Customer Reviews

Lover's Prayer [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I learned a valuable lesson this weekend: a good actor is not enough to save a bad movie. Following the success of Bring It On, there are a couple new releases featuring the formerly pint-sized vixin vampire. I suggest you avoid this one. Lover's Prayer is an adaptation of two Russian stories, "First Love," by Ivan Turgenev, and "The Peasant Woman," by Anton Chekhov. I am utterly confused as to why these two stories were thrown together. The story of the peasant woman is abandoned mid-way through the film, and it did not add anything to the plot or purpose of the film. The main story involves the twisted relationship between Vladimir (Nick Stahl) and Zinaida (Dunst). Zinaida moves into the house next door and proceeds to get all of the much older men in town to fall at her feet. She repeatedly bemoans the boyishness of Vladimir, despite the fact that she appears to be the exact same age. In general, Dunst is just too young for this role. All the older men fawning over her is borderline disgusting because they seem like pedophiles. Throughout the film you have no idea as to what motivates Zinaida. When you finally learn the identity of her lover, you are left with a distinct feeling of, "What? What's going on? How did this happen?" There is no explanation as to why she chose the lover she did, the viewer is just supposed to accept spoon-fed plot developments that have no link to the characters and no broad implications to the story. If there is supposed to be an insight into the plight of Russian women, this film fails miserably. The film would have been powerful if the viewer were given an insight into the inner sufferings of Zinaida. There was potential to show the relationship between Zinaida and her mother, the pressures of social status, and the seduction of a young woman. All of this potential is wasted on a disjointed, pointless, jumble of costumed gobbledy-gook. Avoid at all cost!

I am a fan of Kirsten Dunst but this certainly isn't one of her better movies. I wouldn't say this movie is terrible, it just isn't all that great. This is one of those movies you watch once and that is about it.

I liked the movie for the music and the costumes, I thought they were all great and nick stahl looked handsome as ever. As to the steaming pot and to answer some of the other reviewers answers about it. I think it had something to do with the cleansing of the well you know..........also it has been know to make the inside of a women.......hotter than normal temperature. I hope this helps any. I read a few historical novels and I had run across something like that.

This film credits as its source two Russian stories -- Ivan Turgenev's "First Love" and Anton Chekhov's "The Peasant Women" -- but the basic plot is based on the first one, a classic novella about a young boy Vladimir, who suffers growing pains during the short summer vacation in Russian countryside. The second story by Chekhov is used as a sub-plot about a man and woman and their illicit love.

Nick Stahl is Vladimir Petrovich, taking summer vacation with his parents in sunny Russian countryhouse, and to their neighborhood comes a girl Zinaida "Princess" Zasyekin and her mother. Vladimir instantly falls in love with this capricious girl, much elder than him, and starts to haunt the house where her mother, apparently down-at-heel, lives. The girl's innocent, comical flirt with other suitors, including Count and Doctor. continues until the day when Zinaida, Vladimir finds out, really falls in love with someone he doesn't know. But who is he? And what should he do?

The book's story about tormented love, which poisons the young heart, is barely visible in the film, but the result is simply deplorable, because of its too superficial treatment of the subject. The identity of the lover looks too abruptly revealed, that is one problem, but more annoying is that we are not convinced of the relations between these people. The book tells us about the tacit understanding and compassion between Vladimir and his father, but as the film fails to deliver that part, some of the viewers would not understand the painful experience of Vladimir at the end of the story.

As to actors, Nick Stahl cannot hold the center of our attention, lacking the emotional power those young boys of 16 yeads old should have, and Kirsten Dunst, despite her best efforts, is miscast as a Russian beauty who changes the life of males surrounding her. And when Julie Walters ("Billy Elliot" "Educating Rita" and Harry Potter series as Ron's mother) looks very irritating as old Princess, being too vulgar and noisy for the part, you can tell there is something wrong with the picture.

