The Dovekeepers

I saw the movie then read the book. Not the same. In the movie Shirah lives she is still pregnant when found by Roman soldiers. In the book she gives birth to her daughter and gives the baby to Yael. Her lover and father of her baby slits her throat and then kills him self. Yael in the book says at the end when found by Roman soldiers says she is Shirah. Was disappointed that more of the history that is told in the book wasn't mentioned in the movie. There is a lot of history here. A lot of terrible things happened to the Jewish people. I went to Isreal in 2007 and went up to Masada and visited Herod's fortress. Knowing something about the history helped in understanding the story. The book was a little confusing at times, but it was more interesting because of the history mentioned.

I read the book and loved it, I was hopeful for this adaptation to live up to the book... But no such luck. They left out one of the major characters entirely, one who actually narrates a 1/4 of the book, as well as many other important characters and events from the book. They didn't do justice to any of the characters' back-stories, leaving the viewers without any real understanding of the characters and their motivations. The book was a beautiful piece of historical fiction that told the story of strong, devout Jewish women and the things they did to survive the times and the conditions and the Roman siege. This miniseries was just a historically inaccurate soap opera.

I'm not typically into these types of movies, but I will watch anything with Cote De Pablo in it. I would literally watch a movie with her standing in place.

Having said that, she did a great job, and this was well worth watching. Beautiful scenery.

I too am part of the large group who think this made-for-TV movie is a disaster. I lasted longer than most, however. I actually watched all but the last hour of Part 2. Eventually, I couldn't take more of the same thing. It was beautifully filmed, but the acting was so wooden, the story so dull. What was with Cote de Pablo? Was her expression painted on? And I think it is Mido Hamada who has one of the most forced smiles I have ever seen. Showin' off new choppers, Mido? Finally, Sam Neill was so disappointing in this role. But the character is such a boring one to begin with. I shouldn't fault the actor with simply delivering what was given. I found the way the story was presented to be thoroughly confusing. I couldn't get interested in the characters, and the minute I started to "get" one of them, the plot switched to another character, and I was out in the dark once again. Now, don't get me wrong. I like an "adult" drama, maybe even verging on soap opera, but this one is a prime example of poorly written, acted, and directed schlock. At the start of the last "love in the cistern" scene, I actually broke out laughing. And in one of them, the continuity was so bad, I grimaced: the actors kept flipping from left to right side of each other with absolutely no transition or movement whatsoever. Was this supposed to be some artsy filming? Because it looked kind of deliberate, or I should say, blatant. Didn't work for me. What was the point?

This was trash. I only watched the first night. I kept thinking this must get better. Nope. I should have given up on it improving. The message night one sends was that it is okay to have sex with married men.

I couldn't even figure out what the main plot of the movie was supposed to be about.

I also didn't understand the supernatural aspect. Where these just dreams or a guilty conscious.

I have not read the book. One review said the movie does not reflect the book. I would like to hear from others that have read the book. I would be tempted to give the book a try.