User reviews

The picture is set in early 18th Century , Peru , during the old Inca empire , as it focuses a priest named Brother Juniper (Gabriel Byrne) who investigates a highly rope bridge that collapses in Lima (Peru) . The elevated bridge left five traveler people falling into deep and die at a fateful accident . The Catholic friar wants to know if it was mere existential or divine deed . As the Franciscano priest tries to discover if was a holy cause or a freak disaster . He'll survey lives and events of the deceased people . Thus , the lonely Marquesa (Kathy Bates) who is helped by an orphan (Adriana Dominguez) , a famous but ill-fated actress nicknamed La Penichola (Pilar Lopez De Ayala), and the uncle Pio (Harvey Keitel) . However , his investigation leads him to an Inquisition judgement , in a court run by the Viceroy of Peru (F. Murray Abraham) and as public prosecutor , the stubborn Archbishop (Robert De Niro). He is framed of heresy by the worldly Archbishop and is put on trial for his life .

The film is set in XVIII century , Peru , and based on the known novel by Thornton Wilder . Scenarios are impressive , but no the plot developing and it results to be confusing with some flaws and gaps ; besides , being slow-moving that makes it a little boring and tiring . Star-studded cast is top-of-the-range with known and famed actors but with a far-fetching storyline , as they appear acting with no sense . The film cast includes three Oscar winners and other nominated : Robert De Niro , F . Murray Abraham , Kathy Bates and Harvey Keitel . And some fine Spanish actresses as Pilar López De Ayala and Adriana Domínguez . However , the sets including palaces , cathedrals , churches , squares.. are mesmerizing ; furthermore , outdoors and landscapes are spectacular . Thus , the production design was realized by the prestigious Gil Parrondo (Academy Award winner for ¨Patton¨ and ¨Nicholas and Alexandra¨) . In addition , the brilliant and luxurious costume design was manufactured by Ivonne Blake (Oscar for ¨Doctor Zhivago¨ and ¨Nicholas and Alexandra¨) . The glimmer and shining cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe (The others) , being splendidly reflected on the marvelous landscapes of Peru (although it was shot in Málaga , Spain) . Lalo Schifrin score is sensitive and atmospheric with typical South American music . The film is based based on the best-seller novel by Thornton Wilder , being filmed previously by Rowland V. Lee in 1944 and another early version shot in 1929 and Allan Dwan planned to shot but the production company had let the rights expire . The motion picture was regularly directed by Mary McGukian . The film will appeal to costumer genre fans. Rating : Average but passable . this in 1960 .

None of the reviewers at this site or elsewhere have noted that there are four, not three, filmed versions of this unique and haunting novel.The fourth appeared on American television between October,l957,and January,l958. It was probably a Hallmark production ,obviously has never replayed,and is not listed in this data base.

This is all the more disconcerting as it is the only dramatized version(The silent version is unobtainable and exists in only one known copy)which in any way remained faithful to the spirit and much of the text of the original.Wilder's book calls to be read aloud and the three leading actresses in this particular production did everything possible with the essential sound values.

The key role of the Marquesa was taken by Judith Anderson(of "Medea" and "Hamlet" fame) and she literally almost breached the saving boundary between make believe and reality.Unlike the recent version there is nothing funny about this woman.Her daughter certainly does not visit her in Latin America.Like King Lear ,she has been exiled from Spain at her daughter's request.And not without good reason.The Marquesa is a terrifying and vicious old drunk who is positively guaranteed to disrupt any social occasion which she attends. On the other hand,in exile,and smashing bottles in the audience's collective face,she,the most terrifying of mothers,writes epistles on her genuinely frustrated love which will go down in the history of Spanish literature.Finally she meets a teenager who is

emotionally abused,and, as emotionally abusive, as the great lady herself;

and so the pair scream and claw till they eventually reach a truly loving accord.It seems both women now,for the only time in their lives,will have something to live for.But that entails first crossing the Bridge of San Luis Rey.

If we have any present day American actress,aside from Julie Harris,who could have recreated this part it is Kathy Bates.She must have jumped at the chance to do it.Unfortunately the incredibly uncomprehending adaptation defeats her.As it does the wonderfully gifted Polish brothers.They are literally left speechless.

Similarly the fifties version ended with a great hymn to love from the Mother Superior(played by Eva LaGallienne) to the broken actress (Vivica Lindfors)who has lost(half-driven) mentor,lover, and child to the abyss.The new version gives us anti-Catholic propaganda with the woefully miscast DeNiro and Byrne struggling with materials they were not born to enunciate.

