Lola (2022) User Reviews (28)

An interesting concept...

[seven-johnson · 6/10 · 13 July 2023]

...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.

Not bad for an obviously very low budgeted film

[justahunch-70549 · 6/10 · 7 August 2023]

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!

.

Blair Witch meets Primer meets Iron Sky

[ZarinoWatches · 5/10 · 30 December 2023]

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.

clever but taken mayve a tad too far

[harry_tk_yung · 18 August 2023]

Even not overly convoluted, this temporal-scramble sci-fic is a bit confusing at the beginning. I am therefore giving an outline of the story in a straightforward third-person linear narrative. The movie actually plays out as footage of a hand-held camera, presented as a home-made documentary from one of the two protagonists.

The story starts at the late 1930s with two young women, sisters and orphaned since early childhood, discovering an immense secret - how to capture radio-video wave from the future. They call their machine LOLA, after their mother. Initially treating this as a fun project that allows them to discover ahead of time pop idols such as Bob Dylan, Thomasina ("Thoms") and Martha ("Mars") realize at the onslaught of WWII that they can know ahead the exact time and target of Nazi bomb attacks. They put this foreknowledge to use, broadcasting messages in the name of "Portobello Angels", warning people in the danger zone to stay away. While these broadcast do not change the course of history, as the bombing still takes place, they save many lives.

But then, things escalate as two young soldier track the girls down and succeed in persuading them to take bolder steps. The course of history starts to change, even if not in a large macro scale. For instance, the broadcast headline for tomorrow may originally be "such-a-place is bombarded savagely, causing many casualties". But, with the foursome's intervention, when tomorrow comes, they become "German scheme to bombard such-a-place has been foiled, with most of the German planes shot down". So far so good.

But one day, they find that David Bowie, the future pop idol that the girls have picked up, disappears from the time and place where he is supposed to be. Ditto other future cultural figures that they have become familiar with. Then, all hell break loose as the course of history changes in an alarming way, such as the UK breaking the alliance with the US, and the Germany army landing on British soil. Some in the audience may find the plot twists outlandish. But those who have watched the amazing TV series of "the Man in the High Castle" are unlikely to.

As mentioned, the film packaged as a hand-held camera documentation, assembled from films going back to the time when the protagonists were little girls. The grainy black-and-while filming oozes retro beauty.

Emma Appleton playing Thom and Stefanie Martini as Mars both did splendidly with their respective character, markedly different in persona but sharing the same sibling love, richly fostered as small orphans together.

Microbudget but fun time travel movie

[ArtfulLodger · 7/10 · 3 August 2023]

OK not travel but viewing into the future, then making decisions in the present based on future knowledge.

My 7/10 is generous, I know, but that's for what the filmmakers achieved at the budget point and for a compelling idea. Historical future fiction is a weakness of mine, and whilst this isn't Azimov, it manages to get the time travel aspects "right" in-universe. Nothing annoys me more than a film which sets up rules then breaks them.

Another (very different) modest budget British time travel film which gets its timeline "right" which viewers may wish to try is "Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel".

Lola at the Edinburgh International Film Festival

[lestatultraviolet · 8/10 · 17 August 2022]

Caught this at the 75th EIFF, very clever and inventive piece of micro-budget SF, presented almost as documentary using footage discovered in old movie reel tins in a deserted house in England, purporting to document a pair of eccentric sisters created Lola, a machine which can intercept. Broadcasts from the future. It starts as fun, but as the war comes to Britain, Lola's trajectory changes radically.

Some of the film was shot on period cameras, developed in a rougher way to give the impression of damaged old film reels, while other footage uses newsreels, edited to include characters (a la Forrest Gump) or events, while the story also brings into play the nature of personal responsibility and the potential consequences of interfering with history. In many ways it reminded me of Primer, now a cult film, which I first saw at the same film festival years ago.

Cringed the whole way through

[ldcterreri · 2/10 · 2 August 2023]

Almost every aspect misfires in its own way. Acting felt forced, plot points seemed excessive, character writing didn't feel believable nor were the characters likeable. The found-footage aspect not only doesn't work but works against the film's believability, as soon as you ask yourself: "am I expected to believe that a character is capturing these scenes?". Don't wanna hate for too long, I enjoy when filmmakers come up with something great with a small budget and some creativity magic, but this just didn't do it for me. I was fully disengaged before the end of act 1 and just laughing at the corny scenes they pulled.

I really wanted to see this at a cinema....

