User 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".

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.

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.

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!

.

Caught this at the 75th EIFF, very clever and inventive piece of micro-budget SF, presented almost as documentary using footage discovered in old movie reel tins in a deserted house in England, purporting to document a pair of eccentric sisters created Lola, a machine which can intercept. Broadcasts from the future. It starts as fun, but as the war comes to Britain, Lola's trajectory changes radically.

Some of the film was shot on period cameras, developed in a rougher way to give the impression of damaged old film reels, while other footage uses newsreels, edited to include characters (a la Forrest Gump) or events, while the story also brings into play the nature of personal responsibility and the potential consequences of interfering with history. In many ways it reminded me of Primer, now a cult film, which I first saw at the same film festival years ago.

Almost every aspect misfires in its own way. Acting felt forced, plot points seemed excessive, character writing didn't feel believable nor were the characters likeable. The found-footage aspect not only doesn't work but works against the film's believability, as soon as you ask yourself: "am I expected to believe that a character is capturing these scenes?". Don't wanna hate for too long, I enjoy when filmmakers come up with something great with a small budget and some creativity magic, but this just didn't do it for me. I was fully disengaged before the end of act 1 and just laughing at the corny scenes they pulled.

After seeing the trailers online but sadly it didn't come anywhere near where I live. That it received a very limited release is such a shame as this is truly a unique, smart, entertaining and wonderfully made film which kept me glued to the screen - tv screen :(( - so much so, I forgot I was watching a film and was totally and utterly immersed. The performances are outstanding - each and every one. The direction is smart and doesn't waste a frame on filler and the atmosphere is spot on, it feels so much like war time. The special effects are worthy of any blockbuster and the script/story is tight and very clever. I like the way it is shot although I guess some people might not but if you turn it off due to that, you are making a huge mistake. I have a feeling this will achieve cult status and hopefully finds its way onto SKY and the like and then enjoys the audience it so deserves. It would be such a shame if it wasn't widely seen as, for me, it is probably the movie of the year so far and will rightly take a place in my all time favourite list. I will be watching it again very soon.

I am adding to this having read some of the reviews written since I last looked. UI'm afraid I find the negative opinions ridiculous - maybe it's just you have to have imagination, intelligence and a heart to get this movie and not be a mysoginistic halfwit who doesn't understand of you fast forward through a movie, you miss most of it... sigh.

"Father always said, gender divide is an artificial construct" - 1939 wahmen who don't need no man. *facepalm*

The characters are so horribly written. The dialogue is absolute trash. The main characters are so unbelievably annoying and unrealistic. Little girls in the 30's that are super geniuses, build basically a time-machine TV.

I like the idea behind the story, but the scipt is just so terrible. I had to turn it off half way through. I disliked the main characters so much. They were not likeable or believable.

I'm only writing this review to warn people. This movie is trash. No streaming service will pick it up I'm sure. Avoid at all costs.

Lola is a arresting indie film that combines the genres of time loop and found footage to create a dual-layered story. The film follows Thom and Mars, two inventors who have created LOLA, a device that can receive radio and TV signals from the future. However, they are unaware of the dire consequences that their actions will have on the world and themselves, as they share these broadcasts with others. Lola is a compelling alternative history drama that explores the impact of our choices and the moral responsibility that comes with them. The film does not rely on flashy effects or gimmicks, but rather on the emotional resonance of the characters and the intriguing plot twists. The film it most reminded me of was Chris Marker's masterpiece, La Jetée. With winning performances and use of found footage, Lola is a film that will make you think and feel, as you witness the ripple effects of time manipulation.

Gawd, I hate found footage.

LOLA would have been interesting. The paradoxes of changeing the past have been well explored. But the paradoxes of changing the future, not explored so much.

So I expected more from LOLA. The 'found footage' approach added nothing. Finding it didn't change anything. Just made it cheep, not worth the price of admission. (found footage never is). And it was hard to tell 'current' newsreels from future newsreels. It should be reshot, without the home movies.

The novelty of found footage wore off two decades ago.

Thom's archaic attitudes strongly suggest that her parents were already watching the 60's before she was born.

Mercifully, 'found footage' has not been overused by the major production houses. That allowed this gem to slip in to the main stream with its imaginative story line and cinematic style. It will become a cult classic, But writing that is facile and is almost harmful to my review. The characters other than the 2 sisters were deliberately underplayed, in my opinion. This allowed the emphasis to be on the story's development of what started as a fun invention (lots of wine and to hell with the consequences). The story line (and the terrific acting by the 2 sister- characters) twisted its way into a darker place. What I found most fascinating about the director is what a great story teller he is. All the while we were cheering on the successes of the British military heroes, who were fighting against a fascist enemy - while elements within the military were developing fascist traits of their own. I think that some of the critics did a disservice to the movie by over-emphasizing the relevant of the punk movement in the future, to the main story-line..

"Time travel" in any shape or form is something I will always watch.

And the plot of Lola sounded interesting enough.

Sadly, I could not even finish it.

It is badly done in so many ways.

First, the "footage" does not look at all like it was from 1941.

Second, while I can accept the existence of a "Time Machine" that broadcasts the future (for a movie), everything else is 100% unbelievable.

If there really was such a thing during the war, there is no way that any of the characters would act the way they do.

