|Spanish subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Bulgarian subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|English subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Serbian subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Chinese subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Portuguese subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
|Indonesian subtitles Lucky||5 years ago|
8/10 Lucky is the kind of film that proves indie movies can hold their own against the studios. This dark comedy is a movie-lovers movie. Well written, superb acting, great directing and a memorable soundtrack make this a fun, if quirky film.5 years ago
The pace of the movie is good in that it takes it's time to tell the story without unnecessary scenes or long silences. It baffles me that some people find this movie dull of boring. It doesn't have car chases or CGI characters throwing crap at the audience. "Lucky" is not for kids, anyone who think it's dull should find the next 3D IMAX extravaganza to keep their attention.
Hanks is ideal in this role playing a mild mannered serial killer who still lives with his mom (Ann Margret looking great) with a lifelong crush on Ari Graynor who doesn't give him a second glance until he wins the lottery.
If you like movies like "Heathers", "Fargo" or "Lars and the Real Girl", you'll enjoy "Lucky."
Skillful and Innovative Independent Film
5/10 I'm stunned by the reviews this film received. It makes me wonder what audiences are looking for. Giant robot cars, maybe? Stereo-typical heroes and bad guys (with capes!)? This is an independent film and the reviews read like they were written by a church group. This film is innovative and clever and extraordinarily well written. Sublette and Cates' work here deserves better reviews than these. I feel bad that they have to be subjected to this type of unenlightened ridicule for such a wonderful film. I suspect that the film just didn't get a chance to find its audience (which is not the Bridesmaids/Hangover crowd). Lucky is a different type of romantic comedy that successfully takes brave risks and they all pay off. On to specifics:5 years ago
The screenplay was an extraordinary piece of writing. I won't give anything away, because if you like quirky independent film, you should see this movie. But, some of the scenes were beautifully nuanced. In particular, the final scene, which was an extremely difficult scene to pull off. Sublette manages to make it work. The pacing, editing, and direction are all as good as it gets. And the way the screenplay subtly builds these characters so that we believe their relationship (as bizarre as it may be) is masterful.
The acting is superlative. Hanks and Ari Graynor are ideally cast as nebbish serial killer and quirky love interest, and their performances are exquisite. I was amazed at their work in this film. The emotionality of the scenes required refined acting chops and they delivered.
I'd kill to work with any one of these creative talents and think they should be lauded for this film.
kinda lame effort
5/10 I like Colin Hanks. A lot of people just say that he's a complete knock-off of his father but that comment always completely misses the point. His father was darn likable even when being prickly or sarcastic he's still just effortlessly likable. Colin has a similar likability, one that certainly veers more to the prickly or complainy side--but still he's a guy you can either like or at least watch in most things that he appears in and not have a problem with. The casting of him in this movie should've been so perfect--unfortunately the movie itself is way too slow to set its premise up, even slower to get its other main character up to speed with what the audience already knows which kind of kills the suspense that's suppose to be building up. I should single out the other lead in the film--the nicely daffy Ari Gaynor plays her and if the movie works at all i would say its completely because of her ability to show you why she would do the things she does in the movie even if you're sitting there questioning why she would or should, you completely buy her character's motivation and reasoning.5 years ago
If you're reading this you probably already know the set-up and that's about all there is to know for this movie quite honestly. I was hoping for something a little more funny...or maybe even a little bit darker---the plot was really promising after all but its as if once the idea is established, the writer/director couldn't think of where else to take it other then the usual cat and mouse games that normally occur in these kinds of movies. (will the wife eventually snap? will the husband eventually snap? is the husband even the real killer? is the detective played by a seemingly bored Jeffery Tambor getting ever closer to the 2 of them? and what's the deal with Ann Margaret as Hanks'mother?) All of what happens in the movie happens really slowly until maybe the last ten minutes at which point if you're still watching, you're just trying to figure out how the director is going to wrap it up. The wrap up actually is pretty good--there's even an actual honest to goodness laugh from the delivery of one of the one liners here. (One of the few one liners that completely lands too) Its unfortunate that the director couldn't find this perfect balance in tone between discomfort and humor before the end of the movie but what can you do? movie's already finished at that point. I didn't dislike the film really--but there were scenes where i was more bored then interested in the storyline and that's not a good thing for any kind of movie. Essentialy the film could've done so much more with its plot line that its unbelievable that it doesn't.
A movie that is hurt by the trailer. I expected this to be much funnier. Not a bad movie though, just not what I thought. I say B-
5/10 "I think you won the lottery." Shy and Goofy Ben (Hanks) has had a crush on the receptionist Lucy (Graynor) at his office for a long time. She doesn't know he exists. When Ben comes home and finds that he has won the 36 million dollar lottery Lucy finally talks to him. When secrets come out their relationship, and morals are challenged. This is a hard movie to review. While it wasn't a bad movie and did have some funny parts, the trailer is misleading and this wasn't what I was expecting. The trailer made it look like more of a comedy then it was. Hanks does a good job playing this type of character, but the movie overall felt a little flat and boring. Like so many other movies recently it feels like there is something missing to make this better. It also felt like with this idea they could have done so much more. All that being said this movie is not terrible and if you go in expecting less of a comedy then the trailer shows you will probably enjoy this. Overall, not a bad movie, but nothing like I was expecting. Because of my expectations I didn't like it as much as I thought. I give it a B-.5 years ago
Would I watch again? - Most likely no.
Love it or hate it, this film is amoral
5/10 Very rarely do I have any desire to post a review. I've seen it, I know what I think, and usually someone else has said everything that needs to be said. Not so with "Lucky."5 years ago
This film shocked me with its amorality. And I liked it.
Before I watched this, I thought, perhaps, that it would be akin to "Dexter" - a serial killer that the viewer is asked to empathize with, maybe forgive, and perhaps even root for. I mean, what else could I expect from what the synopsis seems to suggest is a serial killer rom-com. I was wrong. No one in this film is asking for forgiveness. No one in this film seems to even imagine that a universal or objective morality exists which would pass judgement.
This is one of the only, if not the only, film I have seen that exemplifies rationally self- interested actors carrying on their affairs as though no religious or societal morality existed or, at the least, was valid. Even in the films based on Ayn Rand's fiction (a person who championed "the virtue of selfishness" and fought against religion and collectivism/humanism), there was always a wink or a nod when some character violated the Judeo-Christian-humanist morality. The same can be said of most of the horror and "shock" films - the shock and horror are usually caused by reactions to the violation of societal norms. Here, there is nothing.
One previous reviewer implied the film was boring. I wouldn't go so far, though I would accept "anti-climatic." Indeed, amorality is certainly that. If one starts from a place where killing and kissing are of equal objective moral value - none whatsoever - then it stands to reason that neither occurrence has any higher meaning.
In "Lucky", the lack of regard for morality, as understood by the majority of the populace, is not obvious. It isn't a clear part of the plot. It isn't relied upon to engender fear or revulsion. I almost didn't notice it until near the end of the film. It is as if the film was made entirely by people unaware that such a concept as "objective morality" even existed. Of course it wasn't. If for no other reason than that, "Lucky" deserves praise.