Customer Reviews

Lulu On The Bridge

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I don't want to give away the ending, but this whole movie takes place on the bridge between life and death. I think it may be Auster's best work since the New York Trilogy. It has all the nested levels of reality that those novels had and which sort of got lost in his later books. It also points up an important paradox in Auster's universe of paradoxes: You can accept a world run by chance without being a cynic. This film is all about paradox. There is a blurring or merging of opposites: The magic stone is both a love potion and Pandora's box; Izzy is both a rotten bastard and Sir Galahad; Celia is both a true hearted girl and Lulu; the movie itself is both romantic and existential, etc. In Auster's world--as in the real world--everything contains a little of its opposite, so that in the end no definition holds up. But this chaotic symmetry is spoiled by the final cut. Celia's dark side is shown in the movie within the movie, a remake of G.W. Pabst's 1928 film Pandora's Box (based on Wedekind's play, like Berg's opera), and these scenes of the movie being made, with Celia as Lulu, are a prominent part of Auster's script. They were shot and were still in the film during postproduction interviews given by Auster and even the film editor. But between then and the time the movie was released for rental, all those Lulu scenes got cut out! I can easily see how this would have happened in the old Hollywood studio system. Some bottom-line weasle would have considered these scenes a distraction from the rest of the movie simply whacked 'em out without consulting the director. But in this case Auster and his producer seem to have had complete control over the project, so I can only conclude that Auster himself must have done the cutting, or at least agreed to it. Why, Paul?! If anybody has any info on this, please write to me. This movie is a good as "Smoke"--better in my opinion--but it could have been great without the cuts.

How do I describe this film? Let's just say it's the end that makes this film (I believe direct to video) most interesting. I have a theory about the life we lead and about each moment of that life. What is real and what isn't? How long a moment last? What may seem a second to the ordinary person, could be a whole lifetime to someone else. Whether it's the first thought in your head or the last thought before you blink out of existence. With that said, you might think that this film explores that. Perhaps, perhaps not. It's what you think that happened. It's what you get out of this picture. This is one of those films that warrants follow on discussions after you see it. Especially for those who may go on to psychological, or better yet, philosophical endeavors. Harvey Keitel plays a man who hasn't had such a pleasant life and he gets shot one day. During his recovery, he has a change of heart. He meets Mira Sorvino. Because he thinks he has met the perfect person things start to change for him and for her. It's gets to be your basic love story. Ah, but there is a twist (or is it really a twist). That is all I am going to say about this film. Rent it, catch it on cable and enjoy this well-made film. It may be slow for some, but I think the pay off (in my opinion only) is worth it.

Everyone acted excellent, but I was a little dissapointed with the ending. I know it's supposed to be abstract and all, but I've seen films which were just as abstract, yet had a more satisfying ending. But I do recommend the film, regardless of the ending. For anyone who has ever been in love with another (and I mean requited and unconditional love), the sincere love scenes will really hit home, and are worth watching. Surprisingly, even though the two fall in love the first day they meet, it is all believable and real, and not contrived at all. Very intense emotions. By the way, if you like Keitel in this one, rent "Holy Smoke".

This movie was underrated, not seen, in the US; I saw it in Mexico and was astonished by the exquisite, simple little story and esp. the ambiguous character played by Willem deFoe, was he on a side or not? Additionally, the music is a treasure and apparently not available as a soundtrack. (...)

I watched this film for 30 minutes and just couldn't get past its phony pretensions and contrived dialogue. I gave it a pass...