Our catastrophe ridden neo-Babylonian society could use a good new production of "The Bridge" right now.Too bad that it didn't get it.If the fifties version still exists, may be this letter will be an incentive for someone to dig it from the archives. Lindfors,La Gallienne,Judith Anderson,you should be living at this hour.

This is one of my all time favourite books. I found it in our attic when I was 17 (some while ago) and devoured it in a sitting, finding it had that rare power to take one completely into it's world and make the real world a shadow around you. I found myself saying the beautiful, polished phrases out loud. They demand to be spoken. I've read periodically ever since. Thus, I was delighted when I heard a modern film was to be made of it with such a magnificent cast.

Oh dear though. The idea of putting the narrator's voice into different characters was a clever one and almost worked but it fell down at the end because of course no one who is actually involved is meant to see the invisible pattern of the lives. The acting is very disappointing from such able stars. The Perichole was far too Dresden shepherdess and not fiery or Latin enough. Robert de Niro was crashingly miscast as the Archbishop. He looked every inch a prelate if you wanted Richielieu or Mazarin but the Archbishop of Lima should be enormously fat, as physically corrupt as he is morally and certainly not an inqusitorial type. Furthermore he is an effete scholar and his lapidary lines should have been delivered that way. When I saw de Niro's name I confidently expected him to play Captain Alvarado where he would have excelled whereas that splendid character was underplayed and underused. the same might be said of Manuel and Esteban (why were they not allowed to speak?. Harvey Keitel was another miscast or at least misdirected. A character who loves the beauty of the Golden Age of Spanish Drama demands a frankly more classical delivery. The marvellous Cathy Bates was another disappointment, she should have looked older and crazier. The performance was very flat and lacking the eccentricities and slovenliness for which she was laughed at and condemned. The only two who approached the spirit of the novel were F Murray Abraham's Viceroy and Gabriel Byrne's sad friar.

The look of it was very pleasant. gorgeous costumes and settings although everything and everyone looked a bit too clean for that time. The music was good too but overall it was very disappointing. The woodeness, the throwing away of beautiful lines and tedium of it all must be laid squarely on bad writing and worse direction. Don't bother, read the book instead.

Now here is potential for a great, intellectually stimulating movie. Based on the book by Thornton Wilder, a respected American novelist, and exploring the philosophical problem of evil - namely, why did God permit the demise of five people in the collapse of the Bridge of San Luis Rey? The priest investigating the question, the Archbishop accusing his research findings as heresy, the cast of characters with their human strengths and failings; all of this could have made the movie a really rewarding watch. Instead, I fell asleep about two-thirds of the way through, only to wake up just before the end for the credits! I can hardly believe it myself, because I was definitely intrigued by the central question, but for me it was a frustrating, incomprehensible viewing experience with only the scenery, costumes and famous cast as its redeeming features. My disadvantage as a critic is that I haven't read the book, so I can't say if Wilder had done a better job exploring this crucial human issue. Certainly the film was a disappointment. When you want to know the meaning of life, the last thing you wish to be shown is a group of gallivanting fools and hysterics with whom you are unable to engage. At times it really felt like a baroque farce of some sort. Maybe I just didn't get it, but surely much more can be made of the problem of evil on screen. Two out of ten for the costumes, but I'm thinking of reading the book just to avoid nurturing the impression I was left with: that Thornton Wilder lacked substance.

It's true that there was great scenery and incredible costumes in this movie. However the casting was terrible and the storyline was nearly invisible. Casting Robert DeNiro as an arch bishop just doesn't fit especially in a period film like this. I don't know if it's his mannerisms or his speaking patterns but it didn't work. And Kathy Bates, while a great actress, didn't work for me either.

As for the story line - I had to read a summary of the novel to get what this movie was about. It was too hidden in the unclear dialog to be able to filter out. And I was really concentrating!

Overall I tend to really enjoy these types of films but not this one.

A cast of Oscar winners, based on a novel by Thornton Wilder...how could one go wrong? For starters, a script that sounded like gibberish had the actors spouting pages of dialog that sounded like they'd learned it phonetically.

