"Kansas City Shuffle" was first performed in 1926 by Bennie Moten's Kansas City Orchestra pianist and director Benny Moten. In the 2005 film Lucky Number Slevin, the song is covered in the final credits by Jay Ralph. But throughout the film, Mr. Good Cat (Bruce Willis' character) utters its title and key phrase, "What is Kansas City Shuffle?" It is when everyone looks to the right and you appear to the left.” "Whereas you look left, they fall right into the Kansas City Shuffle." It's a "they think - you think - you don't know" " This is the plot motif of the film. Originally, the term "Kansas City Shuffle" is used to refer to the defensive combination of the Kansas City Chiefs football team during their performances in the American Football League. This combination consisted of suppressing the use of "backward protection" and was later banned. It's an blindfold kick back type of a game called the Kansas City Shuffle. The film itself is from the category of thrillers with an unpredictable outcome, I would say, quite unpredictable (at least four times, up to the last frames). And the big league actors. . .
Besides, what's Kansas City Shuffle without a corpse?
I first watched Slevin's Lucky Number a long time ago and at the right time. About the same time I first saw Guy Ritchie and Kill Bill Tarantino. Although all these films are on very gloomy topics, with black pestilence, showdowns, shootings, cruelty and so on, but for some reason they are shot so exciting that you glue to the screen and do not come off until you know how it ends. The last couple of years the film often caught my eye on TV, and after another viewing I decided to finally comment.
What the hell is Schaffle?
Kansas City Shaffle is when everyone looks to the right and you go to the left.
The leveen of Kelevre is very unlucky. He lost his job and his apartment, and he found his girlfriend in bed with another. Arriving in New York to visit his friend Nick Fisher, Slevin is robbed, his nose is broken, and the next day two muzzles come after him. Mistaking Slevin for Nick, he is dragged in one towel to meet with the mob boss, who demands payment of a large debt. Since Slevin has no money, he is offered to kill the son of the main rival Boss Rabbi. Just an hour later, Slevin is escorted to a meeting with the Rabbi, who also requires him to pay another debt to Nick. Slevin literally has a few days to solve these unusual problems, because he is pursued not only by bandits, but also by the police, as well as an upscale killer named Good Cat.
Why is he called the Rabbi?
- Because he's a rabbi!
Not immediately, but I understood why I liked the film (despite the gangster theme, murder and brutality) - it is very similar to the black gangster films of the British Guy Ritchie, like the Big Kush and the Map, money, two barrels (in which all the same is presented with British flavor). The lucky number of Slevin, although shot also by the Briton Paul McGuigan (who by the way directed several episodes of Sherlock), but in American style and editing. The plot is built nonlinearly - many of the scenes shown at the beginning of the film seem to have nothing to do with the main story, and by the middle of the films - as in the best detective novels - there is an unexpected turn of events that completely changes the tone and even the genre of the film, turning from an action movie with black humor into a dark thriller. And all this is presented in the form of scenes of witty dialogues (which are really inventive - you want to listen and listen), seemingly unrelated flashbacks and contract murders.
What happened to your nose?
- I tried to break a guy's fist.
The cast is chosen powerful - wherever you look, all the actors as a selection, and played here some of their best roles! In the center of the plot is an ordinary guy who finds himself in the wrong place, at the wrong time - Slevin Kelevra, who falls into the field of view of two ruthless mafiosi and now owes them money. But Slevin does not seem as simple as it seems - it is clear that he is not too worried about the current situation, leads witty verbal battles with gangsters, agrees to their tasks, while twisting an affair with a cute neighbor. I love the way Josh Hartnett plays these characters, sort of like he’s a handsome guy whose intentions and thoughts are usually clear at first sight, but suddenly he’s a lot more complex and multifaceted than you might think. I’ve seen him in a lot of movies, but this is probably his best image.
There are three prohibitions that a Jew cannot violate in order to save his life: he cannot create an idol, commit adultery and kill according to a pre-planned scenario. Getting ahead of the killer would be. .
- Kosher.
- Pfft. Acceptable.
Not one, but two great antagonists. And played by respected actors who have long become legends: Morgan Freeman in the role of the Boss, who likes to speculate about schmu, chess, gently threaten and achieve his favorite way. His rival Rabbi was played by Sir Ben Kingsley - he is more restrained, religious, insightful, but no less dangerous and ruthless. These two former friends, now blood enemies, live in penthouses of opposite buildings and each tries to kill the other. And Slevin gets into this fight, and the fight will be hot. . .
My name is Good Cat. For you, Mr. Good Cat.
Bruce Willis has been one of my favorite actors since childhood. His character here is a high-end killer, who everyone knows as the Good Cat. And he also happens to be a part of this interesting multiplayer. Only at once it is clear that the Good Cat is playing his unknown game, and it is unclear which side he is on, but one thing is clear - do not stand in his way. The Good Cat never misses. . .
I came to ask for a cup of sugar.
- Where's the cup?
- I said ask for a cup of sugar. Take a cup, I'd say "ask for sugar."
- Touche.
The charming Lucy Liu is a decoration of this men’s company and the whole film. Neighbor Lindsay, who went to the neighbor for sugar, meets Slevin and begins his own investigation of the situation with gangsters, in which Slevin fell. Producing initially the impression of chatter, Lindsay is smarter and more insightful than it may seem at first glance, and is well versed in this situation (and makes a charming couple with Slevin).
I think you should not say the phrase, banal to nausea – “you go to the police, you will be slapped.”
- And you said it.
- And I said it.
