Las Vegas - Zur Hölle & zurück

Lidda (Kirsten Dunst) leaves Tulsa, Oklahoma and her mother to find her father Charlie Doyles (James Caan), a professional gambler in Vegas. She carries around a check from him. She takes store clerk Colonel (Vincent Kartheiser) along for the ride when somebody comes collecting his debt. Colonel considers himself to be a poker player. Charlie faces old nemesis Tony in high stakes poker. Charlie is in love with stripper Sugar working in Tony's club. Jimmy works for Tony to rob and then kill gamblers. Tony's nephew Frankie arrives from Italy to be the new member of the crew.

This movie is very clunky. Nobody is particularly compelling. Kirsten is grumpy and Vincent is no leading man. They don't have any chemistry. James Caan is coasting on his reputation in this movie. Luis Guzmán is a passable hit-man but he's capable of much more. This is trying to be a hard-boiled crime drama and personal drama. It doesn't have the style or any good writing. It doesn't have any thrills or tension. It stumbles on and on as the audience waits for Lidda to finally meet up with Charlie.

This moive was the biggest piece of trash and I LOVED EVERY MINUTE OF IT

I loved it in that guilty pleasure sort of way... in that 2 AM in the morning and you're looking for an excuse to stay awake kind of way... hoping against hope that Kirsten will finally take off her clothes, glory in her newfound abilities with the pole and dump her wussy boyfriend.

I am disappointed to report, none of these things happen

However, Luis Guzman kicks some ass. A surly Robert Miano (Donnie Brasco) nails the hell out of some MAXIM covergirl. Kirsten does make a pretty decent stripper.

On the other hand, the direction in this movie is awful. The writer, Brenden Beseth, stumbles between Bukowski and illiteracy. The punk who plays the lead should never be allowed to act (yeah right) again.

However, I liked the movie. So many films are unintentionally terrible, that this film is almost satisfying. It's not trying to elevate above the shoddy source material. It's not pretending to be anything that it's not...

Luckytwn is just A BLOODY VEGAS ROMP. A little film outclassed by its heavyweight movie stars...

a guilty pleasure to say the least....

Kirsten Dunst usually makes good choices, but this one ranks with her Crow movie as the worst. Absolutely dreadful drama about 18 year old girl who leaves home to meet her professional poker playing father (James Caan) who sends her birthday cards but was otherwise never a part of her life. There isn't a single moment in this disaster that rings true. Avoid at all costs.

I saw the video version of LuckyTown...and it has high aspirations beyond what it was able to achieve....however, some scenes (such as those of the "road trip" sequences) could have been edited more for length....and slowed things down...I think that Kirsten Dunst cast in her role was not appropriate, as I feel that the character was not and did not evolve through her experiences...perhaps this role was a bit too early in Kirsten's carrer repetoire...James Caan's characterization was not very 3-dimensional either....not enough there for him to "turbo it up" into something one woul d expect from James like in his roles from the 1970s...but one actress stole the show (as it was)...and that was Jennifer Gareis...yowza...she plays to the hilt the "Sugar" character--a prostitute/junkie/grifter..too bad that they didn't allow for more character development...she looks really good in all theh outfits that they had her wear, and she also looks fantastic disrobed as well (a thermonuclear babe, a zoomy girl)...indeed, there is a sex scene (on top of a pool table with Miano) that should rank in the PLayboy's Top 25 Lovemaking Scenes of the last five years....additionally, there is a scene where Gareis' character disrobes and comes on to James CAan's character, and he declines her invitation! I doubt that I would have had such self control in similar circumstances.... And Luis Guzman, no matter if he is put into an excellent film or a terrible one, gives his all, and had the best overall performance in this picture of a superstitious hitman who won't kill anyone on Valnentine's DAy (the day most of the story takes place on) because previously he killed his girlfriend and her secret lover on that day...."Bad luck and things happen on this day" he observes....despite higher aspirations, this potboiler doesn't have the water to keep boiling....but I give them an A for aspirations, and a C for execution...

As a movie, the movie sucked. It sucked in the kind of dismally bad way that only the laziest of movies can. The young male romantic interest of Kirsten Dunst ranks high in the pantheon of Characters that Should Be Killed As Soon As Possible With a Blunt Instrument - he is as likeable as the Dell Guy.

However, the only reason I write is to comment on the poker scene, which takes the cake for spectacular laziness. For a movie involving two characters who are supposed to be the top two greatest poker players in the world, it would be nice if the writer had actually bothered to peruse the rudimentary structure of poker games.

In the scene where James Caan plays the kid at poker, Caan is playing Texas Hold'em. The kid, however, is apparently playing 5-card draw. Caan's TWO cards face down are pocket Queens. That's unfortunate for him, because the kid has FIVE cards in his hand, which contain at least trip deuces. Let's make sure we got that. In the same hand of poker, one guy is playing a completely different form of poker than the other!! HA HA HA HA HA HA. When I saw this, I sat in stunned, giggly disbelief.

This is not a little error. It is unforgiveable sloppiness, especially when you bill your movie as a Vegas, gambling movie that involves the two greatest poker players in the world. It's as if a 5th grader wrote this. If it were a sports movie, it would be like one guy playing his golf shot while his opponent, a football player, tackles him. Retarded. Just like the entire surrounding movie.