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.

Here's a movie that has a Zero Rating at Rotten Tomatoes. It has some tremendously bad acting. The story ends in a way that most viewers seem cheated. Its poorly edited and photographed. But it still worked for me because the idea is so clever that I happily make the leap, completing the movie.Here's the general shape: man is shot and lays dying. He has a vision of girl who he falls in love with, a magical stone causes this. (This is a piece of plaster that falls on him when he is shot.) Its a sweet love story and the magical nature is apt for a movie about an inner movie.But there are two complications that help. One is that our hero is captured and quizzed. Some dreary writing and the roughest parts of the film are associated with this bit. Its the second complication that has a special sparkle. Our girl is an out of work actress who — again magically — gets the starring role as Lulu in a remake of "Pandora's Box." This is perhaps the most sexually charged film of all time: a perfect confluence of actress, svengali filmmaker and the cinematic properties of silent film-making. Its a rather clever fold, yeah? A film about an inner film of love that both references and includes a landmark film. Its being made in Joyce's Dublin by a character played by Vanessa Redgrave.More: our guy is particularly fond of "Singing in the Rain."The fact that the girl in this case is profoundly unsexy and unappealing in most ways deepens the notion for me.It works, if you let it.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I really think this movie is terrible. I bought it in Paris because it came free with Mean Streets(a real movie) . The plot is totally ludicrous. What was the story with the weird stone? I have never seen such a load of garbage in my life. This movie is real gay. i felt so strongly about this that i should warn people about it. I would have expected an awful lot more from Harvey Keitel. Seeing him like this is like seeing Clint Eastwood sweeping the dirt at your feet. Do not watch this movie. What really annoys me is that I actually paid money for this tripe. Had i known it was so bad, i would have bought Mean Streets elsewhere. I never heard of this film before i bought it. it is so gay

I got in one hour after it had started. It starred Harvey Keitel, whom I especially like and wanted to watch it because of him. Then Wilem DaFoe was there also, second reason to continue watching. Then, again, Mandy Patikin, number three great actor. I liked the character Harvey was playing, a soft spoken, quiet man, much different than many of his other characters. It was more like his character in 'The Piano'. I was pulled in and couldn't stop watching. I didn't know what had come before, so couldn't completely understand it, but just had to keep watching. As in a mystery, I thought I knew what was going on and I knew I had to see the entire movie at that point. It's more like a play than a movie, and excellently done. Great cinematography. Great suspense. Stunning finish. Really made me think and feel deeply.