This film under the title of "Lover's prayer" was shown recently on cable. Not having seen the film before, we decided to take a chance on it. Director Reverge Anselmo has adapted two short stories, by Ivan Turgenev and Anton Chekhov and has given it a beautiful production.

Most of the comments one finds in this forum seem to have been submitted by fans of Kirsten Dunst and Nick Stahl, which in a way, is unfair to what Mr. Anselmo's was trying to achieve. This is a film that cries for an all British cast. Zinaida and Vladimir are played by two talented American stars, who are clearly out of their league in holding themselves against some of the best English actors of stage and screen. In fact, marketing the film and trying to capitalize on the well known faces, is the wrong approach.

That said, the two stories are intertwined and offers us a view of how things were done in the period before the Russian revolution. We are given a situation here shows us a young woman, the daughter of a somewhat eccentric and vulgar princess, who is the center of attraction among the vacationing Muscovites because of her beauty. Zinaida, being loved by young Vladimir, is separated from her young lover because his mother sees the danger in a relationship that is clearly below the young man's situation in life.

The film has an ironic twist at the end as the young lovers never get to consummate the passion they feel for one another. We watch in horror what fate Zinaida is facing and nothing has prepared us for that ultimate reality.

Julie Walters and Geraldine James are excellent as the mothers of Zinaida and Vladimir, respectively. Nick Stahl and Kirsten Dunst do good work under the Mr. Anselmos's direction. It's clear both these actors are not classically trained to appear in this type of period drama. James Fox, Nathaniel Parker and the rest of the supporting players do a marvelous job.

This film should be viewed by mature audiences. The beautiful photography of the Czech Republic countryside and the magnificent interiors add luster to the film.

Maybe the reason why I like this movie is mostly that I like the story "First Love" which the movie is based on. I can understand from another of the user comments that there is a lot of symbolism in the story. This symbolism is wasted on me. I have to see it as just a story. What I see then is a story about youth. Young people who follow their immediate emotions without giving much thought to the future. In the long term perspective we often make stupid choices when we act like that. I myself am not a very impulsive man, but I find myself attracted to people who are, unless they are so in a negative way. Is it not the force in emotions, especially big powerful emotions like love that make life so beautiful?

The main character Vladimir falls in love with Zinaida. She likes him very much, but she doesn't love him. She likes toying with him and her other admirers, and their feelings make them her willing puppets. This is of course not very nice of her, but it seems to me that she doesn't give it much thought and that it is never her intention to hurt anyone, she is just an emotional and impulsive girl. And maybe part of what makes them love her is her impulsive nature. After some time it becomes clear to Vladimir that Zinaida has herself fallen in love. But who is it that she loves? And is her own human nature now taking revenge for her toying with the emotions of her admirers? Will Vladimir and Zinaida mature through their experiences?

For those who thinks this story has no point I will say, that for me the point is simply to study human nature and to allow one self to feel with the characters. We don't always need a great plan to build the societies of the 21st century.

I would like to make a negative comment also. There is a second story in this movie mixed in with the main story. A woman falls in love while her husband is away in the war, and of course this causes trouble. Maybe this story could have a movie of its own (?), but I think it shouldn't have been part of this movie, because the situation of the woman, her husband (if he lives), her child and her lover is far too serious to just pop up for a moment now and then as a side story.

In a world where so many films deal with chases and 'big bangs' this film is just beautiful and a welcome change. It is beautifully shot with some of the finest acting i have seen in a long while, but then what else would you expect from a this cast list? Kirsten Dunst is really very good as Zinida, and intriguing. However for me the finest performances come from the supporting cast, Julie Walters is as ever spot on, and Geraldine James is (as ever) fantastic as the wronged wife and protective mother, the scene where she confronts her husband (another brilliant performance from Nathaniel Parker) is one of the best acted scenes i have ever seen on film. True the story can at times be complex, but it is captivating and after watching it several times the more complex aspects become clearer. It could be said to be intelligent viewing - we're not just sponge fed everything there and then - and thats a welcome change too! A film where you may be required to think - it won't exactly kill you! Well worth watching, and whether you like it or not you do have to give credit where credit is due to the cinematography and acting in particular.

