NateWatchesCoolMovies
Lulu On The Bridge is an odd one, and that's a compliment. It subtly strains at the constrictions of genre until you realize just how unique it has gotten right under your nose. I've always thought of it as the Abel Ferrara fiom that he never made. Harvey Keitel delivers a home run of a lead performance as Izzy Maurer, a renowned jazz musician who loses his ability to play after he is shot by a lunatic gunman (Kevin Corrigan) while he is performing his music in a cafe. He sinks into a deep depression following the incident, and then something curious happens. One day he finds a mysterious stone, with a phone number attached to it and some seemingly supernatural qualities which alter the psyche, mood and perception of anyone in its vicinity. The phone number leads him to Celia Burns (the ever excellent and under estimated Mira Sorvino), an aspiring actress who's fallen just south of the success line, and has a taste for Izzy's music. The two seem destined to meet and as you might guess, begin a passionate love affair that begins to get a bit obsessive, with strong hints directed towards the stone that seems to govern will and volition. Their romance is hot, heavy and volatile, threatened when a mysterious man named Dr. Can Horn (a classy but dangerous Willem Dafoe) separately kidnaps them in attempt to retrieve the stone. The script deliberately shades over its true intentions until the very last minute, stopping to pick many dialogue and thematic flowers along the way, as well as leave a few red herrings behind. Gina Gershon is great as Izzy's ex wife, and the monumantal supporting cast also includes Richard Edson, the great Victor Argo, Harold Perrineau, Mandy Patinkin, Vanessa Redgrave and a brief Lou Reed who is pricelessly credited as 'Not Lou Reed'. If you snag a DVD you can also see deleted scenes work from Stockard Channing, Jared Harris, Josef Sommer and Giancarlo Esposito. The film attempts music, mystery, doomed love, urban mysticism, thriller and drama elements. I'm happy to report that it succeeds at all of them, a gem not unlike the mcguffin stone within the plot, and a haunting little modern fairy tale. Check it out.
tedg
Here's a movie that has a Zero Rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It has some tremendously bad acting. The story ends in a way that most viewers seem cheated. Its poorly edited and photographed. But it still worked for me because the idea is so clever that I happily make the leap, completing the movie.Here's the general shape: man is shot and lays dying. He has a vision of girl who he falls in love with, a magical stone causes this. (This is a piece of plaster that falls on him when he is shot.) Its a sweet love story and the magical nature is apt for a movie about an inner movie.But there are two complications that help. One is that our hero is captured and quizzed. Some dreary writing and the roughest parts of the film are associated with this bit. Its the second complication that has a special sparkle. Our girl is an out of work actress who again magically gets the starring role as Lulu in a remake of "Pandora's Box." This is perhaps the most sexually charged film of all time: a perfect confluence of actress, svengali filmmaker and the cinematic properties of silent film-making. Its a rather clever fold, yeah? A film about an inner film of love that both references and includes a landmark film. Its being made in Joyce's Dublin by a character played by Vanessa Redgrave.More: our guy is particularly fond of "Singing in the Rain."The fact that the girl in this case is profoundly unsexy and unappealing in most ways deepens the notion for me.It works, if you let it.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Yanisel
The originality of the screenplay, the pace of the story-telling, the cast and the direction, the photography and the editing -- as much suggestive and poetic, as they are soft-voiced. What an extraordinary treat for the many "lucky few", who can savour the refined taste offered here!
Huge gratitude to the makers of "Lulu on the Bridge", for demonstrating their faith in the sensitivity and intelligence - of at least a significant part - of today's movie-lovers... A final praise is reserved for Harvey Keitel's depth of performance.Apologies for also dropping two critical remarks but, if I give 8 stars out of 10, then perhaps I may be excused: The last scene of Keitel with Patinkin should have been cut, as being superfluous. And that phrase, when Willem Dafoe claims 'Oh... We are the good guys, I can assure you!', seems rather an unworthy device (used by a lesser script-writer) of assuring us, the audience -- because... a·n·y singular difference between "them" and the "bad" guys remains unexplored, and undefined.Nevertheless, allow yourself to be completely mesmerized, by this very precious little stone!
Tiger_Mark
I know that it was not, but it seemed like this film was about six hours long. Now by saying that, I am not implying you get your money's worth, quite the opposite. What I want to know, is how you could put together a cast this interesting and make a film so boring. I would feed you the plot, but it would bore you so much you would stop reading this review. Meanwhile, the "Academy Award Winning" Mira Sorvino (choke choke gasp gasp) is more and more being referenced with "I can't believe the Academy actually gave her an award." Cheer up, Mira, Angelina Jolie got one as well, she will take some heat off of you. * out of ****.
AD
