What started as a religious tale rapidly disintegrated into sin of commission. Filmed in the English countryside where the weather is infinitely damp and dreary. Oscar Hopkins grows up into a tainted Anglican priest who met his fate on a floating church. The rivers there are so narrow a healthy boy could jump from one bank to another.

Grown and in higher education, he became involved in gambling as an off-shoot of his wild influencial friends who enjoyed corrupting him, like Justin. He became a pathological gambler. Some of the tale was hard to understand as those Australians talk funnier than the British. Cate Blanchett, an American, portrayed the grown Lucinda as an innocent manueverer who met Oscar on the boat and confessed to him as a priest, about her fascination to play dice and cards. He understood her fascination as he too bet on the horses, like Mark. Her love, another priest, does not believe in the virgin birth, nor do I. It takes a man not a spirit. He married someone else.

Lucinda's orange cat matched her hair color -- and Oscar's. Fate and gambling brought them together in an uncouth and wild gambling hall. Oscar was as mannerly and cautious as Mark. "She is my guest, Mrs. Journey." He even laughs like Mark. "You may leave the way you came." She follows after him and unashamedly pursues him with no let=up, even as he prays in church. "I gambled for a purpose -- there was no sin. We have a history." She is heartless but playful, good for him as they laugh together.

He is fascinated and envisions a church made of glass. "I shall be here until the end; I have much to do." He is an extraordinary chap. Back-biting by unscrupulous managers left him with Mark's tossled hair. The floating church was a glory to behold. And it ended up as a submerged tomb.

I watched this again recently having last seen in on VHS some years ago. What was an excellent film then is even better now, particularly the sound which is a revelation where the tinking glass is concerned.

The technique of using a narrator does not always work but is it is most apt, and in particular at the end. One leaves after watching this film much as one does after a gourmet meal...extremely satisfied with what you have consumed but not wishing to eat another morsel and yet this continues over time so that you do not feel the need to return.

I was transfixed throughout by the "action" within the film. There is certainly much to think about or to delve into afterwards to get the entire picture. The story seems to be without any obvious flaws and the casting is superb with the main players clearly complemetary to each other and the cinematography is superb.

One thing that I had not paid too much attention to during my first viewing was the appalling and barbaric treatment of the indigenous population. Clearly the scene of the massacre is a solitary tale of man's inhumanity to man but the subsequent scene of the abuse of the aboriginal woman in the inn is a more subtle but nevertheless graphic reminder of the way in which settlers have behaved throughout the world. This point carries with it greater poignancy given the recent apology without compensation by the new Australian Prime Minister to the indigenous people for past abuses such as described above.

All in all a feat for the eyes despite the sad and tragic ending clearly reminiscent of the conclusion of Breaking the Waves.

While it's true what other reviewers said about it being "slow moving at times" and "not for everyone", if you like a good story - happy and tragic - and beautiful (and sensous) cinematography, costuming, sets and an excellent soundtrack - this may be for you!
The product description says their lives are forever changed by their meeting - but this is far too simple and not true. The story of the changes in each of their lives (before they even meet) already has you gripped in fascination by the time they finally meet together. Throughout, the story takes many turns.
Even though it is not completely a happy ending, it is ultimately sweet and satisfying.
I don't see any special features listed on the DVD (I own an old videotape). I would love to hear what the makers of the movie have to say about the making of this film.

This is one of the lovliest movies I have ever seen. Part of the pleasure comes from the gorgeous actors (Cate Slanchett is a stunning brunette in this movie), costumes and scenery; the other part from the narrator's soothing voice, which takes the onus off the watcher and lays out details that a less gentle movie would make the watcher work for by inference. Perhaps others may dislike the narration (akin to the children's movie "Babe" in its fairytale cadence); I found that it brilliantly fleshed out the characters of Oscar and Lucinda so that by the time they meet, you know they are perfect for each other. If you are familiar with Ralph Fiennes hunky "English Patient" character, you should be prepared that Oscar is quite whimpy in comparison; but I though it spoke to the actor's range that he was willing to play effeminate, physically weak and slightly creepy Oscar. I was fascinated at the exploration of the addictive peronality and compulsive gambling.

This film has all the elements of a grand epic. Had it been made in the 60s , it would have won the Academy Award. But something has happened to render the 'world' of the film oppressively neurotic and irrelevant. Do we live in a post-Christian world? If so, this may account for the desperate strangeness of the men of the cloth, who seem tortured and twisted and sick. They are either socially oppressive, trivial hypocrites, or tormented, lost souls, paralyzed by guilt and doubt or both. They all remind me of Flannery O'Connor's world of distorted freaks. The acting is superb, of course, but the tale is a total letdown, not so much depressing as just anti-climatic. It has none of the magnificence of "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", which it reminded me of. One problem is the character played to perfection by Ralph Fiennes. It is more than irritating is see a man play a worm. It is in the end painful to watch this man rubbing his hands together and crawling around on the ground. Call it what you will, this is not the kind of character one can relate to. Men and women in real life may want to care for him, but the audience loses interest.