[durham100 · 8/10 · 10 July 2023]

After seeing the trailers online but sadly it didn't come anywhere near where I live. That it received a very limited release is such a shame as this is truly a unique, smart, entertaining and wonderfully made film which kept me glued to the screen - tv screen :(( - so much so, I forgot I was watching a film and was totally and utterly immersed. The performances are outstanding - each and every one. The direction is smart and doesn't waste a frame on filler and the atmosphere is spot on, it feels so much like war time. The special effects are worthy of any blockbuster and the script/story is tight and very clever. I like the way it is shot although I guess some people might not but if you turn it off due to that, you are making a huge mistake. I have a feeling this will achieve cult status and hopefully finds its way onto SKY and the like and then enjoys the audience it so deserves. It would be such a shame if it wasn't widely seen as, for me, it is probably the movie of the year so far and will rightly take a place in my all time favourite list. I will be watching it again very soon.

I am adding to this having read some of the reviews written since I last looked. UI'm afraid I find the negative opinions ridiculous - maybe it's just you have to have imagination, intelligence and a heart to get this movie and not be a mysoginistic halfwit who doesn't understand of you fast forward through a movie, you miss most of it... sigh.

Horribly written with extremely annoying characters

[lukeferra · 1/10 · 12 July 2023]

"Father always said, gender divide is an artificial construct" - 1939 wahmen who don't need no man. *facepalm*

The characters are so horribly written. The dialogue is absolute trash. The main characters are so unbelievably annoying and unrealistic. Little girls in the 30's that are super geniuses, build basically a time-machine TV.

I like the idea behind the story, but the scipt is just so terrible. I had to turn it off half way through. I disliked the main characters so much. They were not likeable or believable.

I'm only writing this review to warn people. This movie is trash. No streaming service will pick it up I'm sure. Avoid at all costs.

Indi time loop at its touching best.

[dngoldman · 8/10 · 23 October 2023]

Lola is a arresting indie film that combines the genres of time loop and found footage to create a dual-layered story. The film follows Thom and Mars, two inventors who have created LOLA, a device that can receive radio and TV signals from the future. However, they are unaware of the dire consequences that their actions will have on the world and themselves, as they share these broadcasts with others. Lola is a compelling alternative history drama that explores the impact of our choices and the moral responsibility that comes with them. The film does not rely on flashy effects or gimmicks, but rather on the emotional resonance of the characters and the intriguing plot twists. The film it most reminded me of was Chris Marker's masterpiece, La Jetée. With winning performances and use of found footage, Lola is a film that will make you think and feel, as you witness the ripple effects of time manipulation.

Interesting idea, very poorly done

[bwdude · 1/10 · 11 July 2023]

"Time travel" in any shape or form is something I will always watch.

And the plot of Lola sounded interesting enough.

Sadly, I could not even finish it.

It is badly done in so many ways.

First, the "footage" does not look at all like it was from 1941.

Second, while I can accept the existence of a "Time Machine" that broadcasts the future (for a movie), everything else is 100% unbelievable.

If there really was such a thing during the war, there is no way that any of the characters would act the way they do.

The general style might appear to some people, to me it was rather offputting as well. All said, it's another twist on the "found footage" genre, which has been overdone so many times and better should be left alone.

Beware of Time Paradoxes

[Pairic · 9/10 · 11 April 2023]

Lola: A cautionary tale about Time Travel; even if it just involved intercepting future Radio and TV broadcasts. Sisters Thomasina (Emma Appleton) and Martha (Stefanie Martini) have always been precocious, fiddling around with valves and electrical components since they were toddlers. Martha is the ideas person/inventor, Thomasina is the engineer who creates the devices. In October 1938 they build Lola, a chronovisor, they view and listen to future TV signals. They first see Bowie playing Space Oddity but go on to view rhe future Grand Nationals and other events to make money from betting. When World War 2 begins they intercept future news to warn people about bombing raids. Eventually tracked down by Military Intelligence they aid the War effort but when you interfere with the future yiu end up with unexpected consequences and no good deed goes unpunished.

The conceit is that is found footage, a film put together by Martha from newsreels, old home films and film shot by Martha on 16 mm stock. It is wonderful in black and white, blurry at times, blacking/whiting out. Changes made to actual 1930s/40s cinenews are seamless and transforms history. Bowie references provide many in jokes and cultural references, as the girls sing and dance in the future music. An Anti-Bowie. Reggie Watson (Shaun Boylan) delivers sinister tunes in a Bowiesque style. The sisters are delightfully eccentric, even keeping a horse indoors, they live in an old crumbling manor house where they basucally raised themselves as "wild childen". Great performances by Appleton and Martini with Rory Fleck Byrne as an Intelligemce officer who falls for Martha and Aaron Monaghan as his manipulative superior. Neil Hannon provides the original soundtrack with Watson's authoritarian songs. Directed and written by Andrew Legge. 8.5/10,

Just poor

[aiproductionsglobal · 1/10 · 11 July 2023]

The acting is forced, almost college level. The women are strong and the men weak. I am so surprised that one of the sisters wasn't non-white.

