Lulu on the Bridge

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 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.

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.

This movie is really quite amazing. It is definitely not your typical hollywood storyline, so you have to be pretty open-minded. With this film, Auster was able to conjure up some very deep emotions, but it is very abstract. You might have to watch it twice to get more out of it. I have seen many parallels between this and his novels, so if you enjoyed this movie, try reading City of Glass.

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.