Luck

This movie is about swearing, smoking, drinking and gambling -- and, only incidentally, the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series. Even if you enjoy those pursuits, I can't imagine you liking it.

Maybe it's just me, but sitting around watching a bunch of losers keep losing seemed like a waste of time. The only character of interest was played by Sarah Polley. In fact, the only reason I gave this movie any stars was because of the presence of Sarah Polley. Unfortunately, she only appeared in a few too-short scenes. Any film with Sarah Polley automatically gets three extra stars from me. Three plus zero equals . . .

The script is ludicrous and might be better titled "Deus ex Machina Madness" for the number of irritating, out-of-the-blue, bizarre plot twists.

The longer I watched "Luck" the more I wondered, "What were these people thinking?" The director/writer, the producers, the funding agencies? Even Sarah -- what convinced her to waste her talent in what I found to be a very unsatisfying, almost shallow movie?

And I'm even Canadian, for chrissake! I love the legend of the 1972 series. What a waste.

I saw this movie only once on the island of Phuket in Thailand. It was on an English movie channel ... no one i know remembers hearing of the movie except a friend who was also in Thailand at the time. Hope to locate it online somewhere

I did enjoy it overall. One inherent problem with the film, however, is that it's pacing is pretty bad. It lasted only about 1h45 but felt like it was an hour longer. This is mainly because about 2/3rds of the way into the film, rather than resolve the film or at least end it on a strong note, Wellingston insists on pushing it further and further into the realm of ridiculousness.

Sarah Polley is the stand-out here. The cast, overall, works quite well, and Shane's roommates are especially amusing, but Polley is the one to watch. There is a scene in her flat with Polley and Kirby on the couch, he's staring at her, and she goes through a barrage of facial expressions, body language, and nearly no dialogue. She is able to say so much while barely saying anything. This is the kind of brilliant acting I expect from Polley - someone who is a strong character actress, who can assume roles right down to the little quirks and twitches. The way her eyes look, her expressions - you can see the difference in her character type when watching Go vs Guinevere vs Sweet Hereafter vs Luck. Each character has their own distinct personality. This is VERY difficult to portray in film, to be able to be a completely different person each time you step in front of the camera.

Overall, Luck is a decent film. I'm happy I saw it but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it again. I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10, with a 9/10 for Sarah Polley.

A love story, a cautionary tale of gambling, a comedy about growing up and taking responsibility. Luck is all of these and the mix is entertaining but, ultimately, not fulfilling. Guy gets a kiss from a female 'friend' that jumpstarts him into a gambling streak where he wins and loses a small fortune in a manner of days. His friends and roommates are even more immature than he and they all get in deep. Although its well written overall, there was much unrealized potential for more comedy. Acting was believable and up to par. This Canadian produced effort is certainly well above typical Hollywood comedy standards and worth searching out. The harness racing and goofball gambling buddies situations were pretty much how I remember them from the time period I was going through a similar (equally unsuccessful) maturing process.

first caught snippets while flipping channels, each time watched a little more, knew i had to catch it from the start, and was just blown away when i did.

i loved the pacing, the development, the structure (especially how it starts as the Gamblers Anon meeting speech, which then catches up to itself mid-story). i loved the casting, the 4 buddies -- this is definitely "a guys movie" -- women were very secondary in the characters' lives -- that's why Shane doesn't have a clue what to do when he likes a girl. and the nerdy guy who keeps making the buzz-kill comments -- i love the way he was written into their crew. it always seemed like there was one of those guys around. and i love how the guys tell him to shut up & go away, but he keeps hanging around.

and Jed Rees! who is similarly great in Men With Brooms and the Chris Issac show -- i'm lovin' this guy more every time i see him. and he really goes for it in this one. he's got a Nicholson or Spader-like half-craziness in his characterizations -- but not sinister axe-murderer Jack, more self-destructive crazy, Canadian-crazy, half unhinged, but the worst thing he'll do is attack a table -- a Canadian crazy-Jack. love it. mesmerizing crazy eyes & face.

maybe it's cuz i lived thru that time, but it was all so real -- the first crummy house, typing in the kitchen, the ratty couch and TV, oh, and the stubbies!! props to the props peeps! and Shane's shyness around the girl. and all the twists at the end when Shane keeps losing it to this addiction of gambling, which i don't know much about, but this sure took me into that world -- how this non-gambling guy can fall so deep so quick.

and how the story is set around the '72 series -- i thought that was just great. somebody needed to do it. a real-world Shakespearian drama, and weaving all these different personalities into it.

it appears really low-budget/indi, but Real Well Done low-budget -- the way it should be.