17 reviews
Never officially released, neither theatrically nor on home media, Tom Schiller's surreal science fiction fantasy Nothing Lasts Forever stars Zach Galligan as an eager young artist struggling to find his creative outlet in a New York City under the tyrannical rule of the Port Authority. Shot in black and white (for the most part) and with the sound recorded in mono, the film replicates the Classical Hollywood style of the late '30s and early '40s to create a dreamlike work that, had it been made during the indie boom of the '90s, would have easily found a cult following. Featuring strong supporting work from the likes of Dan Aykroyd, Lauren Tom, Apollonia van Ravenstein and Bill Murray – not to mention a midpoint shift in narrative that will leave an unsuspecting viewer reeling – Nothing Last Forever is an oddity of a film, perhaps too unusual for its time, that deserves, at the very least, a proper worldwide release.
www.azim.org Movie And TV Database
www.azim.org Movie And TV Database
- mmuratbekar
- Sep 15, 2014
- Permalink
A wide-eyed young man (Zach Galligan) arrives in New York with aspirations of becoming an artist. Once inside the confines of the city (which is VERY confined in this totalitarian society) he's prepped to become a working stiff, but an eccentric homeless person whom he has been overly generous to eventually guides the boy to his true fate.
The only thing stranger than the fact that this picture has barely been seen anywhere (officially, anyway) is that it was financed by a major studio. "Nothing Last Forever" is not a movie that mainstream '80s moviegoers would have flocked to see. Quite the contrary, if it had been widely released there's absolutely no question that it would have been an epic bomb... which is exactly the appeal.
Filmed mostly in black and white (with a few color sequences), it's simultaneously an homage and a parody of classic films. There are many breathtaking visuals and wonderful performances (from an amazing cast) and the film manages to get stranger as it rolls along, blending shadowy noir with kitschy sci-fi and light drama with heavy farce. As another reviewer pointed out, it's difficult NOT to draw comparisons to Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," which was made on a grander scale but is equally as offbeat, surreal and impossible to accurately describe. In other words, like that film, "Nothing Lasts Forever" is truly a work of art.
Here's hoping MGM will one day give the movie the lavish release that it deserves. While it'll never be a multi-billion-dollar draw, there's definitely a huge cult audience waiting to discover this lost gem.
The only thing stranger than the fact that this picture has barely been seen anywhere (officially, anyway) is that it was financed by a major studio. "Nothing Last Forever" is not a movie that mainstream '80s moviegoers would have flocked to see. Quite the contrary, if it had been widely released there's absolutely no question that it would have been an epic bomb... which is exactly the appeal.
Filmed mostly in black and white (with a few color sequences), it's simultaneously an homage and a parody of classic films. There are many breathtaking visuals and wonderful performances (from an amazing cast) and the film manages to get stranger as it rolls along, blending shadowy noir with kitschy sci-fi and light drama with heavy farce. As another reviewer pointed out, it's difficult NOT to draw comparisons to Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," which was made on a grander scale but is equally as offbeat, surreal and impossible to accurately describe. In other words, like that film, "Nothing Lasts Forever" is truly a work of art.
Here's hoping MGM will one day give the movie the lavish release that it deserves. While it'll never be a multi-billion-dollar draw, there's definitely a huge cult audience waiting to discover this lost gem.
- VinnieRattolle
- Apr 28, 2011
- Permalink
Zach Galligan of Gremlins fame, stars in this strange lost film, from a former SNL writer, Tim Schiller, in the 80's. This was produced by Lorne Micheals, and features cameos from Dan Akroyd as a Holland Tunnel inspector (who uses the only instance of profanity, this movie is PG) and Bill Murray as the villainous Captain of an interstellar bus which transports the elderly to the moon. Galligan is a young man whose been abroad for years, and returned home only to find that the New York Port Authority has seized control of the city, due to traffic problems. Galligan is a naive but kindly upstart who knows only that he wants to be an artist. After failing the mandatory "art test" used to determine, who is an artist and who isn't, he is forced to work at the Holland Tunnel with Akroyd, but not for too long, as he meets a fellow artist, falls in love and is taken through a short montage of the new york art world. The setting is essentially timeless, at one point, it suggests the thirties, at another they mention the 50's as part of the past, and at one brief moment, there's a strong hint of 80's, but the film is shot in black and white mostly, and made to resemble a science fiction from an earlyish period from the last century, 30's, 40's??? The plot takes a few turns from here which are surprising and fantastical and not to give away too much, but unfortunately since this movie has NEVER been released on home video or DVD(and doesn't seem likely too), I'll give a way a little more of what's to come...New York as you know it may be an illusion, the homeless are the secret masters of the city and possibly more, and the elderly have been taking routine bus trips to the moon since the 50's, they have chips in their heads which make them say "Miami" every time they even think the word "Moon", so they can't tell anyone. All of these plot elements are told with a matter of factness and a touching sweetness, at no point does this film become cynical, mean, perverse, or pretentious (not something most films as rare and surreal as this can claim). Others have rightly compared it to both Terry Gilliam and Woodey Allen at their most fanciful, but there's a sweetness to this, which gives it a charm all of its own. It's completely unique, very clever, and unusually heartwarming. See it by any means necessary, and as the secret society of bums commands,"Fear not, love all".