Second, DeNiro must have done this because he needs the money, not because the work appealed to him. Even if he hadn't been phoning it in, his performance brought to mind that of Tony Curtis in Sparticus, "I yam a sing-ger of sawngs." Couldn't Oscar winner DeNiro spring for a few diction lessons to get rid of the accent? Harvey Keitel manage to suppress his accent more successfully, but whose idea was it to cast a couple of New York tough guy types as Peruvians?

This movie had potential, but it looked as if they put a reasonable sized production budget in the hands of people who became producers after successful careers in costume design and art direction. The costumes are beautiful and the film is handsomely shot. Unfortunately, they neglected to hire a screenwriter who could make sense of Wilder's very complex novel. The writer was just not up to the job. Maybe they ran out of money after all the beautiful sets and costumes had been assembled and just decided to have somebody's assistant crank out a script.

What a mess.

The Bridge of San Luis Rey, a film that held a minor theatrical release in 2005, spotlights an all star cast including Kathy Bates, F. Murray Abraham, Roberto DeNiro and Gabriel Byrne. Based on the novel by Thornton Wilder, it is the philosophical quest to find out whether or not our lives are decided by fate or by accident. The story takes place during the Colonial period of Spanish rule in Peru and this allows for grand scenery, art, and costume design that gives the film a very attractive look. The story is not so much based on plot and pace but rather a honest, timed look at the lives of the characters and their relationships with others. It reveals love in its many aspects. From Kathy Bates' Marquesa character seeking the love of her daughter, and Harvey Keitel parental love and affection for the actress "La Perichola" to the fraternal love of silent twin Indian brothers, and the love committed to God and society as portrayed by the nuns in the film. This is not a action, period piece but rather a sure handed viewing into the lives of the characters within an exquisite setting. This is a film that may not be accessible to most viewers. All in all a solid film with some lovely performances.

Grade: B

Greetings again from the darkness. Although I do understand why many grade the film so harshly, for a few reasons I did enjoy it. First, the cast is straight out a Woody Allen Movie. Stars include Robert Deniro, Kathy Bates, F Murray Abraham (all Oscar winners) and Harvey Keitel, Gabriel Byrne and Geraldine Chaplin. Second, relative newcomer Adriana Dominguez is a pleasure to watch as Pepita. Third, the challenge of following the story line and time line kept my brain working non-stop for two plus hours. Although the presentation is a bit convoluted, if a movie keeps me engaged for its entire duration, it has done something right.

The downside, other than the muddled script, was the lackluster performance of Deniro. Most of the time his scenes were straight out of Saturday Night Live - cue cards and all. Bates and Keitel, on the other hand, were mesmerizing.

Based of course on Thornton Wilder's 1929 novel (he also wrote "Our Town" and "Hello, Dolly!"), the film suffers from spotty direction by (relative unknown) Mary McGuckian. Visually the picture is terrific, but she obviously has no feel for story telling.

Flawed film worth seeing for the acting (other than Deniro) and interaction between the characters.

The movie has an excellent cast - a cast which precedes any mention of the film - which, I think, actually takes away from the movie. It makes us very difficult critics.

The Bridge over San Luis Rey is not a traditional drama. It is predominantly philosophical; the emotions in the novel and in this film are fleeting. When the characters fall in love, and when they die, we are very quickly drawn away from it. Life is fleeting. This is unlike most dramas where we are given plenty of time to reflect and consider. This movie can leave you behind, both with regard to plot details and these moments of attachment to the characters.

It may feel as though they tried to cram a whole array of interesting characters into a two-hour film. I think that they did, and this is how the story reads - to Brother Jupiter (the story's quasi-narrator) all the characters are "incidental" to him. His investigation (and yours, as a viewer) is to pry into their lives and the intimate details of their biographies. Other reviewers here have complained that the characters "seemed to appear and disappear;" I think this is intentional - Brother Jupiter only gets a vignette into the lives of these people, just as we only have small pieces of the lives of our friends. Have some sympathy, and these characters will truly seem alive.

The point is that this movie requires some effort to be enjoyed; you have to keep up with it. I think, however, that if you are willing to actively try and suspend disbelief and - just as if you were actually reading the novel - try to scry something more from the characters and plot, you will be well-rewarded. The film is remarkable in that it expresses the fact that this was, originally, a novel; I can't expect a novel to simply play itself out before me. This movie is an intellectual adventure.

