Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Excellent, a Must See

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Maybe the reason why I like this movie is mostly that I like the story "First Love" which the movie is based on. I can understand from another of the user comments that there is a lot of symbolism in the story. This symbolism is wasted on me. I have to see it as just a story. What I see then is a story about youth. Young people who follow their immediate emotions without giving much thought to the future. In the long term perspective we often make stupid choices when we act like that. I myself am not a very impulsive man, but I find myself attracted to people who are, unless they are so in a negative way. Is it not the force in emotions, especially big powerful emotions like love that make life so beautiful?The main character Vladimir falls in love with Zinaida. She likes him very much, but she doesn't love him. She likes toying with him and her other admirers, and their feelings make them her willing puppets. This is of course not very nice of her, but it seems to me that she doesn't give it much thought and that it is never her intention to hurt anyone, she is just an emotional and impulsive girl. And maybe part of what makes them love her is her impulsive nature. After some time it becomes clear to Vladimir that Zinaida has herself fallen in love. But who is it that she loves? And is her own human nature now taking revenge for her toying with the emotions of her admirers? Will Vladimir and Zinaida mature through their experiences?For those who thinks this story has no point I will say, that for me the point is simply to study human nature and to allow one self to feel with the characters. We don't always need a great plan to build the societies of the 21st century.I would like to make a negative comment also. There is a second story in this movie mixed in with the main story. A woman falls in love while her husband is away in the war, and of course this causes trouble. Maybe this story could have a movie of its own (?), but I think it shouldn't have been part of this movie, because the situation of the woman, her husband (if he lives), her child and her lover is far too serious to just pop up for a moment now and then as a side story.

This film under the title of "Lover's prayer" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen the film before, we decided to take a chance on it. Director Reverge Anselmo has adapted two short stories, by Ivan Turgenev and Anton Chekhov and has given it a beautiful production.Most of the comments one finds in this forum seem to have been submitted by fans of Kirsten Dunst and Nick Stahl, which in a way, is unfair to what Mr. Anselmo's was trying to achieve. This is a film that cries for an all British cast. Zinaida and Vladimir are played by two talented American stars, who are clearly out of their league in holding themselves against some of the best English actors of stage and screen. In fact, marketing the film and trying to capitalize on the well known faces, is the wrong approach.That said, the two stories are intertwined and offers us a view of how things were done in the period before the Russian revolution. We are given a situation here shows us a young woman, the daughter of a somewhat eccentric and vulgar princess, who is the center of attraction among the vacationing Muscovites because of her beauty. Zinaida, being loved by young Vladimir, is separated from her young lover because his mother sees the danger in a relationship that is clearly below the young man's situation in life.The film has an ironic twist at the end as the young lovers never get to consummate the passion they feel for one another. We watch in horror what fate Zinaida is facing and nothing has prepared us for that ultimate reality.Julie Walters and Geraldine James are excellent as the mothers of Zinaida and Vladimir, respectively. Nick Stahl and Kirsten Dunst do good work under the Mr. Anselmos's direction. It's clear both these actors are not classically trained to appear in this type of period drama. James Fox, Nathaniel Parker and the rest of the supporting players do a marvelous job.This film should be viewed by mature audiences. The beautiful photography of the Czech Republic countryside and the magnificent interiors add luster to the film.

This film is surprisingly appalling. Another reviewer states that he does not understand why no-one has claimed the screenplay, but I don't understand the lack of understanding; I can't imagine that anyone would willingly admit to writing this script - however, it seems the director has (and apparently based on Chekhov and Turgenev, no less.) Then again, it was also the director's decision to include the exposition filled voice-over. (***Possible spoiler, although not really a major plot development as the film does not really contain any***)We know that the voice-over is an older Vladimir, we can see the younger Vladimir (Nick Stahl) following the object of his attraction (Kirsten Dunst), so why does the voice-over tell us that Vladimir is following her?(***) The director should be banned from making films until he learns the rule; show don't tell - or at the very least do not show *and* tell, because that just insults your audience.There are many unintentionally comic moments and I admit to being so fascinated by the clumsiness of the story telling that I sat and watched the whole thing with morbid fascination.It is a shame as there are some fine actors in this film. Julie Walters is usually fantastic especially in the type of character that is required of her here, James Fox starred in one of my favourite films, and I honestly used to think that I would enjoy Nick Stahl in any role - he usually brings such pathos to his characters.I don't think that any actor could make the dialogue believable but it's sad that actors that I usually find believable and watchable are saddled with such clumsy writing and direction.

This film is very strange. It looks picturesque. It moves at the pace of a snail. It mimics great Russian epics such as "War and Peace", but no-one will take credit for the screenplay. Who wrote the story? Is it an original screenplay?Kirsten Dunst is a Russian Princess who collects a crowd of fawning sycophantic admirers who salivate over her every motion and jostle with each other for her favours. Nick Stall is the youngest and fawns the hardest. He discovers that his Dad is the one who is sampling the ladies intimate delights and tragedy looms. There is never any explicit revelation of exactly what everyone is doing and no confrontation or conflict. Consequently there is no excitement and the story struggles to hold the viewers attention.The period, incidentally, is mid 19th century Russia at the time of the Crimean War and not Britain as stated in the plot outline. Don't blame the British just because the film is slow and boring!Stahl looks such a twit in his ensign's uniform with a hat that is seven sizes too big.