Since a version of this film was "leaked" - if that's the right term -- to YouTube a few days ago, it's had a second life worthy of the film's own protagonist, liberated from a job yelling at bad drivers in the Holland Tunnel to a bravura performance at Carnegie Hall. There have been many evocative or pastiche films of the classic era -- Woody Allen's Purple Rose of Cairo, Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge, or Gary Ross's Pleasantville -- but none has more vividly, sweetly, and yet ironically invoked the magic of the movies as has this film. Don't be distracted by the Dan Ackroyd or Bill Murray cameos (fun as they are): keep your eye on the veterans, who've been in more films than you can count, and who bring their considerable powers to bear here: Sam Jaffe (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Bedknobs and Broomsticks); Paul Rogers (Billy Budd, The Homecoming) and the incomparable Imogene Coca, all part of a secret underground league of New York artists who seek to aid any who will give their all, unreservedly, to the cause of art. This film deserves an immediate DVD/BluRay release -- one can only imagine how richly it will shine -- and shame on MGM, Turner, Warner, and all who have kept this gem in their dark, dim, Gollum-like cavern of oblivion.
It is rare that you find a film that is truly unique, but NOTHING LASTS FOREVER is one of those films. It looks at times like a 'thirties romance, at others like a 'fifties B-movie, but plays like neither. Clever, witty dialogue is spiced up with pretty songs, and Zach Galligan is surprisingly likeable as the aspiring artist in a surreal New York. Although in many ways a slight and insubstantial film, its gentle, off-the-wall charm makes it a quite unforgettable viewing experience. After all, how many other films have you seen recently featuring an Hawaiian dance routine set on the moon?
A truly bizarre film, but all the more entertaining because of it. Starts off in the style of a 1930s science fiction, and just seems to get stranger and stranger. I particularly liked the guided tour of the lunar surface for the paying tourists who laughed when their guide made a comment on the crashed Soviet probe she drew their attention to. The idea of native "moon people" (who look like native Hawaiians), also being another nice touch. Obviously, there was a very creative mind at work here.
- Profess Abronsi
- Feb 8, 2001
- Permalink
This movie shares some similarities with Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". The mixing of 1930's and 1980's, the totalitarian state that pretends to be caring, a mix of freaky supporting characters and subtext behind every shot and concept. But Nothing Lasts Forever is lighter and more optimistic in tone and a modern (ish) fairy tale of searching for one's talent and purpose. The concepts of the Manhattan Port Authority taking control of New York, underground Angels, going shopping on the Moon in a bus and Bauhaus German techno artists in a mock 30's setting all show great creativity and originality; often missing in a lot of American comedies. And it also works the soundtrack (a mix of original and classical music) into the story extremely well.
- ubercommando
- Feb 8, 2004
- Permalink
Many films which are hard/possible to see/find are more interesting in the stuff you hear about them. The actual film is a letdown.
Not so here.
This film (which stars people who I know, from the lead, on) is really quite good.
First, unlike the others who've commented, I'm not one who acts like viewing it is akin to attaining a 'power-up', or such from a video game, and in that beir, alone is worth seeing. The entertainment business if my bread and butter (who I am is irrelevant. Don't try to figure out from my name).
Saying this, even though I'm not impossibly old , I think the business has fine siren the toilet in the past couple of decades - how, why, I'm not here to discuss that, either - and I find watching films made from the beginning (yes, currently I'm studying early films), up to the early 80's is my forte.
I can't stand any films made based upon comic books (though I DO read and enjoy - primarily Neil Gaiman), or that are mostly dpendent upon effects.
The route of films I miss are adult oriented (not porn. Think anything from a Douglas Sirk, a Marcel Ophuls, etc)- they have a story, emotion, gravitas.
