Lucky

Just wasted 103 minutes of my life and I'm afraid there's no way of getting back those precious minutes. Two hours ago I was in a good mood- now I feel like everything is pointless...

This attempt at comedy, or black comedy, fails miserably and completely.

Seriously, it's awful. In pretty much every way. If you are reading this because you are thinking of watching it, do something else. Honestly, I'm helping you.

To say it's like made-for-TV-movies is an insult to made-for-TV-movies.

I'm going to cheer myself up by spending another 103 minutes watching some shopping channel in a foreign language that I don't understand.

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.

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.

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 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-.

Would I watch again? - Most likely no.