As in any similar situation, there are representatives of the law, and here it is represented by Detective Brickowski. And immediately he seems to those who do not disdain dirty methods for doing their work, and seems to keep this situation under control, but does not understand that everything turns out to be much more complicated than it initially seems.
Do you know why you are here?
- Because I'm not lucky.
Slevin’s Lucky Number is an example of a chic male movie that seems to develop according to a familiar scenario, only to be completely unpredictable. I have seen it again and again with the same interest.
Obviously, you need to have a remarkable talent to make a good film on absolutely secondary material, and it certainly takes a lucky chance for a good film to be great. The stars aligned. And in the sense that it was possible to collect an absolutely delightful acting ensemble, and in the fact that the film, which was made as a secondary and epigonal, suddenly shone with some unique colors, acquired a certain identity and even an aura of cultism.
The student inexperience of the screenwriter Jason Smilovich compensates with fierce synefilism and such love for his characters that it is transmitted to the viewer. On the contrary, the experienced director Paul McGuigan skillfully manipulates the viewer and constantly fools us, camouflaging his next tale of revenge under the comedy of mistakes, then under the thriller, then under the action movie, then under the black humor parable, then almost under the early Woody Allen, then under the western about two “people without a name” who came to do justice in a strange city a la “A few dollars more”. And what McGuigan also can not take away - he is very fond of cinema and just as generously shares his love with the audience as the screenwriter Smilovich.
Everything in this love movie somehow. He, of course, is secondary in essence and refers to the experience of watching Hitchcock's classics about people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and to noir films like "The Third Man", which were essentially filmed based on various tabloid novels, and, without hiding - to the experience of Tarantino (the most famous film of which, as you know, is called "Bulvarny" (Criminal) and read by lovers). But as with the above-mentioned filmmakers, with love and irony dissecting the classics, McGuigan and Smilovich manage with the same love and irony to dissect the masterpieces of Tarantino and Richie and, since it is done with talent and soul, no negativity when watching, but even on the contrary, fall in love with this new “criminal fiction” with his conversations about the Bondian, with a famously twisted plot populated exclusively by freaks, with constant heroes-turners and everything else.
Of course, the characters inhabiting this world are far from the standard imagery and charisma of such heroes as Boris Razor or Tony PulyaZub, and the dialogue is not as whiplash as Vincent Veg and Jules Winfield, but the world created on the screen by McGuigan makes you believe in its truth and not ask unnecessary compromising questions. And this world is so authentic and everything in it is so interconnected and intertwined that it manages not only to captivate the viewer, but even to generate many of its own catchphrases and even the term "Kansas City Shuffle".
He's just kind of sturdy, well sewn, well standing on his feet, stylish, funny, dynamic, at the same time absolutely not abstruse and very, very light. I want to revisit it.
As I said, under the roof of one film managed to collect a lot of very original actors, which is difficult to imagine in one ensemble, but, nevertheless, everything happened surprisingly well and, of course, without the skill of McGuigan here was not done. Josh Hartnett, who never really pleased me, is suddenly absolutely in his place as a modern 'man without a name', and there is something in his appearance and character that makes him see a guy with a double day. So I never liked Hartnett in a romantic role, it seemed that he always misses something, as in the infamous "Pearl Harbor" or some he is not quite sincere, as in "Black Orchid". And so McGuigan saw in him exactly this "double bottom", not necessary for glossy Hollywood, but so necessary for characteristic roles. And Hartnett suddenly shone! He is at the same time some very unsatisfied and at the same time impudent, not evil, but absolutely uncompromising, he knows how to tell the audience with sympathy about the difficult fate of his hero, but leave a couple of trump cards up his sleeve. In fact, this is a typical Batman, only without a costume, such an anti-hero with a childhood trauma, a goal and rather ambiguous ways of achieving it. Hartnett himself, by the way, was once offered the role of Batman, and he refused, not wanting to associate himself with giant studio projects. On the one hand - worse for us, on the other - you can clearly see how comfortable he is in the role of "Slevin" and in this world of relaxed "amateur" cinema.
Lucy Liu, who in her role here is simply beautiful!
The actress looks like a sparrow or a tittle here: she is absolutely charming as a cheerful, cute, energetic girl - flying, jumping, bright, gusty, like a small lump of pure positive energy. It is impossible not to fall in love with her!
Corifeis in the person of Morgan Freeman, Ben Kingsley and Bruce Willis is also absolutely in their places and, despite the clichéd characters, each of them has its own story, and they are very interesting. Everyone can make a solo film. In recent years, somehow began to forget how bright Bruce Willis can be, one or two traits capable of creating a full-fledged character, an actor. Freeman and Kingsley, playing the leaders of the opposing clans, not deserving, it would seem, any sympathy heroes, place of condemnation unexpectedly sympathetic because of some of their special comic humanity. Especially successful in this Kingsley, the hero of which turned out to be very controversial.
Paul McGuigan is neither Tarantino nor Richie. His slightly inhibited style is still different from the style of these masters. He's more like Brad Meerman with 'French Robbery' or Mild with 'Big White Boundary', but it's not bad company. He successfully mixed all genres except the boring, giving a lot of pleasure to his witty, gambling, fervent, light film, which immediately falls in love. However, if Tarantino and Richie themselves do not often please us with their masterpieces, then why should someone else not please us with their masterpieces?