What is the story about? Jazz saxaphonist, Izzy, is performing with his band and is shot(whether intentionally or accidentally is not clear) by what seems like a crazed man. There is no police follow-up. Obviously this is not important to the theses in the film.
Izzy recovers though he has lost one lung and no longer has the wind power to play the sax, and has lost the use of his right hand fingers, so he cannot key the sax. Am I supposed to think he's a man without an identity? After recovering, Izzy is walking home on a dimly lighted street and comes upon a man with a bullet hole in his forehead, a leather briefcase beside him. Again no mention is ever made of this murder as far as the police are concerned. When Izzy arrives home, he empties the satchel, finds a small box, in it a stone about the size of an egg that glows in the dark. Alongside the dead man there was also a paper napkin with a phone number written on it. Next day he dials the phone number and meets Celia a would be actress waitress.
When the stone glowed, I thought, "Oh, no! Not one of these stories." But I persisted. Izzy did not know Celia or her name, so when she says, "Yes, come on over," I know I'm in a reality different from mine . In the late 20th century a single young girl is going to let an unknown male visit her alone in her aparment. Celia thinks she knows Izzy because he identified himself on the phone and she is listening to a recording of his. Nothing like honesty and trust. Well, Celia holds the glowing stone in the dark of her apartment; and then Izzy does. They are transformed into lovers at first sight. Izzy happens to know the people producing the movie LULU for which Celia is auditioning for a part which she gets because Izzy called his friends. Celia goes to Ireland where the movie is being shot; Izzy will follow in three days__which become a long time.
Stanley Mar, the murdered man, was murdered because he had the stone. Now some toughs find Izzy in his apartment and imprison him in a seemingly abandoned building where he is interrogated in hope of revealing where the stone is. He doesn't reveal it, but the interrogator(daFoe) reveals all the nasty details of Izzy's life. Izzy doesn't reveal anything about the stone because he's protecting Celia who has it in Ireland. Although Izzy hasn't given daFoe a clue, daFoe nevertheless finds Celia in Ireland.
I can't tell you the denouement, but I think it is still in the realm of a reality different from mine. I am not a romantic, so the love story didn't capture me. I'm a materialist(philosophical), so the transformative power of the stone did not capture me. Perhaps the story is about the transformative power of love, but then so is Silas Marner, and no stones, just gold. Where does Aphrodite come in? Well, LULU is a remake of G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX(1928), which is a very sexy, provocative story, and so Celia is supposed to be in the role of Lulu(Pandora), a femme fatale . And this is why the ending is ambiguous for me__again the reality of the film vs. the reality outside one's mind. This one reqires the "willing suspension of disbelief."
Five stars for the acting, etc.

This movie keeps me sane. Seriously. Whenever I feel lost
in the world, or feel anxious, I think about this film, and
it calms me. The way Izzy and Celia are together-- the love
they show for each other-- all this makes me calm. Yes, I think
that love like this does exist. Unconditional love. We all
have it within us, it's just finding the way to get it out. It's
never too late.
Yes,love may lie dormant for some,
without it ever being realized-- but, it's there. What I love about Celia and Izzy
is that they live in the moment-- love in the moment. This is something
cynics don't understand. You have no time to be cynical with love!
Izzy and Celia are never cynical together, and take no moment
for granted. Everything is to be savored-- even the joy of
"suprise kisses" in the restaurant scene. Just so genuine and
sincere. This is why I love this film. So, if you are not willing
to let yourself love, or be loved, you might not "get" this film.
That is, if you are a cynic about unconditional love, you might
be offset by this film. However, those who have that light within
them, will certainly cherish this beauty of a film. Thank you
Harvey Keitel and Mira Sorvino for putting together some
fantastic and real performances. Mira was certainly so sweet
and sincere in the film, and Harvey is exemplary in his
profession as an actor. Thank you!

Being a fan of Auster and Keitel I was looking forward to "Lulu". On the plus side; the acting is great and the plot is pretty offbeat. But the stuff about the weird stone and the "cult" (?!) doesn't really work to say the least. People who hated the plot of "Jacob's Ladder" should also avoid this. And Mira and Harvey as a couple didn't really convince me (even though when I'm at Keitel's age I would surely love to find a young groovy chick like Mira!). Credits must go to the somewhat original script and the inspired performances but still, well, I guess I just ain't that romantic uncynically kind of guy. But check it out because it's not a total waste of your time if you're lookin' for something different (even though my girl fell asleep).

Harvey Keitel is one of those actors who might not have a ten million dollar leading role, but he is an actor that has built up a large following. One reason for Keitel's popularity is because he has often been stereotyped as a either a thug or gruff type of character - and has been able to pull off the role very well. However Keitel has proven he is a very versatile actor and has proven this with a very nice portfolio of work over the past two decades. Keitel proves his versatility in what was an unnoticed film in 1998 called "Lulu on the Bridge". Despite some holes in the storyline, Keitel delivers a very solid performance and one that should keep his fans happy. "Lulu on the Bridge" is a modern day romance story with a touch of fantasy added in. While the movie itself will entertain you, I did feel that this movie could have even been better.

