The Dovekeepers

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.

Really the only good thing about this film was the visuals. Everything else about it was just terrible. This movie was in essence a women's romance novel set during biblical times. The film hardly hold up to Judea/Christian values though. The two main women in the movie sleep with every man they meet. This is unacceptable in our time, but in this time in history they would have been killed for it. To add insult to injury they also practice witchcraft. No one ever seems to question any of this behavior though, and everyone acts like this is perfectly normal. I never did watch the second night. It was so terrible I could not bear another night of this trash. The characters are empty, and wooden. The men are all hunky (right off the cover of a romance novel). Do yourself a favor and skip this. Your brain will thank you for it.

The book the Dovekeepers was interesting with much information about history. The movie is only sex and left all the information out. Also, the movie is very disjointed. I recommended this movie to friends and was embarrassed. What a total disappointment. Where were the scenes of of the destruction of the Temple, the hazards of traveling across the desert, that the person they were talking to was Josephus the great Historian, that Masada was built by Herod, the importance of the dovekeeping and sending of messages, who were the Essenes,where were the fields and what did they grow, what was the Mikveh, the explanations of the rituals done by Shira and her methods of holistic healing, etc. Where was all the information that was given in the book. We know about sex and lust but not about the history that was provided in the book. This movie removed the essence of the book leaving nothing of interest.

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 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?