Lush

I'm not quite sure why I rented the "Lush" DVD. I suppose a big part of it was its New Orleans setting. However, except for a few location shots, including One Shell Square building, the French Quarter, and a St Charles Avenue streetcar, the bulk of the filming was done in Baton Rouge and a couple of golf courses there. It is not possible to write a narrative of "Lush." There's a washed-up pro golfer who drinks too much and lands in a Little Rock jail when he tries to bribe a cop with a $50 bill. There's a New Orleans lawyer who makes feeble attempts at suicide after telling various people that he has a life insurance policy with them as beneficiary. A couple of goofballs who work for him. Two sisters who take turns romancing the golfer after he gets back to New Orleans. The white dog that shows up in various places. In the end the golfer and the younger sister end up together, and he is managing a putt-putt establishment.

The writing and acting are good in spots, but uneven at best. Overall I found it mildly entertaining, but could not recommend it. The DVD is simple, ProLogic sound, no extras. "Lush" is quirky, it has fans, but most would be turned off by it. I see it has one "10" vote on the IMDb, a woman over 45, must be the director's mother! :-)

...if you like observing the world of the indolent, directionless elite of inherited wealth and watch them fritter away their aimless lives at the country club causing mischief for entertainment, then you might like this film. I did. Except for one dippy scene on a river with very meaningful SimonandGarfunkelly music, this film engages you in the characters and at the same time makes you glad that you don't REALLY know them. Can't speak about the authenticity of the New Orleans backdrop, but the archetypical characters sure looked familiar and real. Plus, it had a nice ending and everybody got what he wanted pretty much which is what movies are supposed to tell us life can sometimes be like, right?

If ever I have seen a worse movie, I can't remember it. While browsing around a Video Store one day, my girlfriend picked this up out of the

bargain bin for about five bucks because she said that it looked like

it would be interesting and how could you go wrong for five dollars etc. All very well and good I suppose....but less than half an hour into this mess my girlfriend could stand it no more, and I had to literally force myself to sit there and watch this train wreck of a

movie. I would tell you about the acting, but there is no acting in this film....it's like watching pictures on a post card. I would tell you about the plot....but if I could do that, it would mean that I made sense out of this mess and would definitely be in need of some real help! There is no redeeming qualities in this film, and if you see it in the bargain bin on DVD, take it up to the clerk, chastise them for improper labeling, then have the clerk stick a Frisbee sticker on it.

If you like confusing flashbacks, good cinematography, competent acting and like to solve puzzles, this may be the film for you.

The problem with this production is that after you take the time to solve the puzzle you realize that you've been been conned.

There really is nothing to do this other than the idea of showing a part of New Orleans that doesn't revolve around Mardi Gras, Bourbon Street, romance or the conflicts between cajuns, blacks, rednecks and old plantation owners. Once you get past those things you realize that New Orleans is just a regular city with good and bad qualities but just a little flashier than Cincinnatti or Louisville.

The story, if you can call it that, revolves around a promising pro golfer who got bounced off the tour because he wanted to search for the "meaning of life" and decided to drink along the way.

The "way" brings him into a relationship with two sisters who he went to grade school or something with and a possibly closet gay attorney, Jared Harris. who has also fallen victim to the evils of drink.

Oh and his late father was of course a groundskeeper at a wealthy country club which the two sisters are members of.

There are some scenes of him Campbell Scott, our hero, running to find a train constantly blocking his path across the tracks and of course a "seer" commenting that "another will be along" when he misses a ride on the trolley. And of course when he does get across the tracks he finds himself in a flophouse with the "po folk" and is rescued by one or the other of the two sisters.

Then the attorney may or may not have been killed so the local police naturally think he may or may not have done it for the insurance money.

Make sense so far? Well there are also two escapees from one of Jack Kerouac's bad dreams who are also suspects and a family friend who is a drug dealer with guilt feelings.

The writer threw those characters in to make a gullible viewer, like myself, think this was an art film and had some kind of deep meaning.

David Lynch often does that too as witness the success of "Blue Velvet".

But be advised I gave this a 3 out of 10 only because the photography is very good and the cast obviously needed the money and tries very hard.

If you are worried about your 401K monies or your bar tab, don't rent this.

I need to respond first to the creative lambasting that precedes my comments. Not only are you dead wrong, but it is precisely this kind of facile dismissal that holds back American film. This is an experimental European independent film masked in American gloss, and it is this quality that is both the virtue and the marketing difficulty of the film. Had my fellow reviewers seen a low production value version of the same film, they would have hailed it as the second coming and fiercely emailed their friends about the literary and film references within it. They would have known right away to expect a twisted plot line, fragmented exposition of the characters, and a constantly shifting understanding of the film's sense with each subsequent scene. The film project that a film like this represents is to make work that is both complex and mainstream, rather than to corral the good stuff in the "experimental" corner. But this kind of film project needs an audience willing to constantly update their visual acuity. If you remember, Godard was not always the crowned king he is today. When he was making his 1960's films he was making seemingly casual films out of a very serious understanding of the potential of film and received similarly frustrated responses. The difference, of course, between a filmmaker working in France in the 1960's and one working in America today is that you need much much much more money to get your projects done, so it might take a little longer for the film project to happen, but it will.