The movie felt very much like a stage production. There are few attempts to match an accent appropriate to the time and place - which I find most forgivable; they are, after all, speaking English to begin with. The lines are delivered as though the actors were in a play - particularly de Niro's lines. This, too, can take away from one's ability to be easily immersed in the film's experience unless you make the effort.

No one can fault the ability of the director in creating a visually stunning film. The camera, though, was annoying from time to time, particularly in the opening and ending scenes.

The movie did a remarkable job of portraying the relationship between Manuel and Esteban; for having no lines whatsoever, the actors (who I have never seen before) were incredible. Kathy Bates, Harvey Keitel, and F. Murray Abraham are magnificent.

I was not so impressed with Robert de Niro and Gabriel Byrne. Whether this was due to their (difficult) characters, the director's failing to direct, or their own flaws as actors, I don't know. I do think that they were not given enough screen time - which is regrettable. I think that, given the privilege the writer and director had in having these actors, it would have been more than forgivable to take some liberties from the novel just to flesh out these characters and let these actors play for a bit more. Also, Captain Alvarado - though he certainly looks the part, is a bit over the top, in the few scenes he appears.

I don't understand the 1's that reviewers, here, have given this film. The movie is simply not _that_ bad, and I cannot see what possible reasons can bring such a negative conclusion out, other than that people cannot resist the opportunity to make pithy remarks about a movie in which the main characters fall off a bridge. Take such reviews with a grain of salt, and when you watch the movie, try a little.

Not having read the Thornton Wilder novel, it's hard to compare. There are flickers of good acting, but too many leaden (and unidiomatic) lines too, with the pot-pourri of today's in-your-face accents (none Spanish, none suggesting period Peru or Spain) and acting/speaking styles not heightening the illusion or the involvement. The theme of ambition, self-interest, exploitation, hypocrisy and injustice, together with uneasy (and unsuccessful) attempts to square it with faith and providence is handled well, though, probably thanks more to Wilder than to this film's too often clumsy attempts to evoke the period (nowhere more anomalous than in the acoustics: the lines spoken and the eclectic musical sound-track); visually it seems better (but hard to judge whether these effects are more faithful than the obviously off-base acoustics). Kathy Bates has her moments, as does Geraldine Chaplin (her accent less at odds with her role). The male leads are more memorable for some of their facial expressions than their too often awkward and anomalous lines. The younger parts (apart from the twins) are too thin to do much with, apart from the Perichole role, which seems to have been a missed opportunity to craft into something more memorable. -- Istvan Hesslein

Thornton Wilder's novel on which this movie is based, asks what is probably the most fundamental questions that nearly every human who has ever lived has struggled with at some point: why are we here, and why do we die? Are life and death random accidents, or does Someone have a plan for us? The questions can't possibly be solved; the answers can only be believed because they remain unproven.

This is the third attempt to make a film adaptation of Wilder's book, and each of those three have tried to impose answers on Wilder's questions, completely missing the point of the novel. Knowing that they are unanswerable, Wilder makes no attempt to answer his own questions, but instead reassures us that is enough to have lived and loved. Why then do those who wrote the scripts for these movie adaptations feel compelled to try answer the impossible questions? The 1944 version swaps, replaces, and re-writes Wilder's characters, putting "wrong" (ie, different) characters on the bridge, inventing entirely new characters at times, even introducing one victim about whom we learn nothing whatsoever. Then why put him there; did his life not matter as much as the others? Why change the story at all? This 2004 version attempts to find the "reason" that the bridge claimed the victims it did. It seems to want to point to one character in particular (I won't reveal which one) as being the influence that caused the five people to be on the bridge at the climactic moment, even though Wilder's novel makes no such suggestion. Indeed, Wilder's novel leaves us wondering Why? He didn't try to come up with a solution. This adaptation tries too hard and fails.

On the plus side, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the "mis-en-scene" of this version is beautiful. Some of the acting is good, some is embarrassing. It feels as if all the attention was given to the set dressing, the look and feel, and not much attention was paid to the actors or the script or the delivery of their lines. At times it seems they are acting in different movies, and nobody seems to be in charge.

The script meanders without focus, trying to fit the disparate lives into one cohesive, linear story. The novel does not do that; in fact, the novel avoids that approach entirely. There is a prologue, an epilogue, and in between, Wilder tells us three distinct stories, each one ending at the characters' arrival at the bridge. It is left up to us to decide if the three stories fit together or not, and if so, how?

Would it be too much to ask for a script that follows Wilder's structure?