I watched a lot of this on fast forward as the plot was so obvious that I only had to stop occasionally and dip in to catch up.

This was like watching an 'art house' movie from the 1980s. The discovered footage style made the film much less watchable.

A genuinely irritating, predictable and pretentious piece that in it's post-modern leanings forgets that which many of that genre fall victim to - that of entertainment.

If you are a film student with interests in late 1980s student film making from art school, then you might like it.

Sci-fi time bending and vintage photography weirdness makes LOLA an interesting watch

[stuartguy2000 · 8/10 · 28 October 2023]

I wanted to review this short indie movie as others seem to be doing it an injustice. Sadly looking into the future is currently impossible but if we are to suspend belief then this is an entertaining concept with some interesting use of vintage photography that tries to give it a weird authenticity.

The film opens with a found film archive from the 1930's that tells the story of misguided interventions of the future that results in the rise of fascism in Britain which even today is a chilling thought. The altered future is eventually resolved (or is it?) without creating too many time travel conundrums. An entertaining film worth a watch if you are interested in science fiction and time travel.

Absolutely terrible

[victorfernandes-76760 · 2/10 · 16 July 2023]

I've watched over 5000 movies in my life. This is one of the worst. The only good thing was the idea of it. It could have been good.

First of all why is this filmed like this in poor bleach and white? There is no reason for it.

Second. Why do the girls speak and behave as it this was 2023?

Also, why are they so annoying? What's with the constant drinking wine?

They had this machine and they had no plans to help winning the war. Just to help a bunch of people here and there.

The first ever camera with sound recording, how did the military guy even ask if it was recording sound if that was unheard of?

Yah first time I ever saw a woman peeing standing. True art.

I saw this for free and left at 30min. What a waste of 30 min.

highy impressed with all aspects of this movie.

[donmcmahon · 8/10 · 13 November 2023]

Mercifully, 'found footage' has not been overused by the major production houses. That allowed this gem to slip in to the main stream with its imaginative story line and cinematic style. It will become a cult classic, But writing that is facile and is almost harmful to my review. The characters other than the 2 sisters were deliberately underplayed, in my opinion. This allowed the emphasis to be on the story's development of what started as a fun invention (lots of wine and to hell with the consequences). The story line (and the terrific acting by the 2 sister- characters) twisted its way into a darker place. What I found most fascinating about the director is what a great story teller he is. All the while we were cheering on the successes of the British military heroes, who were fighting against a fascist enemy - while elements within the military were developing fascist traits of their own. I think that some of the critics did a disservice to the movie by over-emphasizing the relevant of the punk movement in the future, to the main story-line..

Is this Actually a Comedy?

[arfdawg-1 · 1/10 · 11 July 2023]

OMG what a dumb plot. Centers on sisters as they initially use a machine to discover music from future and place bets, before realizing it will best be used to help fight the Nazis.

Gee. Sounds like a Mel Brooks production!

This movie is an embarrasment. First of all it's filmedin 16mm and 35mm. So if you see this in an actual theatre, get ready for super absurd low resolution that detracts from an already bad film!

The acting is rudimentary, the writing is ludicrous and the directing -- well let's just say it's no Orson Welles. Or even Ed Wood.

I am currently amazed at the movies that are getting backing these days.

A rare masterpiece for hardcore sci-fi readers

[javajobsyahoo · 10/10 · 24 July 2023]

I do not usually rate movies except when I see something surprisingly good. After reading thousands of sci-fi books and comics, it is difficult to find something to like in the seventh art - everything is either a pathetic version of a great story that cannot be translated to the big screen ( Solaris, Dune ), or a movie loosely based on one or more ideas found in the classics of the scifi but so full of clichés that it completely loses the mind twister, the puzzle that is the best part of a scifi story ( I Robot, Ender's game, Avatar, etc ).

There are few movies that can feed the mind like a good scifi story does. I would mention Arrival, Interstellar, and the very few episodes from Babylon V and Battlestar Galactica that deal with the background story and are not just season fillers.

This one is one of them, and surely won its place in my collection of masterpieces.

Common Sy-Fy

[Martipee · 4/10 · 14 October 2023]

Syfy is probably the most adaptable genre there is and can be found is any setting, whether it be romance, war, comedy or drama. Most syfy genres utilize the culture or time period its placed in, most see this a totally factual importance. Unfortunately, LOLA doesn't and movies or shows which don't do this don't attract the attention it could.

