Recensioni degli utenti

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.

As much as I like Harvey Keitel, I gave LuLu a run because John Lurie and Richard Edson have a way of ending up in cool off beat films (with the subtle caveat that Edson has done a ton of trash but usually not with Lurie in tow). On the other hand, Auster has never excited me. "Smoke" was in no way memorable and neither Wayne Wang, Lou Reed, Lili Tomlin, or Jim Jarmusch could elevate "Blue in the Face" beyond the mundane. Yet, truth be told, the state of cinema is so bad these days that Auster's mundane is leagues above main stream Hollywood, thus I return to his work. That being said, this effort is an absolute waste of time. The ending was no surprise and why was that? Because of a little film called "Jacob's Ladder". If you have seen this work by Adrian Lyne then spare yourself this low brow rip off. If you haven't seen it, do so and save yourself from this low brow rip off. Whatever you do, do not listen to the director's commentary on the DVD version. I hope Auster was drunk because what little dribble he managed to focus on the ethos and pathos of the film, was so insipid as to make it difficult to ever trust his work again. This was my first experience of a DVD providing me too much information by removing any benefit of doubt I had given his writing. Alas, another writer/director falls upon the dung heap of Hollywood.

How you feel about this film may depend on your tolerance for its plot, one that has become very familiar in recent years (two words: Sixth Sense). That said, this particular version of the idea, chronicling the romance between a jazz musician played by Harvey Keitel and a struggling actress played by Mira Sorvino, is murkier than it needs to be. Their scenes together are very convincing but once the film has played out, what has gone before doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are a lot of familiar faces in the cast including Vanessa Redgrave, Gina Gershon and for music fans, Don Byron, Lou Reed and David Byrne.

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?

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 found this film very enjoyable and also challenging. Whether this is by accident or intention I won't pretend to know, but watching this film is quite an interesting and enjoyable experience. Rather than filling the screen with explosions and forecasting every plot twist three or four times so even the least attentive viewing will get the point, this film takes a different approach. It wraps the viewer in ambiance and possibility, leaving them to determine the meanings and possible meaning of the events. It's nice to find a film that doesn't hold a low opinion of viewers. We don't have to be taken by hand and walked through every scene. Imagination and subtlety are also part of film, and I for one am glad to see films like this that challenge and respect the audience.

Being an eager fan of Paul Austers writing I was very excited to get a chance to watch a film which he had both written and directed. All of his novels are clever, philosophical, and thrilling at the same time.

This movie, however, was a huge disappointment! The whole story, the script, and especially the pretentious acting made the watching of this film a semi-horror. Sorry to say, my idol, Paul Auster obviously has achieved a master degree in writing novels, while the form of a movie script seems to suit him all too badly.

My hopes for the future are twofold: either Mr. Auster learns from this experience how to do better movies or, simply, he'll stick to what he does best: writing novels!

As for all of you who have only seen this film and not read any of his novels: go now! to the library and dig in!

This movie is an original - a gem. Fifteen minutes after it was over I began weeping - I was so touched. It is never too late. One can lead a rotten life, but there is always hope - even in the strangest of times - to find love and to become a person worthy of being loved in return. To provide more details would undermine the movie's original theme. Indeed, the description on this web page is not at all what the film is really about. I don't know why the ratings aren't higher. Perhaps the movie is lost on impatient souls who need lots of action to keep their attention intact.

"Lulu on the Bridge" is pointless nonsense featuring some fine acting talent which is stifled by the absence of a worthy story. Anybody could have written this piece of amateurish drivel which is no more than a contemporary fairy tale. Granted there are good and bad fairy tales. This is a bad one which is why anyone could have written it. Recommended for no one.

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.

I really enjoyed watching this film, even though the ending seems abrupt and unsatisfying. The performances, especially by Harvey Keitel and Mira Sorvino, are truely exceptional and the mystical mood of the film is compelling.

The weak spot is the screenplay, which has as many plot holes as a hunk o' swiss cheese. Still, I would watch Lulu again for the acting and ambiance alone.

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 ****.

I saw this little gem of a film last year, forgot about it, then decided to buy it. On a second viewing I realized how much I missed the first time around. The scientific/mythical/mystical/spiritual interpretations are left up to the individual, and I found myself leaning toward the mystical/spiritual, especially when the film-within-a-film (Pandora's Box) entered the plot. While some might have felt this whole episode was irrelevant, to me it was central in a kind of a skewed way that wasn't really developed. Anyone familiar with the myth of Pandora's Box will recognize the significance of the "rock in the box" that causes lives to change in a dramatic, profound way. Izzy's state of consciousness during the film is simply a device -an interesting one- to tell a story.

Seeing Dafoe and Keitel working together again (first time since Last Temptation of Christ?) was a delight. Both are capable of a tremendous range, but chose restraint in this film, and it worked. The interogation scenes in the warehouse were mesmerizing. I love this film!