10 out of 10
It's one of the most ridiculous and anti-psychological movies I've ever seen. After the first and generally normal 20 minutes, there is just some kind of fairy tale, confused and drawn-out, like a long joke that tells each other rastamans in clouds of non-cigarette smoke. So, two mafiosi live for 20 years in two tall skyscrapers opposite each other, fearing each other and not seeing the light of white. And two mobsters had a son. You see, the image of these two villains is completely romanticized, fabulous, this is directly indicated by the fact that they are played by actors who have never played villains - Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman have always played saints, wizards, amazing enigmas. Then the whole first hour there is complete nonsense - the guy knocks on the door in a row, some bandits, then others, then cops, and how does he react? He's joking. He's having fun! In front of fabulous mobsters, he acts as if he came to the circus. The bandits want to give an extremely important order to kill a man from the street! The hero, who put his whole life on the plan of revenge, who came to the work of his whole life, manages to start an affair in between. Boy, can't your relationship wait at least 3 days? Speaking of relationships, a woman herself comes to him, she gets acquainted with him, he lays out everything about her plan, about what she is doing in parallel (are you a moron?), and she instead of running away from such a person, she calls him on a date, she gives herself to him. The first day! Jesus. Yes, in any country, in any culture, a woman from a normal social stratum WILL NOT do anything by herself in a relationship with a man, this is complete nonsense. If you think otherwise, you know nothing about women. Why the ordered son of a rabbi-mafia, who is a Jewish hipster-homosek, quite accidentally dines in the same restaurant in which the Glavhero has a date with a Chinese woman, although he did not even invite her there, but she invited him, that is, this is an absolutely fabulous coincidence. The cops are watching this, they see a Chinese woman who works for them as a pathologist and they don't recognize her! Your own employee. And they don't recruit her to get close to a guy. What the hell? Willis tries to kill her and doesn't do a head test! He's a professional killer with over 20 years of experience, and he doesn't do a test. Bandits in '79 killed anyone who bet on their pumped horse. Are you crazy? This is a racetrack, there are thousands of people, many who bet on 7 horses purely by chance, they could be about 10% of all fans. And this, he says, was an action of intimidation, so that no one... attention – did not climb on our races. What? All right, jump with an empty stadium. What nonsense the authors say. . . Honestly, I lost interest after 35 minutes, because the opinion of the film was already settled as a diagnosis, but I just forced myself out of principle to look, hoping that later it would clear up. It became clear, but this is not a case like in the “Island of the Damned”, when a tense and strange picture turns the other side, revealing an intriguing truth, and here just one shit folds into another shit, and the film explains this same shit in direct text, voice (!!!) for the entire second hour to justify to the viewer that the authors are not completely idiots. In the end, some kind of happy ending, and why should I rejoice for the hero, when he for his just revenge put a bunch of completely innocent people along the way? He has his hands up to his elbow in the blood of random passers-by, why should this demon happily leave for a beautiful future with a new girlfriend? The ultimate impression—all of which is referred to as a “cunning plan”—is a notoriously overcomplicated venture with a million unreliable variables that should never work, but can excite humor anywhere.
A bad day came out at Slevin: one day he lost his house, girlfriend and still got a face (with the subsequent robbery)... yes, you need to be a very “lucky” guy to get into such a story. Moreover, the warring mafiosi threaten to decide for a debt, about which the hero of Hartnett knows absolutely nothing. Who else would have shot himself in the forehead long ago or gone to the police (which is tantamount to suicide in his case), but Slevin is not. The boy frivolously walks around in one towel in the chic apartments, glues his neighbor Lucy Liu and jokes about Jews.
At first, it may seem that everything that happens on the screen is a kind of joke. But in the course of the action and situational layering in the spirit of Guy Ritchie, the whole picture becomes simply magnificent and it turns out that McGuigan has absorbed into "The Lucky Number..." all the best from Tarantinov's dialogues (taking Willis and) and from the same intricacies of the author of "Map money two trunks." The dashingly twisted plot and quite dynamic (and sometimes entertaining) editing, do not let you get bored in almost 3 locations where the events unfold.
Well, the most "juice" remains in the final, of course. This film is not quite an idealistic representative of the genre, but only when it comes to getting close, the director makes a couple of simple but beautiful gestures. Actually, it's got to be watched. And watch carefully, because you'll know who the fuck Nick Fisher is and why he's making a Kansas City shaffle.
9 out of 10
Great cast, slightly "dumb" manner of presentation, when "like dangerous gangsters" talk like talk show hosts - not bad. It's not "The Departed" or "Gentlemen," but it's more than a good night. Revenge spent twenty years. The killer who became attached to the child. Very curious neighbor. That's a criminal pun. But seriously, I was always interested in how and why to live on after having carried out revenge for a good half of my life. Can any other goal be compared to this one?
I didn’t think a movie like this could pass me by, especially with a cast like this, but I’m really surprised that I’m only seeing this movie today and just now. “Lucky number Slevin” is a very unpredictable film, with a plot worthy not of the genre of crime, but of a detective. Now let's talk more about this film by Paul McGuigan.
We will evaluate Slevin’s Lucky Number by such criteria as the plot, acting and, of course, the classic soundtrack, in which the term I put both music and sounds.
