Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Back
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
  • FAQ
IMDbPro
Forever Lulu (2000)

User reviews

Forever Lulu

2 reviews
1/10

It oughta' be obvious

Where to begin? Ah yes - In the role of the novelist: Patrick Swayze.

...

You can tell he is intellectual, because he made the daring character choice of wearing glasses.

Fortunately for Swayze, Melanie Griffith was cast opposite, making him Olivier by comparison.

Her character - Lulu - begs to be strangled. I seriously scraped my knuckles trying to reach through the screen to choke her. She's supposed to be this schizo - a tender, profound soul with an impulsive, child-like disposition - but it comes off as the most affected crap you've ever seen.

It especially drove me crazy as I live in New York surrounded by NYU girls that are equally desperate to seem quirky.

If you see this on television, don't watch it. Turn off the TV, get up, leave your house, wait AT LEAST 3 hours (Just to be safe - these movies can really get stretched out with commercials), and then kill yourself.
  • PGMcCullough
  • Jan 7, 2007
  • Permalink
1/10

The premise was it's crutch

This horrible awful movie rests on a rather exciting premise of schizophrenia. However, the movie itself actually sucks. I think the only people that like this are those pretentious types that think anything is intellectual based on shock value premises. However there isn't even shock value to this movie. Poor writing, cheesy dialog, cliché' premise, bad acting, and unbelievable character development. And what was up with that 1/2 long scene (can't give spoilers but its the one on the plane). It just dragged on and on and on with fluffy dialog and nothing all that seriously deep. Now as someone who has studied psychology I can understand the full seriousness of mental illness but this movie used schizophrenia as it's entire crutch and even then they did not do a great job at portraying it. The title of this movie says it all "Forever Lulu" because I felt like this movie was going to last "For Ever". This has got to be one of the worst films ever made, one of the most boring as well as lacking in any real psychological stimulation. This movie should have been more about being in a coma because it's intellectually brain dead. I also studied a little drama, literature, and theater in college and I know that doesn't make me an expert by any means however even someone with no theater or writing experience what so ever can clearly see that this movie is seriously lacking in any depth, south, spirit, or anything slightly moving other than what the viewer projects onto it. Any depth or cognitive incite that any viewer sees in this film purely comes from their own mind and not anything scene nor heard on the screen. This movie totally depends on the viewer "projecting" depth that isn't there. I think if they had hired the right writers, psychologists, psychotherapists, people that actually had schizophrenia, etc etc etc basically do their research and get some creative writers this movie premise could have been a huge block buster. But basically it's not even worthy to be Psychological Drama let alone a fluffy bunny feel good romp with a paranoid blonde and her aging boyfriend, who's obviously too old to play that part. No offense to Patrick Swayze may he rest in peace. But to pic him for this part just didn't fit. Maybe if he was playing her older sugar daddy type that may have been more realistic but it seems obvious they weren't even on the same age level. Anyway, this movie premise though fantastic should have called for someone who was not well known on the movie screen like a Broadway actor that could fit the role better. It breaks the 4th wall when you pick a popular pretty face to play such a deep role. I think the writers were holding back and could have done so much more with this premise but they seem to have not only lacked the skill to recognize a great premise needs a great film and they also seemed to have deliberately shot themselves in the foot. I haven't been this sickened by the drowning of a great premise since the mentally-flaccid remake of the psychological thriller Psycho in the late 1990s. Heck even a remake would make Forever Lulu look better even if the producers of South Park did it and turned it into a cartoon comedy (sarcasm). Forever (boring) Lulu leaned entirely on it's premise of schizophrenia as it's total crutch.
  • davidsawyer-me
  • Jul 28, 2012
  • Permalink

More from this title

More to explore

Recently viewed

Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
Get the IMDb App
Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
Follow IMDb on social
Get the IMDb App
For Android and iOS
Get the IMDb App
  • Help
  • Site Index
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • License IMDb Data
  • Press Room
  • Advertising
  • Jobs
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, an Amazon company

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.