I'm a grown-up, and I want to be emotionally touched and moved - bit by whizz-bang b.s.
That sort of brings me back to why I really admire this film.
Yes, it is a gimmick, in that is a very good... recreation of a 1930-40's film (it includes hundreds of clips - primarily used as establishing shots - from genuine films of that period, and I think that to get clearance in them all is the rain it's not seen). There's several moments I even had to hit myself (metaphorically) to 'wake up', and realise I'm not watching a film from back then.
From the opening - a pre-code MGM logo - the fun really plays with you, time-wise. I never saw more than a tiny bit of Woody Allen's Zelig (made around this time), which also plays with tune (he is 'inserted'into old film, and remember; this was before digital effects, the end-result was really amazing looking. Same here).
The film's story you can read about anywhere. I'm amazed at how I was repeatedly 'lost' as to what I was watching ('wait; is this an old 40's film?'), and had to pinch myself.
If you can see it, do so.
Not so here.
This film (which stars people who I know, from the lead, on) is really quite good.
First, unlike the others who've commented, I'm not one who acts like viewing it is akin to attaining a 'power-up', or such from a video game, and in that beir, alone is worth seeing. The entertainment business if my bread and butter (who I am is irrelevant. Don't try to figure out from my name).
Saying this, even though I'm not impossibly old , I think the business has fine siren the toilet in the past couple of decades - how, why, I'm not here to discuss that, either - and I find watching films made from the beginning (yes, currently I'm studying early films), up to the early 80's is my forte.
I can't stand any films made based upon comic books (though I DO read and enjoy - primarily Neil Gaiman), or that are mostly dpendent upon effects.
The route of films I miss are adult oriented (not porn. Think anything from a Douglas Sirk, a Marcel Ophuls, etc)- they have a story, emotion, gravitas.
I'm a grown-up, and I want to be emotionally touched and moved - bit by whizz-bang b.s.
That sort of brings me back to why I really admire this film.
Yes, it is a gimmick, in that is a very good... recreation of a 1930-40's film (it includes hundreds of clips - primarily used as establishing shots - from genuine films of that period, and I think that to get clearance in them all is the rain it's not seen). There's several moments I even had to hit myself (metaphorically) to 'wake up', and realise I'm not watching a film from back then.
From the opening - a pre-code MGM logo - the fun really plays with you, time-wise. I never saw more than a tiny bit of Woody Allen's Zelig (made around this time), which also plays with tune (he is 'inserted'into old film, and remember; this was before digital effects, the end-result was really amazing looking. Same here).
The film's story you can read about anywhere. I'm amazed at how I was repeatedly 'lost' as to what I was watching ('wait; is this an old 40's film?'), and had to pinch myself.
If you can see it, do so.
- BandSAboutMovies
- Jun 12, 2020
- Permalink
I had wanted to see this movie for years, but until just recently it was next to impossible to see, never getting an official release. But it finally popped on TV, and I made sure to record and watch it. After seeing it, I can only say, "Strange... very strange..." Note that I didn't say it's an *awful* movie. The production design is very good, managing to capture the look and feel of movies made forty or so years earlier. And it's so offbeat that you can't help but be curious enough to stick with it in order to see how things will work out. But the problem is that the movie concentrates more on being strange than working to have strong characters and a solid story. Eventually I got somewhat tired of the movie. But if you are a fan of strange major Hollywood studio movies, it is definitely a must see. And it's unlikely a movie like this would get made today by a major Hollywood studio, so you might want to grab the chance to see this rarity.
Easily one of the most charming unspoken of movies I have ever seen, especially capturing the supreme Golden age of Hollywood ("The Wizard of Oz) in the middle of a decade that brought us "Predators", "Gremlins", "Aliens", and "Lethal Weapon", etc. Talk about a genre-changer! A film that even came out a year before Terry Gilliam's masterpiece "Brazil" that is similar in many ways; reminding me of the blissful Sam Lowry in an oppressive bureaucratic world searching for love.
The film makes a lot work with so very little (adding to its charm) and gives us a certainly flawed journey of one Adam Beckett who aspires to be an artist amidst a surrealist, oppressive 1930's era New York. The black and white photography and camera-work is beautiful blending rather superbly with the stock footage used of the union workers in the streets and the shots of a sprawling NY skyline lit up at night. Add to that the perfect utilization of switching from B&W to color for specific scenes, and you have more evidence of great directing.
