Lost in London

Even after watching the Q and A for the film I still can't figure out why someone would have their directorial debut be the most challenging project I can imagine undertaking. Even without the single shot, live elements, the film is written and performed hilariously. I had more laugh out loud moments in the theater with this film than I can remember in recent history. After the film, the cast and crew presented a Q and A that really makes you feel like you are part of the process, which I guess we were. Willie Nelson was a surreal fantasy for both Woody and the audience. Owen Wilson was a great as usual and the self deprecating humor Woody Nelson threw in about his career as well as Wilsons, was lovingly harsh and very funny. There were some inconsistencies with the cultural and film references being post 2002 when the film supposedly takes place, but they didn't really place it in that time period until the end of the film so it wasn't distracting or obvious and didn't detract. It was fantastic as an experience and was a genuinely delightful film.

Woody Harrelson comes off the stage in another mediocre London West End theatre production. Over the course of the evening his marriage to his wife (Eleanor Satsuura) breaks down due to an indisctrion which makes its way to the front page of a tabloid, but after an apparent fight with friend Owen Wilson he leaves a nightclub and gets into an altercation with a taxi driver that lands him in jail.

A piece of experiemental cinema whereby the film was shot in real time and streamed to a live cinema audience in the USA and then the UK on the 19th January 2017. The idea is incredibly bold and well executed with some aspects of the film working very well, others less so. Modern technology and smaller GoPro type cameras have allowed for this type of film to be executed, but it is also well choreographed. For this alone, Harrelson should be praised.

If you have any basic knowledge of film making, acting, lighting, sound engineering and broadcasting, after watching this film you might agree it was an incredible achievement given the limited budget and schedule and all the obstacles and circumstances in which it was put together. When judging all the elements in the film, but particularly acting, it is fair to consider the EXTREME emotional and physical endurance all the actors and crew needed in order to materialize this (crazy) project, specially Woody who also served as director and, as he later explained during the QA session at the end of the movie, couldn't stop thinking about all the details while the camera was rolling. Remember, this movie was broadcast LIVE in one camera shot with no opportunity for screwing up, with the constant threat of technical glitches in sound (150 microphones) and video streaming, bad timing of actors and scenes, falls (the cameraman was running up and down staircases and other obstacles) and even bad weather, given that in London it can rain at any time and great part of the movie was shot outdoors. If you factor all these elements in, then Woody's performance was Academy Award ( or Tony? or both? ) winner. So for this reason, I am giving this movie a solid 10. What Woody and the rest of the crew have achieved is short of impossible. The plot and dialogues were good and entertaining, not a deep and thoughtful story, just a fun and silly comedy based on Woody's mostly-true recount of an awkward night in London. If you didn't have the opportunity to watch it live and would like to watch it now, please do so with an open mind and remember, this was an experimental project with incredible odds of not going well at all, and yet somehow it did!.

After reading some reviews I can see there are alot of mixed feelings about Lost In London, or you like or you don't like it at all. I'm glad to say I did like it. I liked it how the story was brought, with one camera shooting, with following Woody throughout the whole movie and to watch how his bizarre journey passes by. I get that not everybody has the same sense of humor so I do get that some people didn't thought it was funny, but I thought there were enough funny dialogues and moments to keep me entertained. I also do like Woody Harrelson as an actor so that made it probably easier for me to enjoy. For his directorial debut I think he did a good job. Lost in London was to me the perfect mix of drama and comedy, with the actors playing themselves. That was a good idea and made it a bit more special than the average movie.

Premiering via a live broadcast as it happened/was filmed way back in 2017, Woody Harrelson's ambitious directional debut Lost in London is now available to rent through YouTube here in Australia and deciding whether or not its worth your time will depend purely on what you are watching it for, for as a narrative film this is a film lacking in much goodness but as a unique experience and technical feat its highly commendable.

Based in parts around Harrelson's own experiences in the early 2000's, Lost sees the well-liked actor facing pressure in his personal life after a series of wrong decisions leads him to be appearing in tabloid publications across the nation and battling to ensure he doesn't lose all he holds dear in his life.

Filmed astoundingly in one take by Harrelson's D.O.P Nigel Willoughby and at the time screened live as it was being shot, with Harrelson looking to merge the cinematic and theatrical in a combined package, Lost constantly impresses as you witness the craft and care that must have gone into getting the film to a reality but you can't help but feel the very bare bones story and only mildly funny material at hand needed some more refinement to make Lost a truly well-rounded feature.

Always likable, Harrelson is his typically game self and has a lot of fun bantering with the likes of Owen Wilson and singing Cheers theme songs to confused security guards on his way around London this fateful night but the core storyline and delivery of some supposedly comedic moments like a U2 loving cop or an Arabian prince whose a big fan of Woody's never really gel together and you get a feeling that if the film had been delivered in a typical production sense jokes would've landed smoother and more time could've been given to areas that would've smoothed the boring components of the film out.

As it stands, Lost is an impressive feat in so many ways and its great to see the likes of Harrelson jump behind the camera and try for something special straight off the bat but Lost is only ever moderately entertaining as its generic and so-so story goes through the motions.

Final Say -

A must-watch for Woody fans and a nice novelty feature in conception and delivery, Lost in London is let down by mid-tier material and a mostly unengaging plot.

2 1/2 Bono phone calls out of 5