Sundance Review: Lucky Number Slevin
Filed under: Sundance, Noir, Mystery & Suspense, Festival Reports, The Weinstein Co., Quentin Tarantino
Once upon a time, crime films were grim; gritty; bleak. Then Tarantino came along (and there were precedents before him, but never mind) and crime films changed – now, the sounds issuing off the screen weren't just the crack and ricochet of bullets, but the zing! of snappy patter and high-speed wordplay. The regrettably-named Lucky Number Slevin isn't a post-Tarantino crime film; it's a post-post-post-Tarantino crime film, and when you're the millionth director to stagger through what used to be undiscovered country, it's hard to look like a pioneer.
Directed by Paul McGuigan (Gangster Number One), Lucky Number Slevin is a candy-colored crime movie that, after a few preliminary murders, flashes back to the '70s as a wheelchair-bound man (Bruce Willis) is killing time at the train station by telling a young man about a fixed horse race, and how father and husband Max, who came across the info about how a certain nag was a sure thing, bet all his money … and lost. Owing the money – and being privy to a private fix – led the two newest crime bosses in New York to punish Max by killing him. And his wife. And his son.
We don't know why Willis is revealing this information, but soon Willis's journey is interwoven with that of Slevin (Josh Hartnett), a young man who's come to New York to hang with his buddy Nick after losing his job and his girl and getting mugged. Slevin explains all this to Nick's cheerful, bubbly across-the-hall neighbor Lindsey (Lucy Liu) who's curious about where Nick is and why this stranger's in his apartment. Slevin soon has other problems, as representatives of The Boss (Morgan Freeman), believing Slevin to be Nick, take him to talk to The Boss about a small matter of $96,000 that Nick owes one of The Boss's underlings. The Boss is willing to wipe the debt – in exchange for a small favor. Next, Slevin is dragged to see The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley), The Boss's rival, about the matter of $33,000 that Nick owes. On introduction, The Rabbi is cordial: "You must be Nick." Slevin's not enthused: "Must I be? Because that hasn't been working out for me. …"
If that kind of rat-a-tat dialogue works for you, you'll love Lucky Number Slevin. What you won't love is Lucky Number Slevin's plotline, as it contorts itself into one of those films where twist is piled on twist and revelation comes on the heels of other revelations. All that wrapping, though, can't conceal that Lucky Number Slevin is hollow at its core; put more bluntly, I'd be more engaged by Lucky Number Slevin's capacity to twist and turn like a crack-addled cotton snake if I were given a reason to care. The press screening of Lucky Number Slevin featured a few chortles from the assembled press due to screenwriter Jason Smilovic's constant barrage of quips, fast-talk blather and snappy comebacks – much in the way that, if someone fired a shotgun at you for a hundred and ten minutes, one or two pellets would invariably strike your funnybone. Every actor in Lucky Number Slevin gets a good line or two – what they don't get is a real character to portray or a story that matters to be part of. Packed with flash and smash-cut edits, loaded with gunfire and cheap thrills, Lucky Number Slevin is a shaggy-dog-story of a crime film with no punch to its punchline.
Others on Lucky Number Slevin: Variety's Justin Chang describes it as "Thoroughly -- and sometimes justifiably -- infatuated with its own cleverness," while Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter ultimately feels that "no matter how badly the movie cons you, you must admit that the film is stylish as hell."
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
Quick List: Romance for Boys
Christian Bale's Rollercoaster Career_thumbnail.jpg)
Michael Bay Trashes Megan Fox, Talks 'Transformers 3' and 3D_thumbnail.jpg)
First Look: Stewart, Fanning and More Are 'The Runaways'
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-22-2006 @ 9:44PM
itzmee48 said...
I cannot disagree more with this review! I happened to have been at one of the screenings and the entire audience absolutely LOVED this movie!! It kept you in suspense and the twists were outrageous! A terrific script!
Reply
4-09-2006 @ 12:13AM
Chad Conger said...
I just finished my viewing of Lucky Number Slevin. As a result I am never going to beleive any review this site has to offer. This was a great film that had everything. The only thing it lacks is the respect it deserves from the author or this review, James Rocchi.
Reply
4-10-2006 @ 11:06AM
Alex said...
