DavidMovieReview 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 . ;)

formatt2007 I was surprised at the bad review when I started watching the film. A lot of effort went into this production, with good acting, an interesting storyline, time travel, adventure and history. The chase to ave 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.

dave355 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.

danew13 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.