The Lovers (I) (2015) User Reviews

Nice score.

[dave355 · 4/10 · 3 March 2015]

The score is terrific, the scenery is gorgeous, the acting is mostly pretty good, and the story is... nonsensical.

There are two story timelines. The opening story timeline is set in the fairly near future, sometime later in the 21st century, with what appear to be Americans. But we spend very little time there. The main story timeline is 18th century India.

The backdrop of the main storyline, in India in 1778, was interesting and realistic, except that the British East India Company leaders were all hopelessly one-dimensional villains. The lead roles were well-played, the lead characters were sympathetic, and the story was drew me in.

But when you tell a great, big, long story, it ought to have a point. It ought to have something to do with the climax. This one left me wondering, "what was the point of all that?"

Plus, there was almost no meaningful connection between the two timelines. It just didn't make sense.

And the story made a promise that it didn't keep. At the beginning, we see an interesting artifact -- a ring -- in the wreck of a long- sunken ship. Someone with the initials "D.E." must have greatly valued it, we're told, because he or she drowned while clinging to the purse which contained that ring.

So, who was D.E., we wonder, and what was his story? The next scene takes us back in time, to 18th century India, and we settle back expecting to learn the story of D.E. and the ring. But we never do.

We do, indeed, hear a great long story -- but we never find out about D.E. and the ring, or how it got onto that shipwreck. That was very annoying.

And what's with the two names for this movie, anyhow? Is it called "The Lovers" or "Singularity?"

As Maxwell Smart would say, "missed it by THAT much." I'll be generous and give it a 4, mainly just because I liked the music.

Epic paranormal love story

[lealing · 6/10 · 1 June 2015]

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.

Good Idea, Lovely Locations, Absurd Dramatic Resolution

[danew13 · 5/10 · 16 February 2015]

I gave The Lovers a FIVE because I found it interesting if for nothing else but a look at the workings of the East India Company. Also the location filming was lovely.

The story deals with a golden double-ring set called The Lovers and two time periods, the near future and 18th Century India. I guess it also deals with the eternal nature of true love even though we never see how such love grows...rather shallow here. The premise of one love through time is not executed well.

It jumps back and forth in time but mainly is rooted in India where Josh Hartnett is a Scots officer in the British Army who keeps slipping in and out of his accent.

The film tries to implant a mystical air to the past and future characters who somehow will be linked through time, Cloud Atlas style. For me the weak point was Hartnett's character, a seasoned and intelligent officer, hypnotically walking off into the night alone right into enemy territory. That was the absurd part.

Also, we never learn how and why the rings were found at the bottom of the ocean. But I can't say film wasn't entertaining. It was...yet not very fulfilling.

The movie sank not the ship

[formatt2007 · 23 March 2015]

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? the whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.

Wonderful story gone bad

[pisica00 · 3/10 · 15 February 2015]

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.

Bad...bad...bad

[rae30123 · 2/10 · 14 February 2015]

An absolute waste of time. The storyline made no sense, the characters were very weak, and I didn't see the "love", for a movie entitled "The Lovers". The story could have played out better; there should have been an ending to the 1770's relationship, and how the ring got in the ocean and not to mention how the rings could have brought him back to life. Don't get me started on that 300 year old witch or ghost that had the second ring. The premise behind the rings should have had a different outcome whereas the soul of a present day living Tulaja should be his soul mate, not some dumb treasure chaser that acted like Gollum from Lord of the rings. I'm no playwright but this should never have been produced, are we that hard up for a good script that just about anything can get green-lighted. I am a fan of Josh's...or rather I was. He's been away for quite a while; he should have picked a better project for his second coming. I'll give him a second chance only because of his prior work. If the next one sucks too he'll hear it from me. Next time IFC Films wants to throw away 35 million dollars I'll play catch with them.

Emotion stays in the movie

[Horst_In_Translation · 4/10 · 6 April 2015]

Sadly, all the tragedy and drama in this 2015 movie did not really manage to escape the screen and really make me feel involved. "The Lovers" is Roland Joffé's newest work and I have to say I really enjoyed his "Killing Fields" and you may also have heard of or seen his film "The Mission". It's his first film in 4 years, but he turns 70 this year, so no surprise he's a bit on the slow side now, especially as he also wrote the script for "The Lovers" and it is only the third time in his long career that he has done so.

