Lucky

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."

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.

Lucky is a serial killer's tale through the eye of a cynic. It's a dark comedy that anyone can easily enjoy.

The good. Surprising scenario, nicely put together. When you think it's going to go left, it goes right. Imaginative ideas in the story. Excellent ending. This is not your Hollywood mush, it has realism mixed in the movie flair.

The bad. A few logical hitch, but easily ignored.

The ugly. Nothing.

The result. If you like films that are different, offbeat, this is for you. Everyone else should at least give it a try.

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:

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.

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.

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.

For the ones that don't know what Lucky is about, here is a brief description: Ben (Collin Hanks) is a nobody who has been in love with Lucy (Ari Graynor) since they were kids, though these feelings haven't been reciprocated in the slightest by the latter, when Ben suddenly wins the lottery, Lucy, previously annoyed by Ben now decides she wants Ben in her life but Ben is also (plottwist) a serial killer and in turn hilarity ensues.

The plot lends itself terrifically for all the bizarre things that happen in the film, however, I felt that the way that Gil Cates Jr. and Kent Sublette went with it was a bit lacking. For a movie about love, serial killing and all the money in the world, the movie stays a bit too grounded.

Colin Hanks is definitely the strong point in the film as everything more or less depends on the way he reacts to everything. How he doesn't change over the course of the film though the things that happen around him continue to escalate is something worth noting.

I wasn't familiar with Ari Graynor before this film but while she doesn't hold the (overrated) Hollywood look she maintains this magnetic aura that makes her likable. Along with that she has stellar comedic timing even with the lackluster script.

The pacing does seem to be a bit off at some points in the film but the ending, which I won't ruin because I do recommend this film, makes up for it.

Overall, there isn't anything to hate in the film, but for me, there wasn't anything to love either. I do want people to see it though, because it's different and a wobbly step into the right direction. We've all been raised with the idea that different isn't necessarily good, so I encourage you to watch it and make up your own mind.