I think that the mishmash cast should be blamed -- some American, some British, all cast as Russian -- but more unaccountable decision is inclusion of Chekhov story. Well, the point may be that the sub-plot should introduce a broader scope of viewpoint into this rather simple story of Turgenev. One about aristocratic people, one working class people, both about doomed love. The idea is all right, but as other reviewers rightly say, the second story looks too ineffective and too short (it consists of only about 20 minutes), lacking the sense of closure. The original Chekhov story offers more to tell, but what is more important is that it looks too banal, stripped of the original's atomospheric descriptions.

I tried to like this, and there are some merits, I can say. The photography is beautiful, and costumes and production designs are done decently. But the film shows no finesse for conveying the subtle touch of the book about the lost dreams and youth, and the film's changed ending is too awful. Zinaida would not say that.

The main plot is a rendition of Turgenev's First Love, but one of Chekov's short story is added, I suspect, as a filler. I personally dislike Kirsten Dunst, but I must say that she is very good at her role as a sociopathic, genteel, tease (she even looks Slavic). To be sure, the acting all around is excellent, and the costumes and props are impeccable.

The plot begins with the arrival at a country house of an impoverished princess and her daughter; the mother is vulgar, her daughter is not. As the main title of Turgenev's story indicates it is about a young man's puppy love, and the cruel, crushing reality check that he ultimately receives. The movie, incidentally, does well in capturing the times during the 1800s (and late 1700s) when upper and middle class women were adept at having "salons," where they would be the center of attention and men would grovel before a woman in order to receive a kind word or gesture or attention from her. Thank God those days are gone.

There are a couple of additional scenes in the movie that were not in the book but are necessary in order to get closure in the movie and, in fact, add and not detract from the story.

"Based on the Story First Love by Ivan Turgenev" I really liked the movie better, but the book was ok. The reason I liked the movie better was there was one amazing line that was nowhere in the book, and it to me made the book make more sense even and I think the author of the script must have either seen something in the writing we missed or wanted to sweeten up the authors view of his first love, to make it more realistic. And with the dying line of his first love "when you write of me in your book, write me as you see me, not as I am" paraphrasing since I don't know exact line anymore, but it was best part of the movie, cuz it took the bad character and gave her a slight hint of bittersweet that made her sound as if she finally realized how much the guy before her really loved her and felt a little bad at least at the way she had disregarded him and left him behind.

The previous reviewers expressed confusion over the plot. If you've never read the books on which the film was based, you'd definitely be confused. I've read both and, still, there were parts that were confusing--like the part the previous reviewer mentioned concerning what Zinaida was doing with the steaming pot when he saw her and his father through the window. Very odd! This was NOT in either of the books!

Despite the confusion, the movie was okay enough. Certainly not the best movie ever made, and they DID abandon the "peasant" plot midway through, which, was indeed bizzare as well. I saw the movie on TV for free. Probably wouldn't buy it.

This movie was confusing
...

It's also hardly believable that grown men would sit around for hours playing kiddie games and squabbling like nursery school children over who got to "kiss her hand." Especially considering how concieted, rude and bossy she was.

The "peasant plot" ended abruptly in the middle of the movie, and was poorly done all along. Denis seemed unconvincing as a man in love, he seemed like a sneak, always spying on this woman. I swear I thought he was going to murder her when he was lurking around in the shadows. When he proclaims his love for her nobody cares, because we hardly know either one of them nor saw them interact previously. We never knew what happened to the woman, her poor husband, and Denis. Does the heartbroken husband leave? Does Denis kill him? Does the woman run away and leave them to duke it out? Who knows.

Sometimes the dialouge seems too modern and out of place for a period piece.

The ending is also horribly disturbing, ...

This movie is worthless because it lacks a clear plot. The ending makes no sense at all. Close to the end of the movie the boy discovers that his father was the lover of Zinaida. But what of it? Why was he? It is not explained. It is unclear what the point of the movie is supposed to be. It looks like there is not any point.

I think that the movie is much more deserving than the reviews on this page indicate. The love of the young boy for the princess was sensitive and well portrayed by both parties. The casting, the narration, the acting, photography, costuming all worked well to create, on balance, a beautiful movie. Not to everyone's taste, apparently, perhaps too sentimental, but much better than a lot of higher rated movies. Worth seeing.