The Bridge of San Luis Rey Reviews

  • 1d ago

    I have no idea why the critics have panned this movie. The actors are great. The screenplay inventive. The costumes, the music are terrific. Production values are high. I enjoyed it, having just re-read the novel.

    I have no idea why the critics have panned this movie. The actors are great. The screenplay inventive. The costumes, the music are terrific. Production values are high. I enjoyed it, having just re-read the novel.

  • Nov 17, 2020

    Starry cast but strangely lacking energy; the plot of the novel doesn't help

    Starry cast but strangely lacking energy; the plot of the novel doesn't help

  • Jul 28, 2017

    El primer y tercer acto son grandiosos, pero el segundo, o sea el desarrollo de la historia, es tan aburrido que ya entiendo porque a nadie le gustó esta película. Algunas obras literarias son muy difíciles de adaptar.

    El primer y tercer acto son grandiosos, pero el segundo, o sea el desarrollo de la historia, es tan aburrido que ya entiendo porque a nadie le gustó esta película. Algunas obras literarias son muy difíciles de adaptar.

  • Sep 26, 2015

    one of my favorite movies, can't see why it got such bad reviews.

    one of my favorite movies, can't see why it got such bad reviews.

  • Oct 25, 2012

    Although the production design is lavish and often beautifully realized, the acting is wooden (although Abraham and De Niro bring some vitality to the proceedings), the direction amateurish, and the script's corny reverence for Wilder's overrated source material does not do either justice.

    Although the production design is lavish and often beautifully realized, the acting is wooden (although Abraham and De Niro bring some vitality to the proceedings), the direction amateurish, and the script's corny reverence for Wilder's overrated source material does not do either justice.

  • Aug 21, 2011

    The movie is more descriptive about certain time and environment (probably with not too accuracy, as although dressing is marvelous, it looks more France than a Spanish colony), but does not catch you with the characters or the story, which look only an excuse to show some characters and scenography. Between 2 and 2.5, as you can watch it and admire photography or secondary aspects, but not trusting in getting some interest.

    The movie is more descriptive about certain time and environment (probably with not too accuracy, as although dressing is marvelous, it looks more France than a Spanish colony), but does not catch you with the characters or the story, which look only an excuse to show some characters and scenography. Between 2 and 2.5, as you can watch it and admire photography or secondary aspects, but not trusting in getting some interest.

  • Aug 18, 2010

    Very good. One should read the book first, though.

    Very good. One should read the book first, though.

  • Jun 19, 2010

    It is very boring but the story is good

    It is very boring but the story is good

  • Nov 26, 2009

    the cinematography is lovely. the movie is stunningly dull.

    the cinematography is lovely. the movie is stunningly dull.

  • Sep 03, 2009

    "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" was one of the first novels I read in AP English during my junior year of high school, and thus, one of the first pieces of literature that I had to try to decipher as "literature," and not just "entertainment," as many novels prior had been consumed. I didn't enjoy the experience, and I hated the book. Who cares about these people? I just kept thinking. No one was remotely interesting, or evoked even the slightest emotion. Even at 15 or 16, I was thinking about a writer's responsibility to his audience; these characters felt like his props, his puppets (yes, I know that this is sort of the point in the "free will" argument), created simply so that he could maneuver them in whatever way he saw would work best for his arguments. So I watched the recent film version, hoping to be proved wrong, hoping to have my interest in Wilder's fiction reignited so that I might re-read the book with a fresh perspective. Um. This movie was just as wooden and uninspired as the book that I remembered. Even De Niro didn't quite seem sure what he was doing, why he was there; Gabriel Byrne evoked no sympathy, even as he was sentenced to death. Occasionally, the characters shout or raise their voices, but all I did during those moments was turn down the volume. "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is a dull production, and if I'm to believe that in any way captures the heart of the book, I'll never revisit Wilder.

    "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" was one of the first novels I read in AP English during my junior year of high school, and thus, one of the first pieces of literature that I had to try to decipher as "literature," and not just "entertainment," as many novels prior had been consumed. I didn't enjoy the experience, and I hated the book. Who cares about these people? I just kept thinking. No one was remotely interesting, or evoked even the slightest emotion. Even at 15 or 16, I was thinking about a writer's responsibility to his audience; these characters felt like his props, his puppets (yes, I know that this is sort of the point in the "free will" argument), created simply so that he could maneuver them in whatever way he saw would work best for his arguments. So I watched the recent film version, hoping to be proved wrong, hoping to have my interest in Wilder's fiction reignited so that I might re-read the book with a fresh perspective. Um. This movie was just as wooden and uninspired as the book that I remembered. Even De Niro didn't quite seem sure what he was doing, why he was there; Gabriel Byrne evoked no sympathy, even as he was sentenced to death. Occasionally, the characters shout or raise their voices, but all I did during those moments was turn down the volume. "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is a dull production, and if I'm to believe that in any way captures the heart of the book, I'll never revisit Wilder.