Unreleased theatrical feature, first seen on cable-TV and video, isn't particularly well-made yet has a mysterious quality and fine performances which make it worth-finding. Harvey Keitel plays a jazz musician sidelined by a gunshot wound who hooks up with waitress/actress Mira Sorvino by chance. Film's objective is to show the criss-crossing patterns of human lives, as well as being a modern-day play on Pandora's Box. It features plenty of emotion and feeling, and it works wonders despite some crass dialogue and a finale that isn't really satisfying (it feels truncated). However, the central relationship between Keitel and Sorvino is tremendously charismatic; Keitel in particular is surprisingly warm and real. **1/2 from ****

Whereas I agree with many critical voices stating the script would be a bit unlikely, I just loved the mood and atmosphere of the movie. Of course, Keitel and Sorvino are so different that only magic can make them fall for each other. But what happens then is just very charming and touching. It is similar to recent blockbuster "Amelie": You just have to buy the setting to get a delightful time with the movie. And certainly, Sorvino, Keitel and Dafoe are fun to watch.

I was hoping the story line would pick up, but scenes were thrown in that didn't make sense, or didn't provide answers. True, no chemistry between Mira Sorvina and Harvey Keitel. I figured having heavyweights like Vanessa Redgrave, Willem Defoe, Gina Gershon, and Mandy Pantikin would add some depth, but their talents were wasted on a very abstract story. Overall, I was very disappointed. I expected more of this movie, because Vanessa Redgrave, Willem Defoe, and Gia Gershon are very good at doing independent and unusual movies. Anytime I see the name Vanessa Redgrave, I figure I'm in for a good movie. But I was let down completely by the story and cast!

Like many of New York City waitresses, Celia Burns is an aspiring actress. Izzy Maurer, a jazz saxophonist recovering from a gunshot wound, contacts her after finding her name along with a stone having magical properties, one of which propels them into a love affair. Through her talent, and friends of Izzy's ex-wife, Celia is able to land the part of Lulu, one which most actresses could only dream of. Izzy is held captive and Celia chased by a mysterious man claiming to have a doctorate in anthropology who wants the magical stone. It is only at the film's end that the discerning viewer understands what has really transpired. The all star cast does not disappoint.

After taking part on "Smoke" and directing "Blue in the face" Paul Auster kept on feeding his cinematographic interests with this "Lulu on the Bridge". He count one more time on his friend Harvey Keitel who plays a jazz musician whose life gets shattered because of a shot. He'll get his energies back thanks to a delicious an adorable girl called Celia (Mira Sorvino, why don't they hire her for the big productions? Jesus, she's a hell of an actress, and so gorgeous!!).

"Lulu" is a story that deals with real, intense and true love, full of symbols (nothing is as it seems here). The beginning of the movie, when Izzy (Keitel) and Celia meet is much more interesting and moving than the final parts, which are a little bit confusing.

Auster demonstrates his talent behind the camera and his good taste choosing actors and music.

*My rate: 7/10

There are bad movies. And then there are those that go beyond. This is one such film. If any hopes are held that Harvey Kietel's presence itself will imply some quality, they are belied here!

It's a poor movie in so many ways. To begin with, the storyline is ridiculous - there's barely any plot, and still the movie drags on and on. Dialogues are mediocre - there are several occasions when Harvey breaks down based on words which seem absolutely mundane! So, we've a poor storyline, and poor dialogues - what's left? Yes, the acting. That's sketchy too, in case you were hopeful! not one single character seems to fit into his or her role...there's a whole bunch of uneasy actors trying to make a movie tick!

in a word, i'd say - avoid this movie with all your might!

Reading the negative comments to this movie is the most baffling experience: those who hate it seem to take action flicks as comparisons, talking about holes in the plot or whatever else that is pointless, failing to understand that this movie comes closer to poetry than most. Needless to say, the script is superb and Paul Auster shows to be a modern master of the literary genre, excelling as much on the screen as he does on paper (the scenes with Dafoe and Keitel are stunning, Dafoe telling the firefly story is memorable): this movie is all about reality and exactly because it feels so real it couldn't care less about realism. I watched Lulu with an open heart and it was all clear to me, all the words made perfect sense. But criticizing this Paul Auster gem because of your typical, run-of-the-mill Hollywood expectations is nothing but a crime.

I first separate films such as this (some refer to them as "art" films) into two categories. Does the maker(s) take the attitude, "I'm an insightful, sensitive genius and if you fail to notice you're an imbecile." or does he/she/they make an attempt to have the work be interesting and thought provoking to the average person? I put LULU in the latter category. It seems to me the work was truly trying to place some positive human attributes, aspirations, etc., above this life of suffering and sorrow. The acting was also exceptionally good.

But even if a film passes the sincerity test, it does not necessarily mean it works and/or is a great film. LULU lacks the sheer audacity of a David Lynch flick, the disturbing impact of a Von Triar movie or the passion of a Herzog effort (I'd throw Aranofsky in, but he's really mainstream). Its enjoyable enough to watch but I didn't find myself torturing myself later on to find answers because I just don't think there was enough behind LULU's creation to make examination efforts worthwhile. I am left with some pleasant thoughts of love and life angst. But LULU just doesn't qualify as a heavy; e.g., like BLUE VELVET, DOGVILLE, or GRIZZLY MAN. Would definitely watch another film by this dude though.

This may be the first film since "Darkman" that is bad enough to warrant my posting about it. If you don't have a good reason for watching this film: don't.

The cast is undoubtedly fabulous and they all seemed to relish their roles. The direction and production are technically capable or better. The problems are the story and the screenplay. The story is awful with too many essential points left unexplained. A bit like the suitcase with the golden glow in "Pulp Fiction", except there's no sense of wonder. And the screenplay seems to pick up on the lack of wonder, as it is dry and banal. The only reason I stayed until the end was that parts of the film were set in Dublin (which was fairly faithfully represented).