Lush (2000) User Reviews

"A habitual heavy drinker", is the definition of "Lush", and there are several of them in this film.

[TxMike · 2 September 2002]

I'm not quite sure why I rented the "Lush" DVD. I suppose a big part of it was its New Orleans setting. However, except for a few location shots, including One Shell Square building, the French Quarter, and a St Charles Avenue streetcar, the bulk of the filming was done in Baton Rouge and a couple of golf courses there. It is not possible to write a narrative of "Lush." There's a washed-up pro golfer who drinks too much and lands in a Little Rock jail when he tries to bribe a cop with a $50 bill. There's a New Orleans lawyer who makes feeble attempts at suicide after telling various people that he has a life insurance policy with them as beneficiary. A couple of goofballs who work for him. Two sisters who take turns romancing the golfer after he gets back to New Orleans. The white dog that shows up in various places. In the end the golfer and the younger sister end up together, and he is managing a putt-putt establishment.

The writing and acting are good in spots, but uneven at best. Overall I found it mildly entertaining, but could not recommend it. The DVD is simple, ProLogic sound, no extras. "Lush" is quirky, it has fans, but most would be turned off by it. I see it has one "10" vote on the IMDb, a woman over 45, must be the director's mother! :-)

IMITATION DAVID LYNCH

[flimbuff · 3/10 · 19 May 2002]

If you like confusing flashbacks, good cinematography, competent acting and like to solve puzzles, this may be the film for you.

The problem with this production is that after you take the time to solve the puzzle you realize that you've been been conned.

There really is nothing to do this other than the idea of showing a part of New Orleans that doesn't revolve around Mardi Gras, Bourbon Street, romance or the conflicts between cajuns, blacks, rednecks and old plantation owners. Once you get past those things you realize that New Orleans is just a regular city with good and bad qualities but just a little flashier than Cincinnatti or Louisville.

The story, if you can call it that, revolves around a promising pro golfer who got bounced off the tour because he wanted to search for the "meaning of life" and decided to drink along the way.

The "way" brings him into a relationship with two sisters who he went to grade school or something with and a possibly closet gay attorney, Jared Harris. who has also fallen victim to the evils of drink.

Oh and his late father was of course a groundskeeper at a wealthy country club which the two sisters are members of.

There are some scenes of him Campbell Scott, our hero, running to find a train constantly blocking his path across the tracks and of course a "seer" commenting that "another will be along" when he misses a ride on the trolley. And of course when he does get across the tracks he finds himself in a flophouse with the "po folk" and is rescued by one or the other of the two sisters.

Then the attorney may or may not have been killed so the local police naturally think he may or may not have done it for the insurance money.

Make sense so far? Well there are also two escapees from one of Jack Kerouac's bad dreams who are also suspects and a family friend who is a drug dealer with guilt feelings.

The writer threw those characters in to make a gullible viewer, like myself, think this was an art film and had some kind of deep meaning.

David Lynch often does that too as witness the success of "Blue Velvet".

But be advised I gave this a 3 out of 10 only because the photography is very good and the cast obviously needed the money and tries very hard.

If you are worried about your 401K monies or your bar tab, don't rent this.

A Lamentable Attempt at Filmmaking

[jhclues · 2/10 · 11 July 2002]

Everybody likes a good mystery and a good movie, and together the two make a potent combination; unfortunately, you get neither with `Lush,' written and directed by Mark Gibson, a film that leads you down the path apparently for no other reason than to lead you down the path, and that's considering it from the most positive and objective point of view one could possibly muster. Rarely does a movie leave the viewer with such a pronounced sense of indifference as this one, or with the feeling that the entire experience was, at best, pointless.

When Lionel Exley (Campbell Scott), a promising professional golfer, chooses the comforts of the bottle over his career, he is ousted from the circuit. He goes back home to New Orleans to sort out his life, which he does by looking through the bottom of a whiskey glass. Then he meets Firmin Carter (Jared Harris), a hopeless alcoholic with one up on Lionel, however, inasmuch as he is wealthy, which means that when he hits the floor, at least it's the best that money can buy.