A profound story and an extraordinary cast. But never have I been so disappointed. With actors like Abraham, Bates, Byrne, Chaplin, De Niro and Keitel, one would have expected a masterpiece, but the scenario writer and director seem to be amateurs (actually, it is the same person). The result is a very confusing storyline which does little justice to Thornton Wilder's masterpiece. If I had not read the book years ago, I would be very confused. However, I suspect that the reason for this film's disorganization is not the director, but the number, fourteen (14 !!!), of the people acting as producers in some capacity, all coming from three countries that have been at war against each other for the better part of four of the last five centuries. Avoid, unless you have just run out of pills for insomnia.

This film, despite the rep of the novel, was in Paris for exactly one week. Not that that is a description of the film.

My verdict is mixed. I did not dislike De Niro. He had a hard part to play. That of the overseas cleric.... far from the fanatical homeland ... trying desperately to stoke up his fervor, which may not have been there really.

I thought Kathy Bates was magnificent, playing the lady of letters exactly as i remembered it from my reading of this novel in the sixties....

The scenery, as magnificent as it was, was from the Malaga region of South Spain, hardly like the Himalayas.

What overwrought critics should remember is that this story is probably the last in a long series of such tales, From Chaucer to the Decameron, even to the recent film about the young Che Guevara finding himself on an epic voyage.

Although the story is very very interesting and different than other movies, although it has some very special things to give us, it has some problems with casting. First Robert De Niro, was not at all matching to his role. Also, the actor "Perichole", was not such a diva that should have been to create the atmosphere that such a play would really need.. Imagine this play with Monica Belluchi as Perichole and an other Archbishop, lets say Antony Hopkins! Kathy Bates was really VERY good and she saved the situation. I vote for this movie be played again with an improvement in the cast ( just the 2 above)... The story about the search on the deaths is something unsolved until today. The way that the poor protagonist and researcher is dying is not a phenomenon of the past, if you imagine what is happening today in modern research... This movie was good, even with these problems because offered things to the audience.

Books can be tough to film unless they are straightforward stories, as "The Godfather" or "Lonesome Dove". "The Bridge of San Luis Rey", besides being written in a gorgeous, simple, lyrical style, has an inner faucet of irony that drips nearly all the way through. We are looking into a world that we are allowed to feel above, but that we are gradually drawn into by the sufferings and humanity of the characters, till quiet thunder explodes in perhaps the most memorable closing lines in American Literature. That would not be easy to film. The first question a director must ask, narrative or no narrative?. To add narrative allows that overview that is irony but can detract from reality of the scenes reducing their emotional impact. To go without forces a more linear stream that loses that overview and is tricky, requiring balance and intuition to arrive at the ending with impact. I'm afraid the director lacked either quality, or was so intimidated by the star laden cast that she bowed to their wishes. At any rate the movie isn't much short of travesty, telling neither a fathomable story or creating a mythic quality that might have replaced it. It is splashy, disjointed, and incoherent. If you haven't read the book please don't judge it by this movie. "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is one of the finest works in the language. The movie, for all its good intentions, fails in just about every way of expressing what the book is about.

I was somewhat in doubt whether the movie was intended to be tragedy or comedy, historical or philosophical. Whatever, the actors obviously had fun dressing up and "play acting."

In any event, although I napped every now and then, this nicely filmed and acted, and very unusual film did have interesting moments, and I think I will watch it again. But my first response was to be intrigued by the name "Perichole." My Spanish dictionary drew a blank on "chole" so I suppose Wikipedia's article quoted in part below suggesting it is a derivative of "cholo" is accurate. The film does have the actress boasting that she was, at least in part, of Spanish blood.

However, I don't buy Wikipedia's claim that "perri" derives from "perro," although it might also fit the character. My Spanish dictionary has a slew of words beginning with "peri" but I thought the most applicable was the first entry which says:"1. A beautiful and beneficent fairy in Persian mythology."

Wikipedia suggests that Thornton Wilder lifted the basic characters from Micaela Villegas' tale:

"La Périchole's title character is based on Micaela Villegas (1748-1819), a beloved Peruvian entertainer and the famous mistress of Manuel de Amat y Juniet, Viceroy of Peru from 1761 to 1776. The name "La Périchole" is a French adaptation of a Spanish-language epithet by which Amat referred to Villegas: "La Perricholi" (the word derives from either perro, "dog," or perra, "bitch," and cholo, "of mixed blood")."