Plot: We are talking about a family whose father is a big gambler, but really wanted to help his son get into Harvard University, but something went wrong and in an instant everything collapsed. On this background, the whole plot of the film develops. At first I thought it would be such a predictable thriller with elements of crime. But I knew in advance that the plot would definitely surprise me, since I watched it on the TV channel Ostrizhne. And the plot really surprised me, the ending just left me with my mouth open and my eyes wide open. You know, this movie is very similar to the recently released "Gentlemen" or rather they are similar to this film. What am I getting at? I mean, there are also elements of “so it was designed.” But if there are too many of these elements in Gentlemen, then there are enough of them in Slevin’s Lucky Number, that is, not much or little. In the story itself there are a lot of sharp plot twists. Every moment is very unpredictable, you think about one thing, and another happens, that is, it is impossible to predict the development of the storyline. There is a good connection between the scenes, everything is gradually explained to you. In general, the storyline develops in such a way that at the beginning you are “dipped in the ocean of events”, but then everything is explained and there are no questions left. In addition, I would like to touch upon such sub-criteria as dialogue. Honestly, while watching, I opened Kinopoisk specifically to make sure that either Guy Ritchie or Quentin Tarantino directed the film, but when I saw Paul McGuigan as the director, and these two were not even in the producers or writers, I was just shocked. The dialogue is just amazing. They are here for a reason, but really carry meaning. And anyway, they're very interesting. It feels like you’re standing there listening to real people. In the end, it is impossible not to touch the following sub-criteria of the ending of the film. The ending is a separate topic. At one point and over the endings, I wanted to lower the score of this film because I thought it was stupid, but again, I couldn’t predict everything. The real ending was "just banging on my face." It’s exciting in a positive way, in other words. Overall, the plot is very strong, this criterion is done perfectly.
Acting: I was very surprised that the film with Bruce Willis as Goodcat, Lucy Liu as Lindsay, Morgan Freeman as Boss, Ben Kingsley as Ravin passed me by, as I wrote in the introduction. You all know how professional these actors are. And I'll tell you more, they're all in leading roles here. And what surprises me more is that at the same time everything in the film, 1 hour and 50 minutes of each of them turned out to be completely revealed from all sides. It's just a real professionalism on the part of the director and other staff involved and involved, even indirectly, in this. You really see that these characters are real personalities, not empty, not talking scenery. Even minor characters, such as the man Ravina Saul, played by Corey Stoll or the policeman Brickowski, played by Stanley Tucci, also managed to reveal quite well. It's just amazing and amazing to me. As for their acting, there are no complaints at all. The emotions are absolutely delightful. There is chemistry between the characters, especially between Lindsey (Lucy Liu) and Slevin (Josh Hartnett). Each of the actors completely became one with their heroes. Real professionalism, in other words. In summary, this criterion is also made at a high level.
Soundtrack: The music score is as good as the previous criteria. The music here has such notes of a thriller with elements of crime and detective. What do I mean? This music gives suspense, that is, anxiety, anticipation, excitement in the form of a feeling “what will happen next?” I can't say anything against it. I also liked this criterion very much.
Thus, “Lucky number Slevin” is a very high-quality thriller crime, which even sometimes touches a bit of the genre of drama, as you really feel for the characters, but it is so remote not directly deeply soulful, as in my favorite film “Green Mile”. “Lucky number Slevin” is a movie with a deep message, not very positive, but making you think about some things. This is really a masterpiece of its genre, but not a masterpiece of 10 points, because you do not become one with the characters, you lack a stronger influence of the drama, although the drama here is in second place in genres after the thriller. I would arrange the genres of this work in descending order as follows: crime, detective, thriller and drama. In general, I strongly advise you to watch this movie, you will not regret it. It's a sturdy nine of almost a dozen. I really liked it, the emotions after watching it were only positive.
What the hell is Schaffle?
Kansas City Shaffle is when everyone looks to the right and you go to the left.
In fact, it is this feature that the film takes the viewer. The creators of the picture distract the viewer, forcing them to pay attention to some details of the plot, hiding what they previously used as a tie. Masking a competent and very atmospheric criminal thriller under black tragicomedy, when an impressionable observer (read, the viewer) has already forgotten about the hard prologue of the whole story and can not even understand what he was involved in here at all, being carried away by a funny story about a simple young guy-loser, who for one bad day was so many times unlucky that it is simply difficult to believe. And how does he still manage not to lose his temper and calm?
At the same time, the story of the picture itself resembles the criminal militants of early Guy Ritchie, then ' Run without looking back' with Paul Walker, then a bunch of other, quite not bad pictures, but still keeps from them individually, stylistically only remembering ' Revolver' or ' Rock and Roller' Quite a funny entourage of fictional New York, where attentive cops watch only one block for days, but only because there, opposite each other live two crime bosses with their own ethnic mafia clans. Former best friends, and now irreconcilable enemies-competitors, Rabbi and Boss, create the entourage of some criminal fairy tale, which is only supported by a funny soundtrack and camera work, as well as the urban legend of how these two long ago quarreled. As for the killer of the Good Cat, this is also the same fairy-tale character whose nickname can be quite considered a reference to fairy-tale characters - either the Cheshire Cat, or the Scientist Cat, who likes it more. But another banal urban legend with a legendary hired killer, whose appearance is unknown to no one, is very organically woven into the story of the confrontation between the Afro-Marican and Jewish mafia clans, creating and supplementing with the necessary details this fairy tale, similar in places if not to a dream, then certainly to complete nonsense. A series of coincidences and accidents that fall on the main character, as well as a rather funny love line with a pretty young Asian woman, complete the image of this funny fairy tale, where you simply can not imagine what else can be expected next, and all this general fabulous and comic tone of the whole story is really great distracts the viewer from the truth, from what this story is really, revealing all the cards only in the finale, which really turned out to be unexpected and impressive, although if you carefully watch the film from the very beginning, along the whole narrative are scattered quite powerful clues, you just need to know where to see. Thus, the writers and director tell us a story, exactly like the hero of Bruce Willis in the prologue of the picture, convincingly and clearly demonstrating what Cansas City Shuffle is.