The central character is played by Josh Hartnett, once a big rising star, but by now disappeared a bit. Here he returns to the big screen and I saw he is also currently playing in the successful television series "Penny Dreadful". I've never been too big on him in the past, but here he is okay and his performance is certainly not one of the major flaws of this movie. Tamsin Egerton is one of Britain's rising stars, but this film will probably not propel her career any higher right now. It's basically a film about the clash of two worlds: on the one side we have marine scientists today and on the other we have ancient India. The cinematography and costumes are fine, but story-wise I never felt a really well-done significant connection between these two at any point during these 110 minutes. That's why I cannot recommend this film. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest taking a look at Ben Kingsley's "The Physician" from 2013. It's Persia ad not India, but I thought this was very well done.

Two women's efforts from two different timelines to save their loved one.

[Reno-Rangan · 5/10 · 4 December 2015]

It was in the pre-production for over a decade, before reshuffle and recasting happened with the existing one. It was supposed to be an Indo-Aussie joint production, but later the Belgium production company joined the project. After the several hurdles it managed to get completed. It was an Anglo-Indian historical romance-drama, during the British raj in India about betrayal, coup, revenge and a journey movie. Also simultaneously set in the modern world focusing an archaeological couple who discovers a lost ancient Indian jewel in a shipwreck. From there the story gets a perfect beginning, later moves back to India.

I don't understand what's with the Chinese music where the actual story take place in the 18th century India. It was so good and blends well, but that does define India or Indian culture while narrating its story. If you are not familiar with both Chinese and Indian musics, then it's not an issue at all. But that does not it, the names are Hindu and Indian soldiers with the Persian costumes, swords and other gadgets.

How the name 'Dragon's Throat' came to Indian geographical area and surname for the Indian characters in a wrong princely state. Like that, many stuffs make no sense, especially if you are from that part of the Earth. I think the research was very poor for making this movie. They should have hired an Indian musician and costume designer with an historian.

"Love has many faces, and one of them is jealousy."

The quality was top notch, the cast and their performances were excellent. But I could not stand for Bipasha Basu's facial expressions. She was always been in a sad face look, so depressing. That is the way her character was developed, so nothing wrong in her display. It was her international debut flick as well, and the launch was so disappointing. Because the story was very weak, maybe very silly. I have never seen the narration set in the ancient India other than in the Indian films. Quite amazing locations, and convinced with the visuals that how the 1700s' subcontinent would have looked like.

The major problem with this flick is that people can't get ending. How the time barrier was broken to pass through another timeline was never explained. The Hindu priest/saint/sadhu who blabbers about the space and time was a ridiculous than intellectual briefing. So this film owes lots of explanation to the viewers than entertaining them. I want to favour it, but I also want to be honest. The film was not like I was hoping for, very excited for the merge of historical subject with sci-fi, but did not stand tall. Thankfully, either it was not a bad movie of the year, I've seen even worse that I felt not to review. I won't recommend it, but there's a slim chance that you might like it, so choose it carefully.

5/10

Misscast and poorly written

[DavidMovieReview · 2/10 · 8 December 2016]

SPOILER ALERT - Not much of a spoiler, but I mention a life changing event for an unspecified character. ;)

I think that some viewers gave this a 3 out of 10 due to the scenery, but this was not supposed to be a travelogue. Some commented that they liked the music, but I felt it was a ripoff of the "Last Samurai." Hartnett and Basu had negligible chemistry together, but the writing was hollow throughout the film, so the shortcomings of the film cannot be blamed entirely on them. I felt Hartnett was the better actor by far. Basu, and more the director perhaps, try to evoke emotion through her by having her stare out into space over long periods of time that were almost excruciating to watch.

I don't believe I've ever watched a film in which a major character died, when I felt zero reaction beyond some disgust at the means of death. I suspect that is because I felt the character deserved to die at that point, as they were so awfully written. The lines uttered by the Indian guru at the end were cheesy. The relationship between Hartnett's American lover and him was never established, so it was impossible to connect with all the crying on her part.