And the Tag line in IBMD's article on the 1944 film simply equates "perichole" with "Beautiful . . . Bewitching." Which convinces me that such was Villegas' intent. Puns are so interesting when one is naming characters.

Thorton Wilder's novel of ruminations about the quality of love and the extremes to which it can be played out is more of a philosophical meditation than a story and this is probably the reason many people feel upended by Mary McGuckian's film, a project she both adapted for the screen and directed. If this film seems a bit on the static side there is a reason: the tale is a testimony before court by Brother Juniper (Gabriel Byrne) about his investigation into the deaths of five people when the rope bridge of San Luis Rey outside Lima, Peru collapsed. Brother Juniper stands before the Archbishop of Peru (Robert De Niro) and the Viceroy of Peru (F. Murray Abraham) and poses the question as to whether the incident was an act of God or just a simple accident.

In order to present his case he has researched the lives of the five who died (mentioning those five would ruin the suspense of the story). We learn about The Marquesa (Kathy Bates) whose daughter has departed for Spain to marry well (the Marquesa is starving for the love of her estranged daughter); the kindhearted Abbess (Geraldine Chaplin) who gives refuge to the unwanted including identical twin men Manuel and Esteban (the mute Mark and Michael Polish) and Pepita (Adriana Domínguez). We also meet Uncle Pio (Harvey Keitel) who serves as a harlequin for the court and raises Camila Villegas AKA La Perichola (Pilar López de Ayala) who loves the stage and the accoutrements more than she loves Uncle Pio. Through the kindness of the Abbess, Pepita is loaned to the Marquesa's household as a surrogate daughter, the twins share their devotion to the court until a tragedy separates them, La Perichola is impregnated by the Viceroy and banned from the city (she raises her little boy, hiding from the world because of her post-partum smallpox disfigurement), and Uncle Pio eventually assumes responsibility of the child out of fatherly love. Five of these people who are true to love's power cross the fateful bridge. Brother Juniper is condemned by the Inquisition for his treason and the meaning of the story is revealed.

The cast is heavy on big names and while they make the most out of the stiff script, they never really touch us the way Wilder's novel characters did. But the trappings of the film are grand and accurately portrayed, the scenery is beautiful, and the costumes are some of the finest period costumes in many a film. This is one of those films that requires careful concentration from the audience, a willingness to not be disturbed by the at times static proscenium stage feeling of the setting, but the rewards of understanding the message are great. There are some fine performances here and the film is definitely worth seeing. It is more demanding than most films - and that is just fine! Grady Harp

Have you ever spoken with a person who relates a long drawn out event but seems more intent on throwing in reams of peripheral details and window dressing rather than coming to the point? Well this production does exactly that. Artistically and dramatically this film is sound and in some respects exemplary, however I constantly found my mind wandering as the scenes dragged on. In addition, the setting was flawed. The filth, squalor and disease that permeated Spanish colonies was largely hidden in favor of a squeaky clean environment of immaculate costumes, elaborate furnishings and polite and orderly peasantry.

Part of me was tempted to re-view the production to gain a heightened appreciation of the characters and their interaction but I quickly dismissed the thought, lest I fall asleep and miss something more gratifying.

One would have thought that it would be impossible to produce a poor film with such a star-studded cast, yet inexperienced Irish director Mary McGuckian manages to pull it off. And "poor" does not quite hit th mark, this film is almost criminal in the way these (brilliant) actors are squandered on a dull script with turgid pacing. I watched for the first half an hour trying to work out if it was a "Spinal Tap" type joke which I wasn't getting. There is beautiful scenery, there are beautiful costumes, there is some of the finest talent ever assembled on screen and yet...if you aren't weeping with boredom within twenty minutes you must have zen-like stamina. Avoid like a medieval plague.

the novel ? the movie ? both ! because each of them is a beautiful embroidery. the book is one of best works of Thorton Wilder. the film is impressive scene for an amazing cast. every actor is master of his lines. every character is a sumptuous gala clothes. only performers list is a show. but after the joy must born gratitude for director. Bridge of San Luis Rey is not exactly an adaptation. but a castle with guns, towers, corridors, secret rooms, dungeon, staircases, boudoirs and cells. one brick in wrong position is source of fall. so, essence is just good balance. and Mary McGuckian is really a master.for art of tension and detail. for image and costumes. for science to explore each actor art. for build an unique movie as gorgeous lily.