Lucky Number Slevin

Just got back from seeing this. GREAT MOVIE. My favorite movie of 06 so far. The writing was superb, and the acting was done superbly as well (I'd expect nothing less from Freeman, Kingsley, and Willis) Lui's acting was spotty at times, and Hartnett was awesome. Never really liked a lot of his acting before except Sin City, but after this I have new found respect for his acting. Some of the shots were just ****ing cool. Just all around great movie.

5 outta 5 stars.
 
At first I really wanted to see it; but after the barage of advertisements, I've lost a lot of my interest. I'll probably catch it.
 
Ebert & Roper

Ebert & Roper

At slixes and Slevins
"Lucky Number Slevin" is too clever by half. It's the worst kind of con: It tells us it's a con, so we don't even have the consolation of being led down the garden path. The rug of reality is jerked out from under us in the opening scenes, and before long the floor is being dismantled. Crouched in the dark, I am resentful. Since the plot is irrelevant and the dialogue too mannered to be taken seriously, all I'm left with are the performances and the production design.


Considering the cast, I kind of wanted to see it. :(


EDIT: Ebert :thumbdown
Roper :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
I like this flick a lot. I thought it was a clever little gangster revenge flick. And the production design was outstanding.
 
Blaine said:
At slixes and Slevins
"Lucky Number Slevin" is too clever by half. It's the worst kind of con: It tells us it's a con, so we don't even have the consolation of being led down the garden path. The rug of reality is jerked out from under us in the opening scenes, and before long the floor is being dismantled. Crouched in the dark, I am resentful. Since the plot is irrelevant and the dialogue too mannered to be taken seriously, all I'm left with are the performances and the production design.


Considering the cast, I kind of wanted to see it. :(


EDIT: Ebert :thumbdown
Roper :thumbup:
Click to expand...


It's weird cause my likes and dislikes of films usually coincide with Ebert but now I'm going along with Roeper more. I agree with Roeper, the way Slevin tells you its a con and goes with it is what made me like it. the acting was great, the dialogue was very well done.
 
And I must say, this is the first time I actually associated the word "adorable" with Lucy Liu. She usually plays such hard-asses :)
 
ravinesedge said:
It's weird cause my likes and dislikes of films usually coincide with Ebert but now I'm going along with Roeper more. I agree with Roeper, the way Slevin tells you its a con and goes with it is what made me like it. the acting was great, the dialogue was very well done.
Click to expand...
I think I tend to agree with Roeper more, also. He seems to like "guy" stuff more. I'm just not into all the artsy-fartsy stuff.
 
I saw this last night. Really didn't like it until the end...which almost redeemed it.

As Blaine pointed out, it's too clever. They jammed in way too much dialogue because it was cool. And every character seemed to be a thought-provoked-wise-ass. You get one, maybe two of those in a movie. More than that is style over substance, which this film suffers heavily from.

The acting is good all around. Hard to go wrong with that cast though. But it was too much of everything, the afore mentioned dialogue, the timeline jumps, the sleight of hand, the stylized shots. I was rolling my eyes ten minutes in screaming "enough!" And to make matters worse, they dumb it down so much by re-showing you stuff over and over that you've already seen to make sure you get it. if you have to work that hard to underscore key plot points, there is something wrong with your script.

A few thing were too neat, like Tucci just happens to be the cop on the case AND the guy from the opening scene.

I won't get into plot motivations, which seem unnecessarily complex and too thin (IMHO) to stand up to much scrutiny.

I think that the biggest problem I have with the movie is that you actually lose any sort of compassion for Slevin. He starts off by being an unlucky, bright guy you feel bad for. But in the end he's just a cold blooded killer. Never saw that work well before, and for me, it didn't here either. In the Usual Suspects (clearly an influence, and one of my favorite films of the last 15 years) you find out about Spacey's identity, but you really don't know exactly what he did, because he's the one telling the story. So you admire his deception, but you are left with more sympathy for him. I also think that con was more effective. There is a taste of redemption in the denouement of Slevin, but barely.

I almost didn't finish watching it, but my wife didn't want to turn it off. And like i said, as we got closer to the end I was more intrigued. I thought maybe LL was the going to turn out to be the surprise. But although the end was a twist, by then I almost didn't care.

The concept was good. It reminded me of The Mechanic with Bronson and Vincent. I don't regret watching it, but it could have been a lot better with more substance and less style. Waste of a great cast and a good idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top