Actors, by the way, only decorate this painstaking work. Here everyone is in his place - Josh Hartnett in the role of the title character Slevin performs a rather bright image, there are not enough stars from the sky, but the role of a figist with whom something always happens he plays quite naturally, seriously transforming in the final. And in his relationship with the heroine Luc Liu really believe, it turns out a very sincere and harmonious movie couple, stunningly looking together. As for the duo Freeman and Kingsley - the best candidates for the role of criminal authorities, perhaps, really not found. A cunning hitman, playing the role of a gray cardinal in this story - a role as if specially written for the star ' Jackal' Bruce Willis. And together, this trio acts out a really fascinating story, a kind of ' film in the film' providing not a lot of support for the main star of the picture - Hartnett. We should not forget about Stanley Tucci in an atypical image of a police detective for him - very arrogant and rude, but generally not stupid.
In the end ' Lucky number Slevin' deserves the title of a rather strong representative of the genre, which really captivates the viewer from the very beginning, then confuses and distracts from the true state of affairs, with the help of acting, soundtrack and general entourage, encrypted under the tragicomedy, which in fact is not, but it is by removing its comic mask that this movie impresses the most, opening as one of the most powerful representatives of the criminal thriller, causing a desire to revise this film anew, but already more carefully - suddenly the creators, obvious fans of Cans/as?
This is one of those films whose success or failure depends on whether or not a key plot move works, revealing which would be literally unfair for future viewers. In this case, it still works, although it can not be called quite unpredictable.
There are certain things that allow you to make the right assumption. First of all, this is the behavior of the main character. An ordinary guy, as he seems, would have lost his mind in fear, and Slevin keeps the Olympic peace. Of course, he explains to the heroine of Lucy Lew his detached state in some medical term, but this somehow does not believe. When he almost deliberately provokes the Rabbi, returning to the conversation over and over instead of leaving as soon as possible, you begin to realize that someone is bullying someone. Either Slevin over the Rabbi, or the authors over the viewer (actually both). It is also clear that the big gun that is hung on the wall at the beginning, Bruce Willis, should be fired properly. There are a few more trifles that do not fit into the situation described in the press release and advertising trailer, but the main thing is that such a move is not used for the first time, but recently even often.
Honed dialogues, interesting situations, well-written central gangster images, if not expressive characters, then spectacular types, the entire film crew is not in vain singing praises to the screenwriter. Starting as a mix of a typical story about 'yuppies in danger' with a Richie-Tarantinian buffoon, in the last third the tape makes a serious face and turns into an ode to revenge. At the same time, it loses its ease, but by that time the main trump card has already been laid out in front of us, and those who like it will calmly hold out until the end.
If the first plus of this picture is the script, then the second is, of course, a strong cast. Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley got roles significantly better than those they play two or three pieces a year in genre Hollywood movies. Roles are built so that you can alternate and mix colors comic and more serious. Willis in ' Slevin's Lucky Number' will appeal to his fans because he hits with both hands without a miss. It is not that he demonstrates something fundamentally new here compared to dozens of his roles in action movies, but the level is still above average. Lucy Liu is quite suitable for the role of a cheerful neighbor who likes to get involved in other people’s affairs (they say that in life she is exactly that by nature). The most difficult task went to Josh Hartnett. Like the film as a whole, it falls into two parts. Impeccable his work can hardly be called, but the overall picture he does not spoil, and thank you.
Not bad entertainment for those who like to watch the showdowns of criminals with a sense of humor, but realize that they do not always have a funny ending.
It is not even necessary to be aware of the contents of the film, where Slevin is originally the name of a horse at the races (although then taken as the name of a hero), and a horse can not have its own lucky number, because horses do not soar with the magic of numbers. On the contrary, it is clearer that the phrase should be structured as 'Slevin is the lucky number' as they say betting on racetracks... But even without delving into these nuances - it is enough to have only a couple of years of studying English in high school or any normal tutorial to also clearly see: the original title of the picture 'Lucky number Slevin' well, do not translate this way, because by all the rules of English (and even more frivolous in American grammar), this phrase would then have the preposition ' of ' in front of your own name, or was recorded as 'Slevin's number'
And after all, with this name, the movie went to our rental. Does anyone have any thoughts like that? -) I don't care about it! We got a poster quicker and let's go. . .
In general, the film itself is not bad, as critics note. I don’t care what he looks like there, how the director tried to hide and how much he managed it. I noticed such an interesting detail in the content of the picture. At its very beginning.
And the film begins with a rather peculiarly shot scene in which the killer (Bruce Willis) kills some kind of left-wing guy in the plot, of course, doing it with the inherent in such cold-blooded and inventive characters directly theatrical nontriviality, even some refinement, but inevitably professionally; At first, again, you somehow do not pay attention to this stage, because the plot immediately after noticeably goes aside, and later quite clearly explains why and why they removed the unlucky one. Moreover, in the course of the picture, this moment is repeatedly mentioned, because it is clearly tied to the key plot. And so, after somewhere the third such repeated accent, you begin to have funny, but at the same time bitter thoughts.
What's the point? At first, the viewer is sure that the guy killed at the beginning is a friend of the main character. Since there is no hint of the killer’s connection with this Slevin yet, and he himself says that the victim (like not knowing about his death) is his friend, it is logical to assume that the first victim in the film is by mistake, or maybe not, but clearly involved in all these dark criminal cases, which are clear even after reading the annotation before viewing, and into which the main character Slevin is definitely involved.