In "Lulu on the Bridge", Keitel plays Isaac "Izzy" Maurer. Maurer is a jazz saxophonist in a little-known club band called Katmandu. While not a criminal, we get a picture throughout the movie that Maurer has led anything but a saintly life. While playing a performance at a New York City club, a madman sniper comes into the club and starts firing his gun. In the chaos, Maurer is struck by sniper's bullet. He suffers a major injury and loses a lung as a result of the shooting. The loss of the lung ends the career that Maurer cherished - his musical career. Maurer tries to adjust to life after music, but finds himself going the loner route. In an effort to keep Maurer from being lonely, Maurer's ex-wife Hannah (played by Gina Gershon) and her boyfriend, filmmaker Phillip Kleinman (played by Mandy Pantakin) befriend him. However, Izzy still seems destined for a lonely life. That all changes when one night while walking home, he stumbles on the body of a murdered man named Stanley Mar. On Mar, Maurer finds a napkin with a telephone number scribbled on it and a box containing a mysterious stone. Maurer soon discovers the stone has magical properties. When he dials the phone number on the napkin, this turns out to be the phone number of a much younger woman named Celia Burns (played by Mira Sorvino). Celiat is a struggling actress who also moonlights as a waitress. Maurer goes to Burns' apartment and has a rocky meeting with her. Maurer then shows Celia the stone and its magical properties. An "aura" of good seems to transform the two of them - and in particular Maurer. This leads to an immediate "connect" between the two and they quickly become lovers. Maurer becomes very happy in his relationship with Maurer and begins to see a side to himself he hadn't seen before. However things change when an anthropologist named Dr. Van Horn (played Willem Dafoe) wants to get possession of the stone. While Celia is out of town shooting a movie, Van Horn hunts down and captures Maurer. While Van Horn wants to get possession of the stone, Maurer does everything to protect Celia who is in possession of the stone.

There a lot of positives with this movie. To start with, the performances by Keitel, Sorvino, and Dafoe are outstanding. In particular, Keitel's performance is the one that stands out. Keitel does a great job at showing his stereotypical gruff character when showing the "old Izzy". However, we also see Keitel do a great job with his softer side. I liked how Keitel showed the kinder and gentler Izzy - and he really showed a genuine love toward Celia as the movie went out. There is one scene where Izzy has a "relapse" to his older side. This happens while Izzy is working as a busboy in the restaurant where Celia works in - it's classic Harvey Keitel. Sorvino is radiant throughout the whole movie. Cast as the villain, Dafoe does a great job. The scenes in which Van Horn "interrogates" Maurer are terrific. The part where Dafoe does his own rendition of "Singing in the Rain" is definitely a scene stealer.

Overall, this was a very good romance story. However, there are some things that could have been done better. I thought the beginning of the movie needed to do a better job at establishing Maurer's "bad side". We really don't pick up on this until we are into the meat of the storyline. I did like the whole idea of the fantasy angle involving the magic stone. However, the "instantaneous love" between Maurer and Celia almost happens too fast for my liking. I really feel the movie could have benefited a lot more from showing how the romance grows and blossoms between Izzy and Maurer. The other weak point is the character of Dr. Van Horn isn't developed very well either. We don't get a lot of information on why Van Horn is obsessed with getting the stone - and how he knows so much about Izzy Maurer.

I also really liked the ending of this movie. This is one of these films where it's going to be very difficult to pick things up in the middle of the story. You need to watch this movie from start to finish. I found the ending to have a great twist - and best of all was that it wasn't predictable. While there were holes in the storyline, I'm still surprised that this movie didn't garner more attention - in particular for Sorvino and Keitel. The Sorvino-Keitel chemistry was very evident in this movie. I would love to see these two paired up in another movie someday. It is worth checking out Keitel's performance in this one - even though it isn't quite his stereoypical role. As for the movie - in an era where Hollywood is flooded with remakes and un-original storylines, this is one original movie worth checking out.

This flick was deeply moving to watch. I flew from laugher to tears as I witnessed the story unfold and unfold and unfold again. My motto for this year is .."let the camera do the work" thanks Lynn!