fbustamp It really bugs me that some people trash this movie. Sure, it was not perfect, some things are not really explained, but all in all, it is a nice love story with some good action scenes, nice music and photography. If you like movies set in historical periods, with a fairly good love story in it, you will not regret watching this movie. I do not think it deserves a 10, I give it a 6, but I will rate it with a 10 because of the other unfair reviews.

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.

daciana dax I don't know how to describe it, how to put my finger on it, but it's pure and simply boring and it does not sink me into the story, it makes me want to fall asleep.The story could have been good, but it was poorly execute. It feels broken, tangled in a silly way and the actors play is anything but credible. I started watching it 3 times and only got to the middle of it as I find it has no substance and nothing interesting.Simply it is no "The mission" no "The fountain" no nothing I would want to watch to the end.I give it 3 stars for the settings, landscapes and for the idea, nothing else.