Is it a matter of what is revealed later, what is directly and repeatedly spoken about? What matters is how they talk about it.
It turns out that the person killed is still almost in the initial credits (very regrettable fate; R the unfortunate has absolutely no, or almost no, relation to all those dark deeds). Who is he? It's just some loser who owes more than anyone to the semi-criminal treasurer who appears in the film exactly three minutes before being shot. Moreover, the death of this loser is clearly not related to his debts, he is actually not connected with all the cases around which the plot twists. He was chosen as a victim only because they realized that his death no one will miss, you can use his name as a fake in order to get into the confidence of the mafia, who knew the treasurer (though did not know the loser).
And this logic has been muzzled over and over again, with some frank, I would say, cynicism. Several times someone in this film popularly explains to someone with a kind of direct simplicity and at the same time an evil irony: they say, we had to kill this dude for exactly that reason... well, he was just unlucky in life, what to do, sometimes... And another character of the type understandably nods, agreeing: yes, everything is logical, you will not write anything.
Despite the fact that in relation to all the other characters in the film there is a different logic, very American logic of “bad and good”. The bad end up on the nuts, and of course, for good, and the good perform cruel but fair justice, paying revenge after a couple of decades.
And only for a loser, no one will put in a word. It’s also a Western approach that says something. For example, the fact that no one is sorry for a loser, even if he is killed for nothing. Some kind of mentality exaggerated in its soullessness, emasculated by centuries-old Protestantism and fierce interpersonal competition in the midst of capitalism. At such moments, one involuntarily begins to hide behind this primordial Russian community and mutual assistance, although sometimes it vomits even more.
You think: well, man, I'm also an individualist, everyone for himself and everything ... but not in the same way, but ... he's also a person and maybe not bad ... just unlucky somewhere, failed to achieve something, somehow to realize himself ... And then quite frankly they make you understand that such a chela should not be paid attention at all. Like, his death was necessary for the main “good” hero to be able to carry out his cunning plan and punish the villains, and only that matters.
6 out of 10
I watched this movie from the top 250, according to the description it seemed unfamiliar. But when viewing first there was déjà vu, and then the confidence that he had seen it before. I realized it literally from some shots, not from the plot, because he did not remember at all. (And that's good, but it kept the intrigue.)
The plot is built on the “noble” revenge, hatched for many years, and finally realized. A kind of retribution for sins. When such a theme is embedded in the plot, it is implied that in the soul of the viewer should arise some moral satisfaction from the act of revenge, from the justice done. Unfortunately, this film does not have that. I understand the mental attitude of Western man to act in line with the ancient commandment “an eye for an eye” (although I am closer to the New Testament “love”). I understand that for the ancient wild consciousness it is the order of things – revenge. Therefore, it is so routinely and savorily beat Hollywood and other film factories.
But again, unfortunately, this film did not work out with revenge and a sense of justice. Because the viewer was carried away by the whirlpool of “cloaking” events that preceded the act of revenge. The script focuses too much on the snuffbox, which was supposed to jump out at some point, revealing the maps of the “original” idea with the characters. As a result, under the impression of this, a clever fraudulent combination does not feel the main thing - justice.
But the worst thing is that in an attempt to soberly comprehend this justice, you unwittingly slide into an analysis of the very combination for which this film was really made. Justice remained the background, the practical justification of everything that happened on the screen, the logical compensation. But nothing more. So with the moral content of the film is weak. Alas.
The main intrigue of the plot revolves around the plan, which managed to turn the main character. She was given the most attention, so all efforts were focused on this facade: deep-thinking and artistic dialogues and instructions, operetically-cracky bandits, sloppy policemen, picture faces and poses, and pathos, pathos, pathos ... They even played a fantastic-idiotic design with opposing gang camps adjacent across the street. Kindergarten!
In terms of conversations, of course, Morgan Freeman flashed, acting in his uncharacteristic charisma as the boss of a powerful gangster clan. It was boring and ridiculous, as always.
In terms of soulfulness, it should be noted the bulldozer-inevitable flirtation of an Asian neighbor, who literally hung herself on the neck of GG and eventually “brought” him into a relationship. By cinematic canons it looked quite romantic.
Unfortunately, behind its cumbersome-twisted construction, the plot leaves many unexplained simple questions. What was the motive of Bruce Willis’ character? Let’s be realistic and put aside “paternal feelings.” And given that the implementation of the plan of the characters of the picture became possible only after many years, in the darkness of absolute uncertainty remained all the questions related to how these years passed and what these characters did. Willis has repeatedly stressed that he is a professional hitman, but who was his partner? Are you a law-abiding pizza delivery man? The events of the film categorically reject any version of law-abiding, professionals do not care about justice, their interest is only business, and nothing personal. But then the hypothetical moral rod on which the justification of revenge should rest is greatly bent and absurd. There is only one conclusion: approaching the cherished dream, a lot of blood was shed. Perhaps innocent, only business!
I have to say more about the situation around the events with the loser father at the beginning of the film. After all, “the teardrop of a child” is the measure of all the measures in artistic works, for the sake of it, you can kill the whole world... Did anyone think that the root cause of this “slug” was not the brutal bandits, but the boy’s father? After all, he himself made a fatal bet on the races, and he realized what he risked. He took a risk and got what he expected. The bandits just did their job (well, the job is this: wolves are the nurses of the forest), and the father is to blame for what happened in the first place.
