Lulu on the Bridge

Some authors, as is the case with Paul Auster, can involve a reader with a novel. Mr. Auster, with a few exceptions, has produced a body of work that will be his legacy. Alas, this is not going to be the case of his directorial career. Like Julian Schnabel, a painter turned film director, Paul Auster seems to be a logical candidate for bringing his stories to the screen, but as proved by this effort, one hopes he keeps his day time job.

The large, talented cast of "Lulu on the Bridge" can't overcome some of the problems the film presents. The mixture of a thriller with esoterica sounds like an intriguing idea for a film, but as one witness the movie unfolds it's clear these elements don't mix well together under the director's guidance with the screen play he wrote. The film has moments in which it transcends and shows a promise of working, but in the end, it's too contrived for its own good.

Even an intense performer like Harvey Keitel is bogged down by a character that doesn't awake much interest in the viewer. Mira Sorvino is, in our humble opinion, terribly miscast. There is no chemistry between the two main characters. William Dafoe, Victor Argo, Vanessa Redgrave, Lou Reed, Gina Gershon are seen in minor roles.

I see that opinions for Lulu are either 'I loved it' or 'I hated it.' There's a good reason. This is a very different film, with spiritual and other-worldly overtones -- it's definitely spooky. I could not have imagined where the story finally ended up, but it requires a lot of imagination to understand it (think, "Where does the mind go when it loses consciousness? And, what is the real meaning of 'time'?"). If you don't like it, that's fine -- maybe you just don't get it. Nothing wrong with that -- it's pretty deep. But for me, it's a form of pure entertainment that I cannot find anywhere else. I loved it. I bought a copy on DVD. I tell my friends about it. The ending is a definite surprise, but there are lots of other surprises throughout. Why not find out for yourself?

This is mainly a two-actor film with Harvey Keitel playing a low-key (at least for him!) character and Mia Sorvino playing his young girlfriend. They dominate the story.

In an odd way, this is an interesting film although a bit "soapy" in parts for my tastes. It has a bit of a mystifying element with this strange stone as part of the story, yet they don't elaborate on it. Actually, this is more of a romance story....but at leaves a number of questions. One doesn't quite figure out Willem Dafoe's character is in here and the ending was very strange and not altogether satisfying, either. Perhaps another look or two would have been a better option before writing this. I haven't read any reviews but I suspect people really got into this film and liked it or were bored to death. Actually, I was somewhere in the middle. I was more interested in the cinematography.

Note: "Lulu" is named for a character played by silent screen star Louise Brooks.

I didn't know what to expect before viewing this film. Certainly the title gave no clues and was a bit of a turn-off. However, right from the start I found the story to be interesting. It had a lot of twists and turns that kept my interest throughout. It is one of those pictures that you are better not knowing anything, so I won't reveal any of the plot. Suffice to say this script made for enjoyable watching and I am surprised that other viewers did not rate it as highly as I did.

Lulu, as I prefer to call it, is a sentimental, yet mysterious movie. One has to feel that this is Auster in a nutshell, covering humans dark sides as well as their fabulous way of finding meaning. Auster has done a good job when it comes to the actors and actresses, they are perfect. The soundtrack is perhaps the factor that makes the darkness of the movie even more conclusive. Whenever the CD is out, I have to buy it! Overall, Auster did a pretty good job with Lulu. Recommended, also for non -Auster fans.