This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

The first must-see film of the year.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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.

"Patrick Swayze and Melanie Griffith are 'Ben' and 'Lulu'. Years ago, they had an intense passionate affair, a relationship that ended very badly. Now, fifteen years later, he's a successful, married writer who gets a desperate call… Lulu needs his help. Chaotic and confused, she reveals a huge secret that they alone must deal with. Together, on a fiery cross-country journey they will find a new direction that points to their future," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.The irrelevant opening has Ms. Griffith and Ryan Bollman (as Freddie) in a San Francisco home for schizophrenics, estimating the number of blow-jobs "Lulu" has given (he calculates the number to be 500). Then, a connection is made between Griffith and Mr. Swayze, as they separately watch a television airing of the "The Hustler" (1961); Griffith and Swayze recite, verbatim, the dialogue delivered by Paul Newman (as Eddie) and Piper Laurie (as Sarah).Writer/director John Kaye has a good melodrama with the weakly titled "Forever Lulu" (strengthened to "Along for the Ride" for DVD release). But, the film is poorly structured, and looks rushed. The first thing I wanted to re-edit was the bar scene where Swayze re-encounters Griffith; she should have been introduced in long and/or medium shots, followed by a close-up. A later Griffith nude pool scene is much to staid; it should have been shot like Marilyn Monroe's swim in "Something's Got to Give" (1962).I have met both Swayze and Griffith, and these characters remind me so much of the actors (which is not to say they are exactly like the characters). When watching Swayze during the film's early scenes, I caught on to a layer of sadness he is using for the characterization of "Ben". As the film progresses, a plot revelation confirms something more (sad) about his character. Swayze had a distant melancholy about him, even before his illness was diagnosed; and, I believe this quality, along with an open naturalness, drew you to him. An engaging man.Griffith is also a lovely person, though quite unlike Swayze (apart from the flashbacks, their characters do not have much "chemistry"). Since Griffith may read this sometime, I met her at a 1980s party - she was (you were) there via a hairdresser friend and I with a DJ friend. We left for the patio to chain-smoke (Hey, Melanie, I quit!), and spoke about life's challenges… I didn't "go" to movies then, and was not aware of how popular an actress Melanie Griffith was; seeing her films now, I admire her work, and see some of the "Melanie" I met in the "Lulu" character.****** Forever Lulu (7/7/00) John Kaye ~ Melanie Griffith, Patrick Swayze, Penelope Ann Miller, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Where this film isn't a masterpiece by any means, it is certainly worth the time. Melanie Griffith shines in her role as Lulu and Joseph Gordon-Levitt stands out yet again in the role of Martin. Unfortunately, his time is much too brief in the film, as I think he's probably the most underrated actor today. He's extremely believable in his role and he showed us exactly how one would act in the situation his character was in.Give the film a shot, it's worth the time- forget some of the characters Swayze has played in the past and look at him for the character he's playing now. Watch Melanie become Lulu... And lastly, you'll believe Gordon-Levitt is Martin in the awkward situation he's been thrown into.Acting is an A, film is a B.

The story certainly has merit. The acting abilities of Patrick Swayze are nowhere to be found. Ms. Griffith does her best to hold up the entire picture and story but with Mr. Swayze simply reading dialogue it is a difficult haul for all of us.4/10 for attempt, story (and that I watched the whole thing) and Melanie's valiant battle upholding this interesting story. Also, kudo's to Joseph Gordon-Leavitt for keeping a straight face and underacting to perfection (although his time on screen is brief).Since I am so critical, I offer a few suggestions: a. cut to the chase immediately and let the audience know exactly what's going on, the first ten or so minutes could have been used more effectively at the end of the film; b. get rid of Michael Pollard, his cameo makes no sense and is another waste of valuable screen time; c. the whole "trip across america" also is a waste - we only needed one or two scenes to get the idea. d. probably most important - get Swayze on the same bus as Pollard, Peter Jennings could have played this role with more emotion.So, there!