IMDb RATING
6.4/10
3.5K
YOUR RATING
1940, Thom and Mars have built a machine, LOLA, that can intercept radio and TV broadcasts from the future. Unknown to them sharing these broadcasts the devastating changes it will have on t... Read all1940, Thom and Mars have built a machine, LOLA, that can intercept radio and TV broadcasts from the future. Unknown to them sharing these broadcasts the devastating changes it will have on the future of world but to them also.1940, Thom and Mars have built a machine, LOLA, that can intercept radio and TV broadcasts from the future. Unknown to them sharing these broadcasts the devastating changes it will have on the future of world but to them also.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 6 wins & 10 nominations total
Cha Cha Seigne
- Lola Hanbury
- (as Chacha Seigne)
Neil Hannon
- Reginald Watson
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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".
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".
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.
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.
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!
.
.
Wonderful!
We're told it's all going to go wrong -- that is no spoiler -- and it's intriguing to wonder exactly how things will go wrong. (There's a short headline in a newspaper which gives a hint of what might go wrong.)
One of the strengths of the screenplay is that everything goes perfectly right -- ignoring one hiccough -- for the first 30 minutes. We need to see just how wonderful their invention is, so we're fully emotionally engaged when things start to go wrong.
The wartime footage is used very effectively. Stefanie Martini gives an excellent performance as Martha. And it's strange to think that Spandau Ballet might never have existed.
We're told it's all going to go wrong -- that is no spoiler -- and it's intriguing to wonder exactly how things will go wrong. (There's a short headline in a newspaper which gives a hint of what might go wrong.)
One of the strengths of the screenplay is that everything goes perfectly right -- ignoring one hiccough -- for the first 30 minutes. We need to see just how wonderful their invention is, so we're fully emotionally engaged when things start to go wrong.
The wartime footage is used very effectively. Stefanie Martini gives an excellent performance as Martha. And it's strange to think that Spandau Ballet might never have existed.
Love a good time conundrum, though most are a bit of a letdown.
This, however, was a bit of fun, and I did appreciate the obvious effort put into both the genuine Newsreel edits and the prop-builds.
Not surprisingly, there's a bit of "It's the 40's" pomposity, but that seems to be a common denominator of many period films.
A few anachronisms (namely using a camera which was not released until 1952, and which was as noisy as a chaff-cutter!), but overall, a bit of fun.
Annoying as they were, the characters fit the found-footage stage play feel quite convincingly, particularly the character of the soldier who discovers where they are.
Clever, and not reliant on grandiose effects (which tend to put me off...).
Worth a look, when you have a free hour or two.
This, however, was a bit of fun, and I did appreciate the obvious effort put into both the genuine Newsreel edits and the prop-builds.
Not surprisingly, there's a bit of "It's the 40's" pomposity, but that seems to be a common denominator of many period films.
A few anachronisms (namely using a camera which was not released until 1952, and which was as noisy as a chaff-cutter!), but overall, a bit of fun.
Annoying as they were, the characters fit the found-footage stage play feel quite convincingly, particularly the character of the soldier who discovers where they are.
Clever, and not reliant on grandiose effects (which tend to put me off...).
Worth a look, when you have a free hour or two.
Did you know
- TriviaFilmed using genuine pre-war cameras and black and white film, which even though coloured film was available in the period, it would have been too expensive for ordinary budgets to afford.
- GoofsIn Thom's discussion with Cobcroft it's implied that U-boats travel underwater and surface in order to attack. It's actually the opposite. WWII era subs ran mostly on diesel, which needed to be vented to the outside, and stayed on the surface most of the time. They only submerged when they were about to attack, running on comparatively limited battery power.
- ConnectionsFeatures Woodstock (1970)
- How long is Lola?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Лола
- Filming locations
- England, UK(archive footage, world war two)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $206,037
- Runtime
- 1h 19m(79 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 4:3
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content