Lionel quickly becomes something of a confidant to Firmin, which leads to a proposal Firmin makes to his new found friend, which could be a lucrative proposition if they can pull it off. Lionel demurs, however, as in the sober light of day it all just seems too ludicrous. But after another night of drinking, it appears that Lionel just may have pulled it off after all. The problem is, he doesn't remember a thing-- and suddenly the police are in his $9.00-per-night flop house room asking questions...

A story told in cryptic terms can be a challenge to an audience, and unraveling a mystery can be an engrossing and ultimately satisfying experience. But only when there's something actually worth unraveling. In this case, it would be more accurate to say that it's the film itself that unravels, except that it is never together enough in the first place to do so. Gibson's presentation is seemingly so convoluted it's as if he did it intentionally, not to effect good drama or mystery, but in hopes of concealing the fact that the story-- such as it is-- is just so obtuse. And the real pity of it is, he wastes the talents of some actors who deserve better. Much better.

As far as performances go, Campbell Scott is solid as always, but his efforts here, while commendable, are ultimately an exercise in futility. Even an Oscar worthy performance couldn't salvage this one. And that is not to say that this is an award winning performance; it isn't-- but it is credible, and Scott does about as well as anyone could with the material he's given to work with. The good news is, there are greener pastures ahead for Scott (as well as all of his costars here), because after this, there is definitely no way to go but up.

Happily, Laura Linney-- proving the old adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger-- earned an Oscar nomination for her work in her next project, giving an extraordinary performance in an extraordinary film, `You Can Count On Me,' which was also one of the best films of that year. In this one, Linney-- like Scott-- brings more to her role of Rachel Van Dyke, the affluent southern belle who becomes involved with Lionel, than anyone would have the right to expect, including her director. Considering how poorly written this screenplay is, she deserves a lot of credit for even being able to `find' her character, let alone make her convincing-- which she does. But again, the best performance in the world couldn't save this one.

Also turning in a decent-- albeit wasted-- performance, is Jared Harris as the self-destructive Firmin Carter, a character nearly as pitiful as the film itself. Taken out of context, in fact, Harris actually does some commendable work here. And again, it's a case of the actor doing everything humanly possible with what he was given, which certainly wasn't much.

The supporting cast includes Laurel Holloman (Ash), Nick Offerman (Gerry), James `Kimo' Wills (Pats), James R. Hall Jr. (Buddha), Don Hood (Har) and Sherry Francis (Mrs. Van Dyke). A lamentable attempt at filmmaking, the best thing that can be said about `Lush' is that it makes you appreciate a `good' movie. In defense of Gibson, it should be pointed out that this was his first attempt as a writer/director, which is no easy undertaking even for a seasoned professional. When you see a great-- or even a good movie-- it always looks like it was brought to the screen so effortlessly; and that's what makes a great filmmaker great-- that ability to make it all look so natural, and `easy' to do. It's like the old `I-could-have-written-that' out-of-hand dismissal of a best selling novel; it just looks so easy. Rest assured, it is not; and hopefully Gibson will learn from this experience, pick himself up and move on to bigger, better and more worthwhile projects in the future. I rate this one 2/10.

If this movie was a joke, I'm not laughing.

[MBunge · 3/10 · 24 August 2010]

This is the first movie I've ever watched where I suspect it isn't a real movie at all. I think Lush is some sort of extended practical joke on the audience. The image that comes into my mind is the film's producers laughing at anyone who pays money to watch it.

I could be wrong about that, but the only other reasonable possibility is even stranger to consider. If it isn't some kind of prank, Lush might be a science fiction movie where all the overtly sci-fi elements were edited out of a story about a man transdimensionally teleported into an alternate reality where he's the only normal person in a world that's like a bad knockoff of a Tennessee Williams play and he deals with being trapped in that unsettling existence by drinking himself into occasional alcoholic blackouts.