The general style might appear to some people, to me it was rather offputting as well. All said, it's another twist on the "found footage" genre, which has been overdone so many times and better should be left alone.

Lola: A cautionary tale about Time Travel; even if it just involved intercepting future Radio and TV broadcasts. Sisters Thomasina (Emma Appleton) and Martha (Stefanie Martini) have always been precocious, fiddling around with valves and electrical components since they were toddlers. Martha is the ideas person/inventor, Thomasina is the engineer who creates the devices. In October 1938 they build Lola, a chronovisor, they view and listen to future TV signals. They first see Bowie playing Space Oddity but go on to view rhe future Grand Nationals and other events to make money from betting. When World War 2 begins they intercept future news to warn people about bombing raids. Eventually tracked down by Military Intelligence they aid the War effort but when you interfere with the future yiu end up with unexpected consequences and no good deed goes unpunished.

The conceit is that is found footage, a film put together by Martha from newsreels, old home films and film shot by Martha on 16 mm stock. It is wonderful in black and white, blurry at times, blacking/whiting out. Changes made to actual 1930s/40s cinenews are seamless and transforms history. Bowie references provide many in jokes and cultural references, as the girls sing and dance in the future music. An Anti-Bowie. Reggie Watson (Shaun Boylan) delivers sinister tunes in a Bowiesque style. The sisters are delightfully eccentric, even keeping a horse indoors, they live in an old crumbling manor house where they basucally raised themselves as "wild childen". Great performances by Appleton and Martini with Rory Fleck Byrne as an Intelligemce officer who falls for Martha and Aaron Monaghan as his manipulative superior. Neil Hannon provides the original soundtrack with Watson's authoritarian songs. Directed and written by Andrew Legge. 8.5/10,

Syfy is probably the most adaptable genre there is and can be found is any setting, whether it be romance, war, comedy or drama. Most syfy genres utilize the culture or time period its placed in, most see this a totally factual importance. Unfortunately, LOLA doesn't and movies or shows which don't do this don't attract the attention it could.

The language of the day neds to be adhered to. You can't have 2023 lingo scattered throughout a script if the story is around 1940. There are words and concepts not used yet. Attitudes and actions can define an era. LOLA seems to ignore this.

Great concept and could have been a great little movie, but to me, failed in the most important area in defining its content; time.

The acting is forced, almost college level. The women are strong and the men weak. I am so surprised that one of the sisters wasn't non-white.

I watched a lot of this on fast forward as the plot was so obvious that I only had to stop occasionally and dip in to catch up.

This was like watching an 'art house' movie from the 1980s. The discovered footage style made the film much less watchable.

A genuinely irritating, predictable and pretentious piece that in it's post-modern leanings forgets that which many of that genre fall victim to - that of entertainment.

If you are a film student with interests in late 1980s student film making from art school, then you might like it.

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.

I've watched over 5000 movies in my life. This is one of the worst. The only good thing was the idea of it. It could have been good.

First of all why is this filmed like this in poor bleach and white? There is no reason for it.

Second. Why do the girls speak and behave as it this was 2023?

Also, why are they so annoying? What's with the constant drinking wine?

They had this machine and they had no plans to help winning the war. Just to help a bunch of people here and there.

The first ever camera with sound recording, how did the military guy even ask if it was recording sound if that was unheard of?

Yah first time I ever saw a woman peeing standing. True art.

I saw this for free and left at 30min. What a waste of 30 min.

I do not usually rate movies except when I see something surprisingly good. After reading thousands of sci-fi books and comics, it is difficult to find something to like in the seventh art - everything is either a pathetic version of a great story that cannot be translated to the big screen ( Solaris, Dune ), or a movie loosely based on one or more ideas found in the classics of the scifi but so full of clichés that it completely loses the mind twister, the puzzle that is the best part of a scifi story ( I Robot, Ender's game, Avatar, etc ).

There are few movies that can feed the mind like a good scifi story does. I would mention Arrival, Interstellar, and the very few episodes from Babylon V and Battlestar Galactica that deal with the background story and are not just season fillers.

This one is one of them, and surely won its place in my collection of masterpieces.

OMG what a dumb plot. Centers on sisters as they initially use a machine to discover music from future and place bets, before realizing it will best be used to help fight the Nazis.

Gee. Sounds like a Mel Brooks production!

This movie is an embarrasment. First of all it's filmedin 16mm and 35mm. So if you see this in an actual theatre, get ready for super absurd low resolution that detracts from an already bad film!

The acting is rudimentary, the writing is ludicrous and the directing -- well let's just say it's no Orson Welles. Or even Ed Wood.

I am currently amazed at the movies that are getting backing these days.

Mall sign, "YOU ARE HERE." Streaming media saved the world from the straight-jacket of cable and pay-per-view, which had devolved into massively overpriced generic garbage. But the respite has proven to be temporary, as Hollywood seems determined to generate mainly scripts that serve adjacent, often well disguised, agendas. Lola is a throwback to the days when creators could come up with a completely off-the-wall concept and then share it with millions. The script is sharp enough to cut paper, and the technicals are perfect. Ditto for the actors. Contains some of the same sly humor we saw in another 2023 low-budget breakout, ARTIFICE GIRL. No you are not in the MCU or DCU. You are not in Kansas anymore either. Brilliant. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))