Let's go even further. At the beginning of the film, a family is killed because of debt, and this becomes the basis for the further logic of events with the "restoration of justice." Then what justice is there when, as a means to an end, heroes similarly kill a debtor (an alien debtor!), and not even for the sake of debt, but for the sake of appropriating his name!? This is disgusting cynicism and unjustified cruelty. The heroes of the film are antiheroes. They are worse criminals than the ones they oppose. So all this idiotic pathos with bribery and a happy ending turns out to be very spoiled and ugly.
The plot is cunning, but still not interesting. I missed you. Perhaps a tedious production. That’s why the film was not remembered the first time, because it is just stupid!
Conclusion. About the colorfulness, intrigue and production of the picture is quite worthy. It's a mess. I object to this film being in the top, and even at this height. But democracy, you can't write anything!
5 out of 10
- Do you know what an order is? - I suppose it's... - Exactly! That's when you're ordered. I understand that in school you did not pass the difficult word tautology.
Usually, before watching any movie, I read reviews and any reviews from critics. If the criticism is constructive and well-founded, then it encourages me to watch a movie, regardless of whether the criticism is positive or negative. This is one of the only films after “Cloud Atlas” before watching which I did not read any reviews or reviews of critics, etc.
After watching the film, I started reading reviews and I was glad that before watching it, I didn’t know anything about the film or even read the synopsis. The film was of course very powerful. From the first seconds, it captures your attention and does not let go until the very end, makes you watch even the credits, since the soundtrack of this film is simply above all praise.
The plot of the film is inappropriately excellent. In the beginning, of course, you don’t quite understand what’s going on, but by the end, all the puzzles come together and you sit for a while and think, “What did I just look at?”
The first reason I decided to watch this movie was the actors. They're perfect. Everyone, without exception, played well.
I will say a few words about the characters from the film, as I did not say the actors who played them 100%. The sensitive and carefree Lindsay (Lucy Liu), the brutal Mr. Good Cat (Bruce Willis), the feuding Rabbi and Boss (Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman) and of course, Slevin Kelevra (Josh Hartnett) whose hero we deserve. He is cool in every sense, perhaps one of the best revealed characters.
What do I say in the end? Would I recommend watching this movie with a friend? Of course I will. And I’ll watch it again and again because this movie was one of the best for me.
10 out of 10
A twisted criminal detective who definitely deserves his place in the ranking of the best films. The first few minutes are unclear at all, then the topic of mafia showdowns begins, and it seems that the plot is about to unfold in the best traditions of Tarantino. At the center of all this whistling is a pretty boy, clapping his eyes and saying that he was confused with someone, which caused him to epically get into trouble. And in a couple he is a pretty girl who is actively trying to help.
The plot resembles a roller coaster, so you want to watch carefully and to the end. The film is not emotional, moral torment and complex emotions here do not have time to reveal themselves behind the active change of events and hypertrophied images of mafia characters.
The whole story is bright and voluminous, thanks to the constellation of actors who participated here: Freeman, Willis and Kingsley will look cool, even if they just read the roles of the phone book, and then they got the key characters.
The film is interesting and memorable, leaving no unpleasant residue. It was bright, stylish and unpredictable.
When friends or acquaintances ask me what kind of movie they would watch, regardless of the genre they are interested in, Slevin’s Lucky Number is one of the ones I always recommend. I remember my reaction after the first look. This reaction was Wow!. I have a very strong impression after this film. This picture has many pluses and features, but what impressed me the most was the atmosphere and the ending.
The film begins with a series of events, after which a number of questions arise: What was that? Why all this? What does this have to do with what is happening on the screen? Then the main character appears. With a broken nose and a wound towel, with which he walks probably 1/5 or 1/4 part of the film (in the facts for the film you can read why he was given this image). Perhaps this is how you can describe the hero performed by Josh Hartnett. When I told my father that I had watched a very cool movie called Slevin’s Lucky Number, his reaction was: 'Ah, where is the main character getting punched all the time?' The answer amused me. Back to the story. Next comes a neighbor Lindsey. Slevin tells her how he got here, because the apartment was not his, but his friend. Next, the hero gets into a series of events where he is mistaken for another person, namely the owner of the apartment, who owes two warring mafiosi & #39; round & #39; the amount of money. Therefore, the hero Hartnett, as Lindsey said: 'Vlip' Then the denouement and the finale begin, about which there is no sense, because this is the very highlight of the film. And it is there that the unrelated events that were shown at the beginning are revealed.
What has caught me in this picture? Scenario. A lot has been said about the plot. I don't think there's a scene in the movie that can be cut. So the writers really worked hard. Atmosphere, which I talked about above. The main instrument that gave the film this feature is music. Calm, relaxing, soothing, and even a little funny. I've never felt that way in a movie. Dialogues They really did laugh at times (about the boss and the order, Ravin and the dove, about the cup with sugar, the open door). Listening to the heroes was very interesting. Probably, such an interest in listening to heroes is found only in films Tarantino.
I want to thank the creators of the painting. They really made a great, brilliant and memorable film. You can review many times, but unfortunately, the shocking effect will only come after the first view. I highly recommend it to everyone.
How do you get to the point where you can’t get to? Become the right person!
Canas City Shuffle is probably all there is to say about this movie. This is when everyone looks to the right, and you go to the left, about which the prologue broadcasts a short-spoken killer who calls himself “Good Cat”. Cansas City Shuffle is the key and almost the only storyline in Slevin's Lucky Number, but the line is played out brilliantly.
This film embodies a vivid example of a synergistic effect - when the whole is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. Combining a bunch of platitudes, the film eventually turns out to be unexpectedly non-banal - but beyond the prefix "not-" its charm still does not go.
