Lulu on the Bridge (1998) - Drama, Music, Mystery

Hohum Score



A famous jazz saxophonist whose life is forever changed after he is accidentally shot.

IMDB: 6.2
Director: Paul Auster
Stars: Harvey Keitel, Mira Sorvino
Length: 103 Minutes
PG Rating: PG-13
Reviews: 16 out of 69 found boring (23.18%)

One-line Reviews (57)

Even for the 'plot holes' and ambiguities, this film is worth watching just for the acting and the mood.

Only for that connection did I watch this waste of time.

worst movie I've ever seen .

Still, if only all cinematic failures were as intriguing...

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.

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.

Even so, I find the movie tends to resurface in my mind from time to time - if nothing else, for its pleasure with the idea of filmmaking both in itself (drawing prominently on Pandora's Box and Singin' in the Rain and engaging in brief pastiches of various genres, in one of which Lou Reed pops up to play - as the credits put it - Not Lou Reed), and as a means of unlocking something formative and fundamental.

Some dreary writing and the roughest parts of the film are associated with this bit.

The whole story, the script, and especially the pretentious acting made the watching of this film a semi-horror.

I would suggest this to anyone who is up for a confusing film.

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.

they lock Izzy into an empty hall & and a guy named Dr. Van Horn (the names of the characters are awesome chosen) question him about his life (so we learn more about Izzy's past & what a man he has been).

Intriguing and worth viewing .

Save your money and your time.

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.

Respected actors but no plot solution .

I would feed you the plot, but it would bore you so much you would stop reading this review.

Lulu on the Bridge is so beautiful and so confusing at times.

Getting kidnapped back in New York by a bunch of hoodlums who think that he has Stanley's Mar's "magic stone", which he gave to Celia, Izzy is locked up in this empty warehouse and threatened with death if he doesn't talk.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Harvey Keitel delivers an absolutely gut-wrenching performance - as good as anything I've ever seen him do.. considering the emotions required of his character, and what he's put through, he too is totally convincing and riveting.

This movie is the most useless, boring, incomprehensible piece of trash I've ever had the misfortune to view.

I love Willem Defoe, however it just dragged after that point.

There is not one superfluous word, but many beautiful close-ups, and all is framed by an engaging story about a musician who has lost his gift of music, an actress who goes to Dublin to play Lulu, and a mysterious stone.

If only all cinematic failures were as intriguing .

I found this film very enjoyable and also challenging.

What I want to know, is how you could put together a cast this interesting and make a film so boring.

Stunning finish.

The two main actors give engaging performances that succeed in creating the film's intimate atmosphere, well-supported by beautiful cinematography.

The reference to the classic silent film Pandora's Box with Louise Brooks is fascinating.

Dialogues are mediocre - there are several occasions when Harvey breaks down based on words which seem absolutely mundane!

It has a beauty that is not easily defined or describable, but when viewed it leaves one with a distinct impression of stunning and thoughtful awe.

Bad acting, misguided, trite .

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.

It was fascinating for about 90 minutes until the anthropologist (Defoe) grilled our protagonist (Keitel) about his childhood and his relationship with his brother and father.

This may be the all time worst movie I have seen.

Even an intense performer like Harvey Keitel is bogged down by a character that doesn't awake much interest in the viewer.

All of his novels are clever, philosophical, and thrilling at the same time.

"Lulu" is a story that deals with real, intense and true love, full of symbols (nothing is as it seems here).

The performances, especially by Harvey Keitel and Mira Sorvino, are truely exceptional and the mystical mood of the film is compelling.

"Lulu on the Bridge" is pointless nonsense featuring some fine acting talent which is stifled by the absence of a worthy story.

He was never able to catch his own fireflies, and it is that haunting symbol of loss, that empty jar, that is the grown man who is filled by the beautiful woman from nowhere.

Sure it was suspenseful.

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.

"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.

The acting is stilted, unemotionless, and trite.

And the screenplay seems to pick up on the lack of wonder, as it is dry and banal.

Auster ads some strange parts which made his movie fascinating.

I think the combination and interaction of these two characters makes this film much more intense than Jacob's Ladder.

That being said, this effort is an absolute waste of time.

Whether this is by accident or intention I won't pretend to know, but watching this film is quite an interesting and enjoyable experience.

This is an engrossing, engaging, adult film that for some reason, the critics almost completely ignored.

As to the two leads: Mira Sorvino is absolutely stunningly beautiful and radiant and you simply can NOT take your eyes off her.. she goes through a myriad of hairstyles and styles of clothing, everything from bed-wear (lingerie), to around-town casual, to elaborate film costuming (she acts in a film towards the end of _this_ film), and she is totally convincing, believable, and riveting.

Uninspiring .

This is what I mean by creativity and it's good to see that some Americans can still go on that way, while mainstream American cinema is such a bore.

I watched the movie as it unfolded each new particle of new thought to bridge to another, leaving me with using my own skills to fill in pieces and parts .. which was really enjoyable to do!

Talk about pretentious, mechanical drivel (JACOB'S ending will forever be a cheap out, even to the most lame-brained b-movie hack writers who'd have sniffed such a metaphysical cop-out coming for half the movie).