Watch Lover's Prayer For Free
Lover's Prayer
A younger boy falls in love with a tragic girl who flirts with, and manipulates, her older suitors in 1800s Russia.
Release : | 2001 |
Rating : | 4.8 |
Studio : | Seven Hills Pictures, |
Crew : | Art Department Assistant, Art Department Assistant, |
Cast : | Kirsten Dunst Nick Stahl Julie Walters Geraldine James Nathaniel Parker |
Genre : | Drama Romance |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Very disappointing...
Best movie ever!
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
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 the film based on an Ivan Turgenev ("First Love"), the college bound (Nick Stahl) is spending the last summer before he goes away to school outside Moscow, in the country. He soon becomes smitten with the neighbors' beautiful daughter, Zinaida (Kirsten Dunst). It's not long, though, before Vladimir realizes that he's just one member of a long line of suitors vying for Zinaida's heart---including his own father.At first I thought this movie would be something I would enjoy. I've always been a fool for a costume drama. However, the horrible dialogue makes this movie hard to watch. Generally, I love watching both Dunst and Stahl, but not in this movie. I applaud not forcing bad accents, but why did they bring in crusty British accents? I found this movie completely void of any real plot. I rented this movie in hopes of seeing a romance, and through the slow beginning I continued to watch the film in hopes that it would speed up. I found it irritating that the entire movie was narrated. Although, the narrative did provide most of the plot! The acting was OK, but the character's actions were silly to me. In the end, I would not recommend this movie to anyone,
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.
Yes, this is a period piece -- pre-WWI Russia, to be precise. I only caught the last third of the movie or so, but it was enough to captivate me. The characters were interesting; the music poignant, the scenery stunning. The acting is top-notch with the notable exception of Stahl, who never reflects the agonies and the ecstacies of growing up; he never lets the struggles of the character make their way to his countenance or his actions, and so appears as a painted-face marrionate simply reciting lines and moving about from place to place. The problem is that the retrospective English narrator is used in place of acting; while it's well done and appropriate, it is used to suture up the devestation caused by the poor acting of Stahl instead of complimenting him. But anyhow, enough on that topic. Again, it captivated me, and not many films can do that. Either there's too much trash, or the characters are stupid, unbelievable, or unheroic. This doesn't feel like a cheap Hollywood throwaway flick, and that has something to do with the source material -- Anton Chekov! There is a human warmth about it all and an artistry that is all too often abandoned in pursuit of a quick dollar. Now this isn't to say that this film is the best thing ever put on a reel. But it is enough to make me want to go watch the whole thing, and that is a rare thing.