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.

Stunning period drama set in decadent colonial Peru. It is all very confusing with continuity problems, but nevertheless a wonderful piece. But Kathy Bates as a Spanish aristocrat! please!!! Kept expecting Harvey Keitel to jump into a yellow cab any moment. Robert DiNiro as a Bishop .... what a disaster... who were the twins? what was that all about? The bridge scene is great though. I thought the art direction was impeccable and a great score. The DVD has some interesting behind the scenes views. All in all the set locations were well done all shot in Andalucia and southern Spain, all very authentic except that Kathy Bates comes blustering in straight off the set of Frazier trying so hard to be some how all Spanish, Catholic and Aristocratic (ie everything she is not) and blowing it completely

This is a great story, a beautiful movie, with great stars, a good direction, good photography, but a BAD edition. There are two reasons why I think the movie don't work as well as I wish. First: Language. I don't understand why a movie which is fully related to a Spanish/South American history wasn't recorded in Spanish!!! It is terrible to walk by lost regions of Peru without listening to any single word in Spanish. And second: Edition. The story is a philosophical discussion of faith. It has lots of different characters, with its specific stories told in parallel, with enough material for STRONG and UNFORGETTABLE 3 hours of artistic and contemplative (reflexive) art movie. But the director made an option for fast cutting and edition of the story to a "compact" and commercial format. The result is poor. And most important of all: The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I've seen in a movie for the last 10 years (at minimum). Lalo Schifrin is a great composer, an this is probably one of his best works. Does anyone knows if this soundtrack is available on CDs?

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.