This film is surprisingly appalling. Another reviewer states that he does not understand why no-one has claimed the screenplay, but I don't understand the lack of understanding; I can't imagine that anyone would willingly admit to writing this script - however, it seems the director has (and apparently based on Chekhov and Turgenev, no less.)

Then again, it was also the director's decision to include the exposition filled voice-over. (***Possible spoiler, although not really a major plot development as the film does not really contain any***)We know that the voice-over is an older Vladimir, we can see the younger Vladimir (Nick Stahl) following the object of his attraction (Kirsten Dunst), so why does the voice-over tell us that Vladimir is following her?(***) The director should be banned from making films until he learns the rule; show don't tell - or at the very least do not show *and* tell, because that just insults your audience.

There are many unintentionally comic moments and I admit to being so fascinated by the clumsiness of the story telling that I sat and watched the whole thing with morbid fascination.

It is a shame as there are some fine actors in this film. Julie Walters is usually fantastic especially in the type of character that is required of her here, James Fox starred in one of my favourite films, and I honestly used to think that I would enjoy Nick Stahl in any role - he usually brings such pathos to his characters.

I don't think that any actor could make the dialogue believable but it's sad that actors that I usually find believable and watchable are saddled with such clumsy writing and direction.

Answer for somebody's question: This is original screenplay was wrote with use Turgenev's novel "First Love" (Turgenev is Russian writer). This movie filmed almost as original novel... But there are some interesting details was erased. For example: Voldemar have not seen the Zinaida before her dead. When he visited hotel there she lived, she was dead 4 days back. In movie showed that he was beside her when she was in throes of dead. But Kirsten have played this role very excellent!!! She was soooo beautiful. And she showed us The Talent.

This film is very strange. It looks picturesque. It moves at the pace of a snail. It mimics great Russian epics such as "War and Peace", but no-one will take credit for the screenplay. Who wrote the story? Is it an original screenplay?

Kirsten Dunst is a Russian Princess who collects a crowd of fawning sycophantic admirers who salivate over her every motion and jostle with each other for her favours. Nick Stall is the youngest and fawns the hardest. He discovers that his Dad is the one who is sampling the ladies intimate delights and tragedy looms. There is never any explicit revelation of exactly what everyone is doing and no confrontation or conflict. Consequently there is no excitement and the story struggles to hold the viewers attention.

The period, incidentally, is mid 19th century Russia at the time of the Crimean War and not Britain as stated in the plot outline. Don't blame the British just because the film is slow and boring!

Stahl looks such a twit in his ensign's uniform with a hat that is seven sizes too big.

Yes, this is a period piece -- pre-WWI Russia, to be precise. I only caught the last third of the movie or so, but it was enough to captivate me. The characters were interesting; the music poignant, the scenery stunning. The acting is top-notch with the notable exception of Stahl, who never reflects the agonies and the ecstacies of growing up; he never lets the struggles of the character make their way to his countenance or his actions, and so appears as a painted-face marrionate simply reciting lines and moving about from place to place. The problem is that the retrospective English narrator is used in place of acting; while it's well done and appropriate, it is used to suture up the devestation caused by the poor acting of Stahl instead of complimenting him. But anyhow, enough on that topic. Again, it captivated me, and not many films can do that. Either there's too much trash, or the characters are stupid, unbelievable, or unheroic. This doesn't feel like a cheap Hollywood throwaway flick, and that has something to do with the source material -- Anton Chekov! There is a human warmth about it all and an artistry that is all too often abandoned in pursuit of a quick dollar. Now this isn't to say that this film is the best thing ever put on a reel. But it is enough to make me want to go watch the whole thing, and that is a rare thing.

In the film based on an Ivan Turgenev ("First Love"), the college bound (Nick Stahl) is spending the last summer before he goes away to school outside Moscow, in the country. He soon becomes smitten with the neighbors' beautiful daughter, Zinaida (Kirsten Dunst). It's not long, though, before Vladimir realizes that he's just one member of a long line of suitors vying for Zinaida's heart---including his own father.

