Lola

2022

Sci-Fi / War

13
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 97% · 39 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 66% · 100 ratings
IMDb Rating 6.4/10 10 2533 2.5K

Director

Top cast

David Bowie as Self as Ziggy Stardust
Emma Appleton as Thomasina
Rory Fleck-Byrne as Sebastian
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU 720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
722.76 MB
966*720
English 2.0
NR
24 fps
1 hr 18 min
Seeds 13
1.45 GB
1450*1080
English 5.1
NR
24 fps
1 hr 18 min
Seeds 32
722.2 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
NR
24 fps
1 hr 18 min
Seeds 8
1.45 GB
1920*1080
English 5.1
NR
24 fps
1 hr 18 min
Seeds 14

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by seven-johnson 6 / 10

An interesting concept...

...if you ignore the (very outer fringe) "science". Reviews are very mixed here, I'll give it a middling one.

I didn't love, nor hate it. It's an alright film for a midweek night. It's certainly no "indie gem", but on the small(ish) screen it works well and it does stand out IF you think of it as (yet another) found footage film and is a mildly refreshing addition to found footage sci-fi.

There's a British "quaintness" to it, but the acting lets it down at points - and that's across the cast of which there are few.

For me, the biggest let down was the soundtrack - the reimagings of a parallel universe Nazi-Bowie (yeah, we get it) were clumsy and musically bad, seemingly with lyrics written by someone that heard an Editors album once but it was "too edgy" for them and the world doesn't need a pastiche of a 3rd rate Joy Division tribute act - unless that was an actual joke. Just because you have a friend that'll do your soundtrack cheap... which is odd because the use of The Kinks worked I felt and must have cost some money.

There's a moment towards the end of the film where one of the female leads has "written her own song" and that's the point I checked out mentally and my suspension of disbelief really faltered, just horrible drama-school dross.

The director might be one to keep an eye on if they stop roping in friends and hire professionals and do some reading up about science, but almost an enjoyable film.

Reviewed by justahunch-70549 6 / 10

Not bad for an obviously very low budgeted film

Odd little found footage film. These kinds of films tend to be a mixed bag, to put it mildly, but this one is a little bit inventive taking place in the past with two women who invent a mechanism that can see into the future and at first it's great fun. However, they then see a war coming and they interfere and it changes events as is usually the case when one plays around with time. While this is a little unusual and well acted, it's also extremely illogical, but you can have some fun with it if you don't take it too seriously. This is an ultra low budget film that has two very good female leads in Stefanie Martini & Emma Appleton who are both new to me. I also thought Rory Fleck Byrne. This is super short!

.

Reviewed by ZarinoWatches 5 / 10

Blair Witch meets Primer meets Iron Sky

In late-1930s England, two sisters invent a machine that can pick up radio and TV broadcasts from the future. After using the machine-"LOLA"-to make money from horse races, they turn it towards Britain's war effort, with disastrous consequences.

While it's impressive how much the creators managed to do with a limited budget (and under COVID lockdown conditions!), the film does still suffer as a result. No amount of After Effects keyframing can make the altered archive footage look convincing, and despite a lot of effort being put into how the black and white footage looks, the obvious visual mismatch between "new" archive footage and "original" still dragged me out of the moment. We hit a low point when they started photoshopping Adolf Hitler into various scenes in the final act. Surely there must have been a better way to tell that part of the story, without painting yourself into a corner that is so hard to pull off convincingly on such a small budget?

The film suffers, too, from the same problem that many "found footage" films face - how to justify why the footage was filmed the way it was filmed, at the time, by people who didn't expect it to be found. As always with this genre of film, you have to suspend your disbelief a bit, I guess, but again, I was drawn out of the action more than a few times, when I found myself asking "who is meant to be holding the camera right now?" (eg: the sequence near the end, with Tom apparently walking, alone, down a corridor) or "why are they filming this?" If you set yourself up with this conceit, you have to follow it through. LOLA tries, but ultimately, I think, fails.

More frustrating, though, was the pacing. It was a brave decision to have so much of the development and backstory of the "LOLA" machine occupy only the first 5 minutes of the film. But that hypercompression at the start leaves us with a lumpy, bumpy ride over the rest of the runtime. The wine-soaked hanging out in the house, the tedious romantic scenes around a campfire, the "resistance" headquarters, it all just felt a bit aimless, and I must admit, I found myself browsing reviews and the film's Wikipedia page more than a few times.

(Compare with, say, Primer, another super low-budget indie time travel flick, which really takes its time telling the story of the invention, and the inventors - an approach that suits the low budget well, because you can focus on the small stuff, rather than suddenly having to fill 60 minutes of your film with a whole alternate universe.)

Ultimately, LOLA feels like a smart, 15-minute short, stretched out to 80 minutes. I'd love to see that short. I bet it would be awesome.

Read more IMDb reviews

11 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment