Lola

LOLA represents my favorite subgenre of movie -- time-travel -- intersecting with my least favorite -- found footage. I had no idea it was the latter until it started and a title card mentioned how this was footage found in an attic in Sussex in 2021 and dated back to the late 30's and early 40's. From then on, LOLA had me interested. The story of LOLA is thus: two sisters in England in the late 30's have invented a machine that can intercept radio and TV broadcasts from the future. One sister, Martha, is more idealistic and free-spirited, and wants to use it to see the culture of the future. Her sister, Thomasina, is more hardened and cynical. She wants to use it to stop Germany's attacks on England and end the war. It starts with simple warnings ahead of Blitz attacks, but it soon escalates into something more organized and profound. On the surface, LOLA does nothing new. Information of the future to change the now is ripped straight out of dozens, if not hundreds, of movies, shows, and books. World War 2 alternate history fiction is probably the most common alt-history fiction out there. Having co-inventors start to drift apart because they see different potential for their creation is also nothing new. But it is how all of these things are employed together that set LOLA apart. The schism between the sisters plays into the main theme of the movie: does the end justify the means? How much do good intentions matter? Can you sacrifice a life to save a hundred more? The time-travel aspect plays into this as well, because they're not actually travelling in time; they're just getting shows and movies and radio broadcasts from it. Any action they take is permanent ... and that also means invoking the butterfly effect. A mistake is forever, and with the ability to see what changes are made after they occur, using the machine becomes risky. Could stopping a couple dozen deaths when a building gets bombed lead to a beloved artist not being born? The inability of Martha and Thomasina to fix any unintended consequences gives LOLA a different sense of stakes than most time-travel movies, where the solution is "just go back in time again". The found footage aspect was my one concern; could they justify it? I do appreciate that, for once, it's a found footage movie that isn't a horror movie, so the whole "why are they filming when they're being chased by [monster]" isn't a factor. The era LOLA is set in does kind of make the FF conceit hard to swallow, and the movie's attempt to explain it away with Thomasina inventing the ability to have a handheld film recorder capable of recording sound is eye-rolling ... but they also invented a TV that gets signals from the future, so it's hard to say the camera and FF framework steps over the line. Luckily, the entire FF framework is justified. It is a part of the story. There are some occasions where you'll wonder who is operating the camera and why, but I was able to look past it in favor of the whole package. The FF aspect also allows the movie to hide its indie lower-budget seams; the grainy film stock, smaller aspect ratio, repurposing of wartime news footage, and shaky cam are effective at making you forget how simple the movie really is from a filmmaking aspect. All of this would be gimmickry without a strong cast. LOLA lucked out big time with Emma Appleton as Thomasina and Stefanie Martini as Martha. Their camaraderie, bickering, differences, and similarities feel genuine. They feel like sisters through and through. Martini has a heartwarming smile that brings to life Martha's optimism and spirit, but also her naivete. Appleton, meanwhile, shines as Thomasina, who is at once more worldly and pragmatic, but also obsessive and sometimes cold. This was a big surprise for me. I came in hoping for something good and got something much, much better. It's not perfect -- as I mentioned, there are moments where you wonder who is operating a camera and why, and there's a plot twist that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and if you're the "I need everything explained to me" type, you'll be disappointed that they give only the most passing of explanations of the machine. But I don't need a film to be perfect, and when the rest of this movie is so damned good, I can overlook that. Hell, the movie ain't even 80 minutes long, but it never feels like it got short-changed at all. This is a hidden gem more people need to know about.