Or to put it another way…this is not a good movie. It doesn't even have the decency to be aggressively bad and easily mocked. It's made with just enough craft and pretension that if you don't pay close attention you might be fooled into thinking that it's telling a coherent and meaningful story.

Lush starts out with failed pro golfer Lionel Exley (Campbell Scott) getting out after 90 days in jail for trying to bribe a cop during a drunk driving stop. He falls in with W. Firmin Carter (Jared Harris), a lawyer who happens to be the exact same theatrically drunk and world weary Southerner who's been a supporting character in about 13,000 other Hollywood productions. The next 40 minutes of Lush are really just a series of random events of no particular significance. You keep waiting for the story to start and go somewhere and, eventually, something noteworthy does happen about halfway through. I won't spoil that something for you, because the film quickly spoils itself. After the big something, it goes back to random events of no particular significance.

It's possible I'm simply not smart enough to get the artistic or aesthetic point of Lush. I don't think so, though, because in the second half of the movie it makes some half-hearted and ham handed stabs at exploring Exley's alienation from his groundskeeper father and the rich kids he went to school with on scholarship. That sort of thing just bubbling up toward the end of the story without being connected to anything before it, makes me pretty confident there's not some subtle stuff going on that I'm just missing.

The best thing about Lush are the performances of Laura Linney and Laurel Holloman as sisters who let Lionel Exley into their lives to differing degrees. Frankly, they could have been the lead characters in a much more entertaining film but even though Lush doesn't focus on them nearly enough, both women seem to have a good time playing roles that go beyond thankless girlfriend, lust object or shrew.

I know not every movie is meant to be a rousing crowd pleaser. Some films are quieter or meant more to challenge than entertain. But being more subdued isn't an excuse to be boring and trying to engage the intellect shouldn't be confused with not having a point. Lush is the sort of film that leaves you wondering exactly how the producers convinced anyone to give them the money to make it, which is a far more thought provoking enigma than anything else in the movie.

"Not a horror movie......just a horror of a movie"

[clydestuff · 1/10 · 23 March 2003]

If ever I have seen a worse movie, I can't remember it. While browsing around a Video Store one day, my girlfriend picked this up out of the

bargain bin for about five bucks because she said that it looked like

it would be interesting and how could you go wrong for five dollars etc. All very well and good I suppose....but less than half an hour into this mess my girlfriend could stand it no more, and I had to literally force myself to sit there and watch this train wreck of a

movie. I would tell you about the acting, but there is no acting in this film....it's like watching pictures on a post card. I would tell you about the plot....but if I could do that, it would mean that I made sense out of this mess and would definitely be in need of some real help! There is no redeeming qualities in this film, and if you see it in the bargain bin on DVD, take it up to the clerk, chastise them for improper labeling, then have the clerk stick a Frisbee sticker on it.

Good black comedy flick, but not for everyone

[Hollywood Freak · 7/10 · 3 May 2000]

Mark Gibson, who is a master of using mirrors in shots, directs this gem which will probably never get a wide release. Campbell Scott, who was great in Singles and The Spanish Prisoner, really gets to shine here in a unsympathtic role. Jared Harris also has a few good moments, especially when he's drunk. You may recognize Laurel Holloman as Mark Wahlberg's girlfriend in Boogie Nights before he becomes Dirk Diggler. See it if not for some witty lines and good camerawork.

The bottom of the bottle

[guilfisher-1 · 1/10 · 6 July 2005]

I rented this loser because it mentioned Campbell Scott, who I admire very much as an actor, and New Orleans. You can always be sure the aura of the town of New Orleans can recall many Tennessee Williams plays of substance. This movie, written and directed by Mark Gibson in 1999, ain't the same.

A golf pro, ousted from the profession due to boozing it up, and we never know why, comes home to a mish mash of people and events. He strikes a friendship with a gay lawyer, or is he gay, who's out to swindle his insurance with a fake suicide. Unfortunately he too is a drinker and from there the plot goes awry. Scott, playing the golfer, seems more interested in a white dog that travels the streets and the graveyards. What this dog is supposed to do, no one knows. Maybe he was off the set of White Fang. Anyway, things occur, very puzzling things, that make no sense at all. Also in this mixed up plot are two sex starved sisters played by Laura Linney and Laurel Holloman.

