Lucky # Slevin

Every movie fan since Kill Bill knows that revenge tastes best served cold. Unfortunately, I got my mouth properly scalded by McGuigan. Initially, the story is promisingly paced, narratively enjoyable and witty, with no fucking around with machine guns, and with likeable characters. But about half an hour before the end it changes its face completely, the narrative lightness is gone and the overwrought resolution with tiresome explanatory flashbacks and a numerous body count comes into play, lacking insight and thus putting McGuigan's film among this year's unoriginal, long-worn by me uselessness of the type of Running Scared. I'm just bored of all these ultra-hyper-cool Tarantino clones! Ben Kingsley can only remember his Gandhi and Itzhak Stern with a tear in his eye, his acting is awful (especially noticeable in the dialogue scene between him and Freeman), some of the holes in logic of the plot are truly remarkable, and Josh Hartnett proves that he is just a mediocre actor and simply not up to serious roles. (09/30/2006)

Lately, there have been too many of these attempts at innovation, but this relatively tired mess, which is only interesting for its visuals and a few camera moments, is just like all the others, thus nothing special. The initially solid plot is ruined by the final half-hearted and considerably complicated explanation with a ton of flashbacks. The connection with the characters is minimal because at the beginning, we do not know why they act the way they do, since we do not know the whole plot, and the messed up ending can’t save things. It lacks a bit more with and perhaps more action. Ben Kingsley is tragic, and Josh Hartnett simply doesn't fit here, Bruce Willis is great, though. (05/23/2007)

Lucky Number Slevin is black-humor gangster flick that wants to be a Tarantino and/or Ritchie film, but it just does NOT have what it takes because of the immature screenwriter. I’m just surprised that director Paul McGuigan thought it did. After the brilliant Wicker Park, I expected more from him. (11/14/2006)

The first half, full of wanna-be cool dialogue where the characters are supposed to verbally make fun of each other, is pure misery. Then the action gets going and McGuigan finally puts some edge on the overwrought story. The explanatory flashbacks are fun, but there’s no believability. Hartnett actually acts (!), Willis is stony as usual, and the rest of them sort of shuffle around, content that they have famous names, count their film awards by the metric ton, and try to look terribly above it all. Awkwardness is the impression that best describes it, and I'll probably never give it a second chance. I give it a weaker three stars. (10/22/2010)

Intellectuals who appreciate the appropriate intellectual nourishment, such as refined works of Tarkovsky or Bergman, should avoid this film like the plague, as it falls into a completely different category within Tarantino's style. We find ourselves in the realm of mass popular culture, specifically crime dramas set in New York, where two mafia clans compete with each other, filled with cynical jokes and one-liners. The screenplay is far from the best in this subgenre, and truth be told, Lucky Number Slevin is one of those films that are worth watching once, with no need to revisit them. If I had the desire and opportunity to see it again, I would mercilessly lower my percentage and star rating. However, I can recommend it for a single viewing, unless you want to dissect the nonsensically convoluted path of the protagonist's revenge. The lighthearted tone and the presence of several acting talents significantly contribute to this, particularly the seasoned genre veteran Bruce Willis. With his typically stone-faced expression and dry one-liners, he marches from one scene to another, leaving behind only the dead bodies of his enemies. Meanwhile, despite the misery of his work, the screenwriter has a few surprises up his sleeve for the audience, so even your sense of the genre game won't be left wanting. Overall impression: 75%. (09/07/2011)