The movie was a mishmash of British colonialism, which was extremely boring by the way, and the two relationships of a British soldier/sea explorer both lacking real connection. This movie is a masterpiece of boredom. I've seen much better Hallmark movies. This film should be watched only if you are already in severe pain, which can only be alleviated through distraction. Although it's not very distracting, come to think of it. It could ease your pain by putting you to sleep though, through a combination of mental and emotional boredom, beautiful scenery, and mournful music . ;)

Looking for closure may leave you wanting.

[carmenmarierivera · 7/10 · 13 June 2016]

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.

Hmmmm

[regas · 1/10 · 6 November 2015]

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I've seen thousands of movies and some really, really bad ones. However, I really don't think I've seen one this bad on so many levels. Hell I like some bad movies if they provide some kind of entertainment along the way. This one just lacks any kind of entertainment in any kind of shape or form. I won't get into the acting or photography - that's apparent. Neve Campbell was originally cast to play Laura Fennel but dropped out due to pregnancy. I'll bet she is saying to herself now, "THANK GOD I got pregnant!" I mean I am a man and right now I'd rather be pregnant that watching this movie...

The bad reviews for this movie are unfair

[fbustamp · 10/10 · 29 July 2018]

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.

Seven for Underlying Plot

[nikkijohnson-82861 · 7/10 · 23 October 2019]

The overall premise is interesting, but the way it's presented here falls short.

There are several aspects that we're left to put the pieces together ourselves such as the silver purse on the ship. We do see a shot containing the silver purse in the flashback, but there's no reference to a ship whatsoever. And it makes no sense at all for the rings to have been with any of those characters rather than staying with their true owner, Tulaja. Many of these little plot holes could have been remedied by one or two off-handed comments. Giving the future characters a bit more knowledge about the past individuals wouldn't have diminished the effect.

The biggest mistake are the lovers themselves. James and Kulaja made for a wonderful story. What is the point of watching him fall in love with a kind, intelligent beautiful woman only to lose her and be throw together with another woman? When he and Kulaja went through so much together, that's who we want to see overcome the obstacles and find the reward of happiness.

Kulaja was told that she would betray James, but there was no betrayal. She was brave and loyal and did everything she could to try to save him. She was used. And even her lie about not loving him wasn't a betrayal. It was an effort to save him. The only betrayal in the story was, Laura, the woman who followed her own ambition and nearly got him killed. He made the smart decision to go after the ring safely. She did something she knew he would never want, something ANY diver knows you never do, and she used him as an excuse to do what she wanted anyway. She didn't endanger herself to save his life or any other noble reason. She was being an impatient child only thinking about what she wanted. While Kulaja had risked everything for him and only thought of others.

Basically, while this is supposed to be an epic story about how love transcends time, I found it to be a tragedy.

For such cosmetically grand movie, The Lovers is unbearably bland

[quincytheodore · 3/10 · 19 July 2015]

In a way the movie reminds me of Jackie Chan's The Myth. Both follow the story of a researcher in a quest to find ancient artifact. Along the way his consciousness is mysteriously and magically transported across space and time. Thus, he relives the past life in awkward parallel perspective. It has all sorts of epic romance fantasy elements, all of them are merely skin deep, and most importantly it lacks any charm on the characters.

The main problem is the movie tries so hard to pack beautiful scenery, it sporadically shift sequences without establishing the character in any meaningful manner. First act alone sees myriad of subplots, it immediately enters a conspiracy, political and love banters. Note that it opens with two different timelines and stories, so when the movie introduces predicament so suddenly, it barely gives any sense of familiarity for the characters and audience probably wouldn't care much for them.

Writing is similar to astrology reading, fortune telling, or straight up fortune cookie gibberish. It wants to be a romantic lore, yet it sounds very pretentious with its "love conquers all" cliché. This ultimately ruins the characters as even though the cast is good, the material barely give them any depth or recognizable trait other than fantasy wannabes. The drive for relationship is simply absent.

It doesn't create momentum, and the drab pace continues, or even worsens towards the end. It's as though the vistas are the actual star and these people are the background. There are some good views here, it's clearly an above average production with costumes, intricate sets and occasional action scattered between. However, without amiable personalities, it becomes a boring escapade with cheap plastic romance.