Awesome movie.. Normally if the movie is too complicated, I would leave the theatre without waiting for its end. (I am too impatient). But the director and the script writer made a wonderful movie giving me bits and pieces of storyline twists, which kept me in the theatre (rather kept me glued to my seat). Finally when the plot was unwound it was worth the wait. Totally a great movie. Only thing I think the director underestimated was the viewer's thinking capacity because I thought there was a little bit too much of explanation of the plot at the end. But I can understand what director wants by this. He doesnt want anyone to leave the theatre without understanding the whole story, so that he gets all the appreciation. Great movie..Very possible but very improbable story in real life. Because if you atleast ask one "what if it had happened like that?" question at any point of the story the whole story would look impossible.
Reply
4-10-2006 @ 1:24PM
Misha said...
Lucky Number Sleven was a fine example of a movie that leaves a lasting impression. Rarely in theatres can such an action-packed, interestingly flowing movie be found; and regretably when one finally sneaks its way in, it gets an awkwardly unrewarding review from our man James Rocchi of the Sundance Review. From beginning to end Lucky Number Sleven maintains exiting directing, and dialogue, and I ensure anyone who takes advice from the above caption about dissapointing filmmaking to stay away from movies coming to a theatre NEAR ME!!!
Reply
4-10-2006 @ 2:03PM
Harry Snodgrass said...
I couldn't disagree more with the reviewer's comments. The plot line was equisite, much like "V for Vendetta." It is bloody, that's for sure but it has some great twists. I am thinking of seeing it again.
Reply
4-11-2006 @ 2:21AM
Ian said...
The movie was on point. Great cast, amazing camerawork, deceitful and witty, classic plot, cool action and a genuine and engaging love interest to boot. Movie critics in general are basically going to bash anything that comes out these days to keep from looking like another "yes-man" or to protect his ego and his "taste for the exquisit and bougouis." Grade - A film. The best this year absolutely.
Reply
4-12-2006 @ 1:33PM
Jonathan said...
This movie was great from beginning to end. Not one bit is boring not even the opening credits. This film is filled with wit and charm and moves at a pace that's easy to follow. It's fun and funny in a wonderfully dark way, and it all just works so well that it's a real pleasure to watch. After seeing this film I have to admit I have more respect for Josh Hartnett. If he keeps getting offered good movie deals and keeps taking them he'll go far. The rest of the cast is pretty much all star and perfect for the parts they play. The characters are well developed the story well fleshed out. Great flick.
Reply
4-13-2006 @ 8:05AM
Stan Leap said...
Early in the movie, I told my date that Josh Hartnett (Slevin) reminded me of Bruce Willis' charactor in other Willis movies. Near the end of the movie, it became apparent why this was the case. Willis saw something of himself in Slevin early in the movie. The movie was all about the characters, and the snappy dialogue was of key interest. It kept me listening as well as watching.
Reply
4-17-2006 @ 12:32PM
What do I write hear? Owe, my name. It's Wade. said...
I guess I should write my reveiw here. From What I have read of the other common folk, this was an Excellent flick. Now on the other hand, James Rocchi seems to not have been intertained. From What I have read, I would have to believe that this is a "Tarantino" rip-off. Which in itself is not bad. If the average director had half of the talent flowing through Tarantino's veins, the magnitude of greatness in the cinema world would, at the least, triple. But Quenton is able to deliver a greater "feel" to his films. Everything just seems to fit. You feel as if you know his characters personaly, so you don't queston their purpose. This must be the one flaw with Lucky Number Sleven, the characters needed more depth. I wanted to "feel" them... thats all.
Reply
4-19-2006 @ 5:56PM
Mark Schoenberg said...
Mr. Rocchi needs a perception transplant. At different times in his . . .ahem . . .review, he laments the lack of Slevin's depth, the shallowness of the characters and a myriad of other flaws. Get a life, Jimbo. Who wuz it sed lollypops gotta do nutrition? Man - it tastes good, goes down easy and is damned pretty to look at, n'est ce pas? Plus it's smart, clever and Byzantine 'nuf to give Theseus (remember him?) fits trying to get outta the labrynth. No bull. As the nearly disgraced Bobby Blake once said: "And dat's the name adat tune!" What else ya need, Jimmy baby!?
Reply