuckian. Visually the picture is terrific, but she obviously has no feel for story telling.

Flawed film worth seeing for the acting (other than Deniro) and interaction between the characters.

The Bridge of San Luis Rey, a film that held a minor theatrical release in 2005, spotlights an all star cast including Kathy Bates, F. Murray Abraham, Roberto DeNiro and Gabriel Byrne. Based on the novel by Thornton Wilder, it is the philosophical quest to find out whether or not our lives are decided by fate or by accident. The story takes place during the Colonial period of Spanish rule in Peru and this allows for grand scenery, art, and costume design that gives the film a very attractive look. The story is not so much based on plot and pace but rather a honest, timed look at the lives of the characters and their relationships with others. It reveals love in its many aspects. From Kathy Bates' Marquesa character seeking the love of her daughter, and Harvey Keitel parental love and affection for the actress "La Perichola" to the fraternal love of silent twin Indian brothers, and the love committed to God and society as portrayed by the nuns in the film. This is not a action, period piece but rather a sure handed viewing into the lives of the characters within an exquisite setting. This is a film that may not be accessible to most viewers. All in all a solid film with some lovely performances.

Grade: B