Flair for aesthetic won't help much if the core human drama is overwhelmingly barren.

0 should be an option for rating

[semperfi1117 · 1/10 · 15 November 2019]

Worst movie EVER! First of all fire the musical director for adding the Asian music set in India. Josh stick to current times and fire your manager and hire Ben A's manager. I was so disappointed that 3/4 through I had to stop it on Netflix.

Confusing Film

[shannensama · 5/10 · 2 March 2017]

When I saw the cover and description on Netflix I thought this was a movie about a man who travels through time and is kind of two timing by having a lady in each time he travels between.

A little bit into the movie, after the main character ended up in a coma I realized he wasn't traveling in time but may have been dreaming the past (uncertain, the connection between the two times is never fully established). Is it a past life? The rings are supposed to reunite lovers but don't quite seem to live up to the challenge.

Most of the movie is immersed in the past time line, and though there is a lot of cutting back and forth near the end of the film, the future hardly gets any screen time and the only connections between the past and the present are the ring(s) and the main character (or his soul? assuming he doesn't just magically look just like the other guy). I kept watching it waiting for the connection to click and it just doesn't get there.

A lot of people commented in their reviews about not finding out who D.E. was, but I figured it was pretty obvious that it was Dolly Egerton (and her shiny metal purse), but there is no explanation as to how she ended up with the ring(s) (and it looks like she never made it to America). I finished the film kind of wondering what happened at the end. Did the ring magically restore the past version of his soul or pull him back to himself or what? How did Tulaja get it there? Why didn't it reunite her with him? It seems like he didn't need to be in the past for it to work or for Tulaja to be there. The movie was interesting, but the end was all jumbled up an nonsensical.

Also I was a little disappointed in Tulaja's warrior skills. She started off the movie strong, but then she got drugged. And she spends a lot of time away from her queen while traveling. And she was ambushed in the swamp and screams and flees and gets stabbed. And they tossed her stuff while she was escaping and she didn't notice. And they stole her ring while she was sleeping. And she didn't catch them in time. She went from prancing down the face of a building and trying to fight with an arrow in her shoulder to crashing into a bush during her stealthy sneak attack (assuming stealth must have been the reason she ditched the horse and followed them on foot). She seemed much more capable at the beginning.

The Lovers - A Review

[jonathanruano · 2/10 · 27 December 2015]

Writer-director Roland Joffe recreates two entirely different and breathtaking worlds: an underwater world with a ship-wreck and the British Raj. Yet despite the elegant cinematography, "The Lovers" was a terrible bore. The problem with this movie is not that the plot amounts to a preposterous love story, with the moral being that uniting two rings together will reunite two lovers. Rather, the chemistry between Jay Fennel (Josh Hartnett) and Laura Fennel (Tamsin Egerton) and James Stewart (Josh Hartnett) and Tulaia Naik (Bipasha Basu) was not believable at any level. As a result, I could not get involved in the lives of any of the film's characters.

Roland Joffe has made great films in the past, such as "The Killing Fields" (1984), but he has lost his way as a filmmaker since then. "The Lovers" sadly exemplifies the continued decline of this once greater director. Aside from the absence of compelling human stories, Joffe makes a number of other mistakes. There are intricate subplots about Indian princely rivalries and the British East India Company's political intrigues without any explanation as to why they are important to this movie. Instead, these subplots become loose ends, which proves that Joffe and the film editors are unable to organize the film's subject matter into a coherent and involving story. This movie also has more than a few action sequences, but they fail to generate any excitement or suspense because the characters who were in danger did not inspire much sympathy. The same holds true for many of the movie's smaller details, including Dolly's whisky drinking which seems strangely out of place. Apparently, there were significant delays over this movie's release because of editing difficulties. Yet having watching the final product, I think "The Lovers" is one of those movies that should not be released at all.

Did Josh Hartnett Need the money.......