I finally gave up on this and fell asleep. I give it one star just in respect of Campbell Scott's attempt. See him in LONGTIME COMPANION. He's so much better in that.

charming

[jj-hunsecker · 9/10 · 10 August 2006]

I loved this movie -- not your typical indie. Don't be fooled by the DVD artwork this is not a thriller! it's weird and funny with a romantic feel.

This is the real New Orleans; offbeat characters and way too much booze. JAred Haris is particularly good as the suicidal lawyer. Laurel Holloman and LAura Linney are fun as sisters on the prowl.

If you like your movies to take unexpected turns this is for you.

Also, how can you go wrong with Plastic Bertrand in the opening credits.

French punk rules!

Well, I really like it.

[robinpittis-1 · 8/10 · 21 October 2007]

Why do so many people assume this is a poorly constructed film? It definitely forced me to make an effort, but I appreciate that. It did have a slowness of pace that might turn some people off, but I took that to be a Southern US or Louisianna thing. I guess the word is idiosyncratic? It may also have put off the artsy intellectual types because the underlying message is so unpretentious. "Life sucks sometimes, but things get better..." seems anti-climatic. The cast is great. The soundtrack likable and intelligent. I've watched it a few times and like it more and more every time. ***SPOILER!*** Has anyone noticed that the priest gives a package to Laurel Hollomans character after the funeral at the end? I'm wondering if the child is Firmin's and the money has gone to her... Just a thought. My only problem is that it could be taken as indicating that alcoholics just need to find the right girl, which is sadly deluded.

Not for everyone, but...

[MBT · 8/10 · 22 November 2002]

...if you like observing the world of the indolent, directionless elite of inherited wealth and watch them fritter away their aimless lives at the country club causing mischief for entertainment, then you might like this film. I did. Except for one dippy scene on a river with very meaningful SimonandGarfunkelly music, this film engages you in the characters and at the same time makes you glad that you don't REALLY know them. Can't speak about the authenticity of the New Orleans backdrop, but the archetypical characters sure looked familiar and real. Plus, it had a nice ending and everybody got what he wanted pretty much which is what movies are supposed to tell us life can sometimes be like, right?

Rent this

[urigold-1 · 10/10 · 11 January 2009]

great characters, great setting and a very different kind of story-- funny and very tender too. I especially like the scenes with Campbell Scott and Laurel Hollomon from L word. The guy who plays the caddy is very funny, don't know where I hav seen him. Watched this with a friend who is from the south and said this was very close to the real south not the Hollywood version. I like movies that take you someplace new and this does it, makes you feel like you are there and not rushed. Only problem I had was with the dog, why? But overall just a different and interesting story with good actors. This will stay with you long after it's over. Like I said, rent this!

an experimental European film masked in American gloss

[msieira · 10/10 · 6 October 2007]

I need to respond first to the creative lambasting that precedes my comments. Not only are you dead wrong, but it is precisely this kind of facile dismissal that holds back American film. This is an experimental European independent film masked in American gloss, and it is this quality that is both the virtue and the marketing difficulty of the film. Had my fellow reviewers seen a low production value version of the same film, they would have hailed it as the second coming and fiercely emailed their friends about the literary and film references within it. They would have known right away to expect a twisted plot line, fragmented exposition of the characters, and a constantly shifting understanding of the film's sense with each subsequent scene. The film project that a film like this represents is to make work that is both complex and mainstream, rather than to corral the good stuff in the "experimental" corner. But this kind of film project needs an audience willing to constantly update their visual acuity. If you remember, Godard was not always the crowned king he is today. When he was making his 1960's films he was making seemingly casual films out of a very serious understanding of the potential of film and received similarly frustrated responses. The difference, of course, between a filmmaker working in France in the 1960's and one working in America today is that you need much much much more money to get your projects done, so it might take a little longer for the film project to happen, but it will.