Lush

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.