[newcastle-98902 · 1/10 · 20 September 2016]

Really disappointed with this Josh Hartnett is a great actor and has been great in Penny Dreadful But this is not a film for him, Terrible story line and low budget ... How did the ring end up in a ship for start. Josh Hartnett must have signed for this very drunk at a party me thinks to do this when his acting skills are so better than a film like this. Please Josh don't put us through this again!!!! Lets have more Black Hawk Down and Penny Dreadful as he is totally better than this production lots of silly mistakes and why make it worse by trying to make him Scottish some people can pull off accents but he cant he sounded a cross between a posh Irish/ Scottish man, Who's idea was that? So overall very UN impressed... Not again please JH

Embarrassing

[Holli_Would · 1/10 · 12 November 2019]

An interesting premise, executed with awful acting (particularly Bipasha Basu), bad direction, a let down whether the characters were in the past or the future incarnations, and it was a case of repeat cringe-worthy scene after scene. After 30 minutes, we could no longer go on. hard pass!

Singularity or wholeness?

[adrianagliv · 7/10 · 2 August 2015]

This review is meant only to emphasize that current rate (4.5) is not at all fair in my opinion, and here are the reasons behind my statement: 1. Very good playing, all actors made me feel like the story was real. 2. Good plot, it may have been presented as rather being sci-fi but time factor in this movie is like the backbone of a living person: not in plain sight but yet it holds the whole body up, too much science would have been altering the story, which is beautiful by appearing as being simple, though not simple at all, the very end proves it. 3. It is, in my humble opinion, one of the most inspired attempts to capture the timeless feature of love. And it's supreme quality of being unconditional. Instead of conclusion, for those in search of a more scientific movie, challenging their minds with riddles and special effects I would suggest to look for something else since this one is about The Lovers (much more suggestive title) seeking to find peace beyond the limits of time. Tip: Watching this movie without expectations is the best way to enjoy it.

Unfathomable, ridiculous tosh

[stevelivesey67 · 2/10 · 4 May 2021]

2 stars for the lighting, cinematography and costume, the rest is garbage.

Nothing makes sense and there is no drama at all. Roland Joffe's direction is amateurish, Josh Hartnet's accent is laughable and the story and screenplay incoherent. $50 mill to make....someone got robbed.

Again I ask myself a simple question

[forster-80382 · 7/10 · 24 September 2016]

Why do humans go to movies? Perhaps to be film critics but the there is a critic for every phase of life it seems.

When I watch a movie I immerse myself in it while watching enjoying the effort

This creation has incredible music and scenery and while immersed I did enjoy it.

After I did think the linking of the two time lines was a bit weak, most likely the creation of the editing. Overall watch a movie not to be be Roger Ebert, that guy has not enjoyed a movie since he was diapers, but to enjoy the story let your mind fill in the blanks

There are an exceptional amount of critics and not enough individuals who enjoy a story

Turn off the world and enjoy this movie the short comings fade into the story

I did enjoy it and it will soon leave my memory because it is fantasy

The key word here is FANTASY its make believe something I do think many fail to notice ;)

So little water

[kostadinovagloria · 2/10 · 6 August 2022]

There's a Neapolitan saying that describes how bad this movie is perfectly: La aqua e pocca e a papera nun galeggia. There is so little water, not even a duck could swim.

A slight effort

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 27 July 2018]

TIME TRAVELLER is an unusual time travel type movie starring Josh Hartnett, ill at ease in a role which requires him to put on a British accent. The bizarre thing about this is that the present day story is merely a framing device that feels like it gets in the way of the main tale, a typical historical romance set in 18th century India. I think a straight-up historical story would have worked a lot better. As usual, the film suffers from heavy-handed scripting, presenting stereotypical British soldiers plundering their way through the Indian subcontinent and asking us to believe in a fierce warrior-woman who's more than a match for her male counterparts (yeah, right). The director isn't too bad but the story never goes very far, making this a slight effort.

It's the movie that sank, not the ship

[Multifocus · 3/10 · 18 November 2023]

I was surprised at the bad reviews when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting story line, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to save or kidnap the queen kept me glued to the screen. It was a thrilling roller coaster for about three-quarters of the film. The last quarter gave mixed messages, jumbled conclusions and added more loose ends. Where was the director, did he fall asleep? The whole story hinges on an underwater discovery of a sunken British ship. What ship? Who was on it? Who drowned? The last time we saw the rings they were in the hands of the two characters in 1778 in a forest in India. How did the rings get on a ship? Not by the dead character in the forest! The last quarter of the film simply sinks the movie.