SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Carmen Vazquez First of all this film was beautifully done, it deserves the stars given. The music, the cinematography, and the acting were all done well (aside from a few minor and unnecessary scenes by supporting roles).The main disappointment with the story was the past and present coming together in a more fluid and fulfilling fashion. This is where the entire film seems to fault and lose a good deal of satisfaction. The story involves lovers in the past and lovers in the future. In the past the lovers only share a brief time together amidst much conflict. Their fate seems to be sealed from the beginning by visions of betrayal, death and a unique set of rings that intertwine into one ring. Many issues with the story arise in the transition of past to present and the meaning of the rings. Some questions seem to go unanswered if not viewed carefully. Having read some reviews it seems viewers overlook important details due to rapid scene changes and a constant search for significance. For example, it's easy to completely miss the explanation of how one half of the ring comes to rest at the bottom of the ocean in a metal snap purse with the initials D.E. engraved on it. The answer is actually mid story. The character named Dolly, played by Alice Englert, actually holds the purse in her hands while the camera quickly closes in for a brief closeup. There are the initials and the one hint that gets sadly overlooked because it seems unimportant at the time. But this hint is crucial for understanding how half of the ring is discovered in the future. There is also a bit of confusion regarding the rings. Initially they seem to relate to love that cannot be fulfilled due to the cursed nature of the visions shared by Tulaja, the lover from the past who is played by Bipasha Basu. At first the rings seem to betray the lovers. Later in the story the combined rings seem to bring good fortune due to their mystical powers which are never clearly explained. Granted in the end it seems the rings symbolize the complexity of love, at times difficult, binding and powerful. But the problem for most viewers may not be in the rings themselves or their meaning. The greatest conflict within the story seems to surround the fact that the characters played by Josh Hartnett both in the past and future don't end up loving the same woman. If the lovers were the same people throughout the entire time line the film may have received a better reception. As another reviewer mentioned, The Fountain (starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz), also explored a love across time. This story had a sense of closure and satisfaction because the lovers were the same in the past, present and future. The characters in that film came full circle. In The Lovers, they sadly do not reunite the way most wish them to. The female lover from the past appears in the distant future in a recognizable form only to give the other half of the ring to another woman who is in love with the possibly reincarnated version of her past lover. This creates a considerable amount of conflict. It leaves one wondering why one lover finds happiness and the other can't. Will he one day bring half of a ring to her future reincarnation to allow her the same happiness with another? One will never know. It's a very unselfish interpretation of love, which is why most people won't enjoy that outcome. Everyone wants the two lovers from the past to find each other in the end. That apparently wasn't the point. It's not hard to imagine that the writer's intention was to express that love, which can transcend time, will wait its turn. It's just not as satisfying for the general public who are used to two hour films with happy endings. This story bends the rules but it's done lovingly. Although I was left wanting closure I appreciated the attention to quality and wouldn't regard it a bad film because it didn't end the way I wanted it to. It was also nice to see Harnett again.

lealing 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.

danew13 I gave The Lovers a FIVE because I found it interesting if for nothing else but a look at the workings of the East India Company. Also the location filming was lovely.The story deals with a golden double-ring set called The Lovers and two time periods, the near future and 18th Century India. I guess it also deals with the eternal nature of true love even though we never see how such love grows...rather shallow here. The premise of one love through time is not executed well.It jumps back and forth in time but mainly is rooted in India where Josh Hartnett is a Scots officer in the British Army who keeps slipping in and out of his accent.The film tries to implant a mystical air to the past and future characters who somehow will be linked through time, Cloud Atlas style. For me the weak point was Hartnett's character, a seasoned and intelligent officer, hypnotically walking off into the night alone right into enemy territory. That was the absurd part. Also, we never learn how and why the rings were found at the bottom of the ocean. But I can't say film wasn't entertaining. It was...yet not very fulfilling.

rae30123 An absolute waste of time. The storyline made no sense, the characters were very weak, and I didn't see the "love", for a movie entitled "The Lovers". The story could have played out better; there should have been an ending to the 1770's relationship, and how the ring got in the ocean…and not to mention how the rings could have brought him back to life. Don't get me started on that 300 year old witch or ghost that had the second ring. The premise behind the rings should have had a different outcome whereas the soul of a present day living Tulaja should be his soul mate, not some dumb treasure chaser that acted like Gollum from Lord of the rings. I'm no playwright but this should never have been produced, are we that hard up for a good script that just about anything can get green-lighted. I am a fan of Josh's...or rather I was. He's been away for quite a while; he should have picked a better project for his second coming. I'll give him a second chance only because of his prior work. If the next one sucks too he'll hear it from me. Next time IFC Films wants to throw away 35 million dollars I'll play catch with them.