At first I thought this movie would be something I would enjoy. I've always been a fool for a costume drama. However, the horrible dialogue makes this movie hard to watch. Generally, I love watching both Dunst and Stahl, but not in this movie. I applaud not forcing bad accents, but why did they bring in crusty British accents? I found this movie completely void of any real plot. I rented this movie in hopes of seeing a romance, and through the slow beginning I continued to watch the film in hopes that it would speed up. I found it irritating that the entire movie was narrated. Although, the narrative did provide most of the plot! The acting was OK, but the character's actions were silly to me. In the end, I would not recommend this movie to anyone,

The only comment I have read thus far that encapsulated this film was by a Russian woman from Moscow. Everthing in this film evokes Russia in Summer for the period intended. There is a quality of innocence that is captured by the characters and lost in metaphor. The father represents Europe seducing a young capricious Russian female. Her young lover is the true Russian unable to save his love from her fate until in the end he stands as witness to her ruin and death. Turgenev felt very strongly, as do all Russian writers, that Russians must look to themselves for the future and they felt a duty to warn their country of the temptations that would lead to Russia's downfall. Kirsten Dunst does a very good job of portraying Zinaida as a young woman desperate to grow up and at the same time hold onto her past, much like Russia. Her older lover, Valdemar's father (Europe) cannot understand her devotion to him and abandons her to her fate. He doesn't have the endurance her real lover (Valdemar)has - or the patience.

During the 1800's Britain, a somewhat younger boy finds love with a girl who, as a young princess, manipulates her older suitors. But he finds, instead, a game of deceit played by the most shocking suitors of all.

Nick Stahl and Kirsten Dunst hold their own very well in this film. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of time pieces such as this, but once I gave the plot a chance (I had to re-start the movie twice), I found myself wanting to see the end of it and find out what happens to the main characters. Based on two other short stories, the two are combined by the director to keep one's interest, as long as they're in the mood for a film such as this.

5 out of 10 stars.

By far, the worst hunk of junk in which Kirsten Dunst has ever starred. The true challenge was trying to figure what the hell was the point of the film. And what happened to the woman with the hoe and the husband with one of everything (one eye, one arm, one leg, etc)?

OK, to be honest this movie was pretty awful. The first sign that Lover's Prayer was going to be a loser was when I realized that the people who were supposed to be Russian were speaking with British accents. It moves at a painfully slow pace. Also, this director has a great cast of actors and yet they still end up sucking (though I personally don't blame the actors, I blame the director). Well, maybe "sucking" is too harsh, I thought Kirsten Dunst was pretty good.

I found it impossible to take this movie seriously, in fact, I laughed throughout most of it. Even so, since I'm hopelessly in love with Nick Stahl, I have watched Lover's Prayer many times (for whatever reason it on TV a lot!) Sadly, most of the time I was laughing at him ****possible, but not really a spoiler****->(once again I am going to blame the director, with the stupid constant "older Vladimir" commentary!).

In conclusion, if you love slow boring movies, or are in love with one of the actors in this movie, ****possible, but not really a spoiler****->(if its James Fox don't bother, it's only his voice, we never actually see him) or even if you enjoy a good laugh, Lover's Prayer is for you...otherwise, don't bother.

All Forgotten is a period drama, set in 1900's Russia and starring Kirsten Dunst and Nick Stahl. Stahl's character falls in love with next door neighbor Dunst, but she's too busy toying with much older suitors. The men fall at her feet and she loves it, teasing them endlessly and without shame. Stahl as Vladimir loves his dear Zinaida (Dunst) but is emotionally hindered.

There's a second story in the film concerning a young woman with a small son whose husband is away in the war.

I could not tell where this film was supposed to be set for a while because although the names were Russian, everyone spoke with a British accent. The costumes were lovely, and the landscapes beautiful (filmed entirely in the Czech Republic), but Dunst and Stahl, and everyone else is essentially wasted.

