Lucky Number Slevin

This film was a very pleasant surprise. I hardly had any expectations, I don’t like gangster films and and I’m not a fan of Josh Harnett, and even the title wasn’t very appealing. But I ended up having fun from the very first minute. Lucky Number Slevin begins as a very funny crime comedy with a fleeting plot, where everyone behaves very weird, which I thought was fine since comedies can push the boundaries between logic and stupid behaviour as they see fit. I was very surprised when things got serious in the last half hour, the story becomes rational and the behaviour of the protagonists is explained. Unfortunately, the explanation is quite messy at times, I would have been more satisfied if they’d stuck to the comedy all the way till the end. Regardless, the positive feelings prevail. (05/08/2011)

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. (14/11/2006)

The film had a great cast but without much to show for it. The theme was certainly interesting, but the screenplay not so much, plus, I was shaking my head over the overcomplexity of the story, and I could not really relate to any of the characters. Maybe except for Lindsey, who kept showing up from time to time like a charming robot mouse. (17/04/2020)

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%. (07/09/2011)

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. (23/05/2007)