The language of the day neds to be adhered to. You can't have 2023 lingo scattered throughout a script if the story is around 1940. There are words and concepts not used yet. Attitudes and actions can define an era. LOLA seems to ignore this.

Great concept and could have been a great little movie, but to me, failed in the most important area in defining its content; time.

Shocked to see the negative reviews.

[rebeccadidt-73320 · 9/10 · 5 January 2024]

A spectacularly good journey; from the deft, light touch of our introduction to the two charmingly unusual, instantly likeable central characters, through the shared joy and wonder of their discoveries, to their painful dilemma and its harsh consequences.

I personally had no issues with the wobbly, handheld style with its breaks and burnouts, but one member of our cinema group said they did find it a bit of a distraction, although not nearly enough to spoil their enjoyment of the film.

The script is crisp and beautifully economical, the performances pitch perfect, the sets and locations provide a perfect backdrop, and the clothes - especially Thom's suits - are stunning.

I can only think the negative reviews here come either from people used to a diet of mass-produced, generic junk (Lola is the polar opposite of that), or those who think because this 'found footage' gem looks so uncannily like a documentary, it should be subject to similar standards of factual and visual clarity.

When I googled 'Lola' to find local showing times, the search engine actually offered me 'Is Lola a real story?' as a question. Really.

A clever, spirited, emotional alternate history tale

[tylerpatrickoneill · 10/10 · 7 August 2023]

A microbudget found-footage effort channeling the likes of Man in the High Castle meets The War Game meets Primer. Very technically impressive and clever, emotionally sturdy and full of energy. While it's admirable what the filmmakers accomplished, it does feel like an extra 20 minutes could've explored the larger world a bit more in the second act. Some of the dialogue and acting can get sketchy, but overall it demonstrates that there's still filmmakers who can wring fresh conceits out of the found footage genre. This is not a 10/10 movie but several reviews here seem to be going out of their way to call it a 1/10 based largely on one (admittedly tin-eared) line about gender.

What a dud

[ader-94847 · 1/10 · 12 August 2023]

They did a great job of turning a unique plot into a boring pile of dung. An almost unwatchable video and a dialog that is just awful. I really wanted to like this movie. But it was crazy boring. Plus it was like your 2 year old niece was in charge of cinematography. It would have much better had they limited it to no more than 60 minutes. The worst part is that Amazon charged $6.99 to watch this heaping pile. None of the characters are worth rooting for and this stupid website requires an enormous amount of characters before they will allow a reviewer to post a review. They should make an exception for awful movies.

excellent SF gem

[danthsmith-75606 · 9/10 · 16 September 2023]

There are millions of plot holes and inconsistencies in here but being picky is a bit churlish with so much creativity, so well presented. The CGI mucking about with news reels was excellent e.g. Hitler in Piccadilly and the Mall.

My main concern is that the found footage thing with film just doesn't work. They would have had to have millions of feet of celluloid during wartime to keep shooting and changing reels. This was a problem with Frankenstein's army, another WW2 found footage movie

I saw this at Frightfest in 2022 and again on TV. I have to say it was better on a smaller screen

Still, highly recommended and I look forward to seeing what Andrew Legge does next

.

Future broadcast reception?

[howardgross · 8/10 · 2 April 2024]

I'll pass on all the comments both positive and negative about this film and address just one sci-fi issue that some reviewers either scoff at or enjoy, receiving future broadcasts.

Off air broadcasting seems to be deemed a thing of the past early television, given cable delivery streaming and the now almost defunct vcr, dvd etc.

But original tv broadcasting went out into the airwaves on a variety of variable a frequency transmissions. Any signal sent out theoretically would enter the atmosphere and conceivably pass into space.

Given travel at the speed required to "catch" those signals in space, any original broadcast from any time sent to air could be received in the future creating the ability to look back in time, not forward.

Mind boggle. Love sci-fi as it becomes reality more and more.

Brilliant -- ironically the movie itself is a throwback to what movies used to be

[A_Different_Drummer · 9/10 · 10 July 2023]

Mall sign, "YOU ARE HERE." Streaming media saved the world from the straight-jacket of cable and pay-per-view, which had devolved into massively overpriced generic garbage. But the respite has proven to be temporary, as Hollywood seems determined to generate mainly scripts that serve adjacent, often well disguised, agendas. Lola is a throwback to the days when creators could come up with a completely off-the-wall concept and then share it with millions. The script is sharp enough to cut paper, and the technicals are perfect. Ditto for the actors. Contains some of the same sly humor we saw in another 2023 low-budget breakout, ARTIFICE GIRL. No you are not in the MCU or DCU. You are not in Kansas anymore either. Brilliant. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))