That was an excellent one.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

During the 1800's Britain, a somewhat younger boy finds love with a girl who, as a young princess, manipulates her older suitors. But he finds, instead, a game of deceit played by the most shocking suitors of all.Nick Stahl and Kirsten Dunst hold their own very well in this film. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of time pieces such as this, but once I gave the plot a chance (I had to re-start the movie twice), I found myself wanting to see the end of it and find out what happens to the main characters. Based on two other short stories, the two are combined by the director to keep one's interest, as long as they're in the mood for a film such as this.5 out of 10 stars.

In a world where so many films deal with chases and 'big bangs' this film is just beautiful and a welcome change. It is beautifully shot with some of the finest acting i have seen in a long while, but then what else would you expect from a this cast list? Kirsten Dunst is really very good as Zinida, and intriguing. However for me the finest performances come from the supporting cast, Julie Walters is as ever spot on, and Geraldine James is (as ever) fantastic as the wronged wife and protective mother, the scene where she confronts her husband (another brilliant performance from Nathaniel Parker) is one of the best acted scenes i have ever seen on film. True the story can at times be complex, but it is captivating and after watching it several times the more complex aspects become clearer. It could be said to be intelligent viewing - we're not just sponge fed everything there and then - and thats a welcome change too! A film where you may be required to think - it won't exactly kill you! Well worth watching, and whether you like it or not you do have to give credit where credit is due to the cinematography and acting in particular.

OK, to be honest this movie was pretty awful. The first sign that Lover's Prayer was going to be a loser was when I realized that the people who were supposed to be Russian were speaking with British accents. It moves at a painfully slow pace. Also, this director has a great cast of actors and yet they still end up sucking (though I personally don't blame the actors, I blame the director). Well, maybe "sucking" is too harsh, I thought Kirsten Dunst was pretty good.I found it impossible to take this movie seriously, in fact, I laughed throughout most of it. Even so, since I'm hopelessly in love with Nick Stahl, I have watched Lover's Prayer many times (for whatever reason it on TV a lot!) Sadly, most of the time I was laughing at him ****possible, but not really a spoiler****->(once again I am going to blame the director, with the stupid constant "older Vladimir" commentary!).In conclusion, if you love slow boring movies, or are in love with one of the actors in this movie, ****possible, but not really a spoiler****->(if its James Fox don't bother, it's only his voice, we never actually see him) or even if you enjoy a good laugh, Lover's Prayer is for you...otherwise, don't bother.

By far, the worst hunk of junk in which Kirsten Dunst has ever starred. The true challenge was trying to figure what the hell was the point of the film. And what happened to the woman with the hoe and the husband with one of everything (one eye, one arm, one leg, etc)?