None of the vibrancy Stahl brought to his role in Man Without A Face was evident here in his Vladimir. It was almost as if he were simply walking from mark to mark, delivering his lines woodenly and moving on. He looked very preoccupied. Dunst conveyed the airs of a spoiled young girl who had been given too much too soon, but I found it difficult to really care about her. Although Vladimir is is love with Zinaida, there is no chemistry whatsoever between the actors so the characters are always distanced emotionally.

This is a nice film to watch on a very rainy day, but overall it's a disappointment. The plot never really took off, and I found myself at the end of the film still waiting for the film's point to be made.

This film (released as a DVD under the title LOVER'S PRAYER) by the American director Reverge Anselmo is largely based upon the Turgenev story FIRST LOVE. In order to fill the story out and stretch it to a full-length film,Anselmo chose to use Chekhov's story THE PEASANT WOMEN to create an elaborate sub-plot of peasant side characters. Shakespeare was always adding such subplots to his plays, as we know. I would not say that this use of the Chekhov sub-plot really works. As for the main story,Kirsten Dunst does an amazing job playing the fickle character Zinaida,who is bored with her country life and toys with a retinue of regular suitors in a ruthless fashion. In a sense, this film is a study of how bored and isolated beauties in the past kept a number of men dangling and tormented them for amusement. That used to be a fairly common occurrence. But television and the internet have destroyed it. Men no longer sit around adoring girls who taunt them, as they are too busy watching pornography online. So this film is a useful contribution to social history, showing what happened frequently throughout human history until the present day. Another device which does not necessarily work is a voice-over narration by James Fox as an old man recollecting the events of the story. Anselmo must have been struggling for more unity for the film by trying this. We should not underestimate the difficulty of making this excellent Turgenev tale work on screen. The story and the film do have a lot to offer, not least being the cinematography and the art direction. Geraldine James and Julie Walters put in fine performances, as one would expect. The film is really worth seeing, but I can see that it is not necessarily suited for the impatient or unromantic viewer.

The only reason I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 is because amid the crazy plot, there was some good acting. It seemed like it was going to be a typical period movie. It was far from that. I am not sure if it was me, but I was quite confused throughout the entire movie. Until the end of the movie, I still hadn't figured out if Zinaida was just as pix-elated (as in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town)as her mother or if she was just a very selfish, egotistical young lady who enjoyed playing with people and their feelings. I was confused at what was going on with Vladimir's father and his thought process at the end. If you gave that cast a good plot and script, it would have been a wonderful movie. Its too bad it was wasted on that one.

I really liked this movie a lot. The acting was good from Kirsten and Nick. The scenery was beautiful. I enjoyed the whole film. There were a few parts where I was confused, but only a few parts. I know a lot of people didn't like this movie but I didn't see a problem with it. The music was good. I would recommend this movie to anyone loves a good drama movie. Especially on that takes place in the eighteenth century. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves Kirsten Dunst or Nick Stahl.

Visually beautiful with pretty characterisations and some fine acting particularly from Julie Walters. But I had more interest in the love triangle of the serf's that I did of the aristrocracy. It really doesn't come together, but could have been quite a compelling drama if the story had peaked and resolved itself a little more poignantly. I wouldn't spend the two hours of viewing time to sit through this again because it seem's to have been directed by someone with the emotions of granite. Pity because it's so pretty and romantic in a visual sense. Too few scene's from Ms Walters. The character portrayed by Ms Dunst (Zinaida) irritated the hell out of me. Pity I had to wait until the end for her exit !!!!!!!

God save the czar! This has that beautiful actress from "Jewel in the Crown", they're all stuffy and nice. Nice touch to the film, blends European flavor with the rich texture of character driven story. Scenery became a character that added to film.

Who'dve thought California-Kirsten could do period so nicely. She was gorgeous in this. Who was the boy's father? He was really good. What an awesome period piece and just beautiful costumes. I also thought Geraldine James was wonderful.

I caught this hidden gem on television last week.

It is a wonderfully shot film which is both poignant and life affirming.

Dunst is excellent and Stahl also puts in a solid performance.

The only disappointment was the fact that the brilliant character of victor was so criminally under used. Connell's performance is outstanding.

All in all though a great film for all the family which I would highly recommend.

A career highlight for Dunst, Stahl and Connell which should not be overlooked.