The Lovers

It was in the pre-production for over a decade, before reshuffle and recasting happened with the existing one. It was supposed to be an Indo-Aussie joint production, but later the Belgium production company joined the project. After the several hurdles it managed to get completed. It was an Anglo-Indian historical romance-drama, during the British raj in India about betrayal, coup, revenge and a journey movie. Also simultaneously set in the modern world focusing an archaeological couple who discovers a lost ancient Indian jewel in a shipwreck. From there the story gets a perfect beginning, later moves back to India.

I don't understand what's with the Chinese music where the actual story take place in the 18th century India. It was so good and blends well, but that does define India or Indian culture while narrating its story. If you are not familiar with both Chinese and Indian musics, then it's not an issue at all. But that does not it, the names are Hindu and Indian soldiers with the Persian costumes, swords and other gadgets.

How the name 'Dragon's Throat' came to Indian geographical area and surname for the Indian characters in a wrong princely state. Like that, many stuffs make no sense, especially if you are from that part of the Earth. I think the research was very poor for making this movie. They should have hired an Indian musician and costume designer with an historian.

"Love has many faces, and one of them is jealousy."

The quality was top notch, the cast and their performances were excellent. But I could not stand for Bipasha Basu's facial expressions. She was always been in a sad face look, so depressing. That is the way her character was developed, so nothing wrong in her display. It was her international debut flick as well, and the launch was so disappointing. Because the story was very weak, maybe very silly. I have never seen the narration set in the ancient India other than in the Indian films. Quite amazing locations, and convinced with the visuals that how the 1700s' subcontinent would have looked like.

The major problem with this flick is that people can't get ending. How the time barrier was broken to pass through another timeline was never explained. The Hindu priest/saint/sadhu who blabbers about the space and time was a ridiculous than intellectual briefing. So this film owes lots of explanation to the viewers than entertaining them. I want to favour it, but I also want to be honest. The film was not like I was hoping for, very excited for the merge of historical subject with sci-fi, but did not stand tall. Thankfully, either it was not a bad movie of the year, I've seen even worse that I felt not to review. I won't recommend it, but there's a slim chance that you might like it, so choose it carefully.

5/10

I don't know how to describe it, how to put my finger on it, but it's pure and simply boring and it does not sink me into the story, it makes me want to fall asleep.

The story could have been good, but it was poorly execute. It feels broken, tangled in a silly way and the actors play is anything but credible. I started watching it 3 times and only got to the middle of it as I find it has no substance and nothing interesting.

Simply it is no "The mission" no "The fountain" no nothing I would want to watch to the end.

I give it 3 stars for the settings, landscapes and for the idea, nothing else.

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.

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.

Why do humans go to movies? Perhaps to be film critics but the there is a critic for every phase of life it seems.

When I watch a movie I immerse myself in it while watching enjoying the effort

This creation has incredible music and scenery and while immersed I did enjoy it.

After I did think the linking of the two time lines was a bit weak, most likely the creation of the editing. Overall watch a movie not to be be Roger Ebert, that guy has not enjoyed a movie since he was diapers, but to enjoy the story let your mind fill in the blanks

There are an exceptional amount of critics and not enough individuals who enjoy a story

Turn off the world and enjoy this movie the short comings fade into the story

I did enjoy it and it will soon leave my memory because it is fantasy

The key word here is FANTASY its make believe something I do think many fail to notice ;)