There are some moments that perhaps lack some charisma from our lead but the absolute zaniness and odd tangents of the film keep us interested and save us from any true dull moments. Ultimately, the film tells us we should pursue the right choices in life even if the things we want seem so far away. The allegory here is Adam's literal trip to the moon where he discovers a cult has turned the natives into a consumerized, shopified destination of pleasure, and where Adam falls in love with one of the natives; an Hawaiian-like dancer and singer. The final 20 minutes gives us TWO wonderful music numbers; one capturing the final message of the film by the brilliant title and the other punctuating the claim that all that hard work and those good decisions ultimately pay off. The end commits to the odd tangents we've seen all along, remaining just as wacky as the film has been throughout, and then suddenly grounds us back to reality with an awesome finale back at Carnegie Hall where the film began.
Look out for Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray in great minor roles (particularly Murray) with a fantastic ensemble of veterans that bring their stuff reminding me of the magic from some films such as "The Shop Around the Corner", "His Girl Friday", and "It's a Wonderful Life". Highly recommended for those who like films like "Brazil" or the 1930's romantic comedies.
The film makes a lot work with so very little (adding to its charm) and gives us a certainly flawed journey of one Adam Beckett who aspires to be an artist amidst a surrealist, oppressive 1930's era New York. The black and white photography and camera-work is beautiful blending rather superbly with the stock footage used of the union workers in the streets and the shots of a sprawling NY skyline lit up at night. Add to that the perfect utilization of switching from B&W to color for specific scenes, and you have more evidence of great directing.
There are some moments that perhaps lack some charisma from our lead but the absolute zaniness and odd tangents of the film keep us interested and save us from any true dull moments. Ultimately, the film tells us we should pursue the right choices in life even if the things we want seem so far away. The allegory here is Adam's literal trip to the moon where he discovers a cult has turned the natives into a consumerized, shopified destination of pleasure, and where Adam falls in love with one of the natives; an Hawaiian-like dancer and singer. The final 20 minutes gives us TWO wonderful music numbers; one capturing the final message of the film by the brilliant title and the other punctuating the claim that all that hard work and those good decisions ultimately pay off. The end commits to the odd tangents we've seen all along, remaining just as wacky as the film has been throughout, and then suddenly grounds us back to reality with an awesome finale back at Carnegie Hall where the film began.
Look out for Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray in great minor roles (particularly Murray) with a fantastic ensemble of veterans that bring their stuff reminding me of the magic from some films such as "The Shop Around the Corner", "His Girl Friday", and "It's a Wonderful Life". Highly recommended for those who like films like "Brazil" or the 1930's romantic comedies.
- Ziglet_mir
- Feb 22, 2020
- Permalink
In no way does the story reflect it but i got the feeling from this movie that it was almost a live action early draft of Futurama. I found the movie beautiful in many ways. It tells a very offbeat yet emotionally rich story. And the cast of characters is Fantastic, even if some of the bigger names are only in one scene. Why this was never released makes no sense. It wouldnt have been an initial success but it would have a very respectable cult following. The choice to shoot in black and white gives this movie a classic feel, not like one of those movies made in black and white just to do it.
In closing if you have the chance to see it, Please do. If youre able to follow a story that isnt spoon fed to you then youll enjoy it. Just do a little searching and youll find it streaming somewhere I did.
In closing if you have the chance to see it, Please do. If youre able to follow a story that isnt spoon fed to you then youll enjoy it. Just do a little searching and youll find it streaming somewhere I did.
- atomiccomandant
- Jun 24, 2019
- Permalink
I never even heard of this movie until 2019!? Tom Shiller should have been making hundreds of more movies after this - even if it still is not officially released to do "legal reasons" (no one will ever even hint as to exactly what those are) Most the reviews I've read say its like a Lynch film..but upbeat.. or a happier version of Brazil... and they are both right. Zach does an amazing job at portraying a "golly Gee whiz" 1930s kid without a trace of irony or self awareness. That alone is the reason to watch this movie.... but it has so much more that helps compliment Zach's performance, by golly!
- thomas-korn
- Mar 10, 2021
- Permalink
As has already been mentioned in other reviews, this film is absolutely surreal. It's really quite a unicorn of a film. I would LOVE to know Tom Schiller managed to get it made without the studio intervening, because this is ultimately a very sweet and accessible art film. It's so charming and unique, and probably wouldn't be as special if it had been a wide release that sadly would have struggled in the 80s film market. This really deserves a Criterion-quality remaster and reissue. The lightly dystopian retro-futurism makes the whole narrative feel slightly uncanny, but this world populated by weird and frantic characters somehow keeps the protagonist's journey relatable. Magnificent late night viewing.