The world drawn on the screen is largely conditional. The protagonist with a broken nose falls into a series of failures (“One more, one less – what’s the difference?”) – and becomes involved in the disassembly of two paranoid mafia bosses, drilling each other’s eyes from the windows of the upper floors of two opposing high-rises. To tell the plot means to deprive the viewer of a healthy piece of pleasure - how events will develop here, even in the third quarter of the film no one can predict!
However, the plot unpredictability and unlikeness of the film to others is the main advantage of the picture. The pluses also include luxurious New York interiors, furnished with a very original taste, and how deftly the director operates the action - like a ball for ping-pong, sending it an imaginary racket in unexpected directions stylishly and accurately. The soundtrack consists of windy and organic songs in the general atmosphere, as well as the unobtrusive love line of Josh Hartnett and unexpectedly little Lucy Liu (to be honest, Asians do not attract me, but seeing her I realized that I was terribly mistaken).
In the minuses, you can write some plot poverty: “Lucky number Slevin” does not spoil the viewer with either excessive dynamism, serious reflections, or pictures of the experiences of the characters. The plot is a chessboard on which the director moves key pieces, folding a mosaic of situations that promises to turn into a delightful picture by the end. The moral of the story here has to be searched with a lantern: the authors wanted to tell us a story, and nothing more – but they were extremely cool and fascinating. Unfortunately for Slevin's Lucky Number and luckily for everyone else, a great movie almost always has something more to it.
Personally, I don’t, but someone quite possibly does.
What will happen next if this little man survives, the wound will forever remain in his heart, although it may heal to old age.
But there are different, sometimes certain education, fragments of memory and information about past days can turn the picture and forever introduce it into consciousness.
And then, and then there are actions, activities that for a child, will allow you to put everything in its place.
As for the film.
For me, this is a kind of Count of Monte Cristo, where the will of fate is revenge, even after many years, let almost everyone forget about what happened once, but someone remembers, he remembers what happened, and as he is a man innocent, died. Someone died physically, and perhaps the story ended there, someone morally, and someone did not give up, and the thought of justice burning his brain stinged in him and led in a certain direction. And if you add the experience of a sage, a professional who has lived a life to the thoughts of a child, a young man, then the thoughts become reality.
And now, regardless of the current situation of people who have committed “deeds”, justice will punish them, and not just punish, but remind them of those sins for which fate in the face of specific people punishes them.
For some reason, I missed this movie for years. Like many other popular films. Surprisingly, I have never heard any negative comments about him. Everyone I knew was either cool or normal. A lot of people were surprised by the surprises. I saw it myself. Thoughts and emotions are ambiguous.
Pluses:
The atmosphere is probably the main plus. Thanks to the script, director, cameraman, you do not want to break away from the film. He's tightening. Extraneous thoughts disappear. The viewer becomes a participant. He is given the opportunity to understand what is here. The picture is very cozy. It’s like being in another world.
The big-name actors have fully confirmed their volume. They are very pleasant and interesting to watch. I don't even want to single anyone out. I don’t quite understand whether such bright characters in and of themselves or whether the charisma of the actors gave the characters a shine. I'm leaning towards the second.
Minuses:
1. A detailed explanation of all the mysteries. The last 10 minutes of the film, the characters explain to us what is really going on. Explained in direct text, in detail. Not only does the ending read, so it is also thoroughly chewed. I think the audience has their teeth. It is almost always better to give such information with hints rather than revealing all the maps. Such a presentation allows you to interpret in different ways. This, in turn, allows people to hotly discuss the intricacies of the plot.
2. There's a man. He's an elusive, experienced killer. You can kill anyone (except your friends). This man is not ashamed to kill innocent people, with the help of these murders it will be easier for him to realize his plan. He kills, he kills, but suddenly his conscience or humanity awakens. We have a man who is a human being, and a man who is a human being who is a human being. Can you believe that? To make it believable, you need some story about its features or something. And this is how it looks, to put it mildly, fabulous.
All other criteria look standard, qualitative, but not so much as to attribute it to the pluses.
Result
I'm not trying to brag about predicting the ending. When you watch this movie, you see a mystery. A riddle to which you expect an unexpected answer. You go through all the options and wait for them to surprise you. This film is the most anticipated of all the unexpected endings.
But it keeps in suspense, evokes emotions and is pleasant to watch. So much more yes than no.
Paul McGuigan's crime fighter. Starting the story with a horse, the director smoothly transfers to a completely different narrative, and we understand that it will be about revenge, long-awaited revenge, thoughtful revenge.
Musalin and here and there theme of revenge, still somehow attracts the mass audience. Retribution and retribution. Over the course of 110 minutes, we will see a story of interesting revenge, not so much thoughtful, but more luck, like the Lucky Number. The story of “Mad Dog”, which was made mad, taking everything, absolutely everything.
Everything except revenge.
If everything was thought out, then what was the accident and luck of Mad Dog? There’s a Nick Fisher who’s unlucky and we’ll say goodbye at the beginning of the story, and the new Nick’s story is just beginning.
All this will be interestingly staged in the movie “The Lucky Number of Slevin” and we will witness the fascinating game in Chess, learn who is the king and who is the next pawn. In some places it will be cruel, as rated R baby.
Let's move on.
What about the actors? Josh Hartnett, who was not seen in major projects, does not annoy us, on the contrary, we imbue his hero with sympathy, and this is a very important criterion, we see a guy whose blood boils to revenge, but on the other hand he is very restrained and calculating. Bruce Willis, aka “Die Hard”, embodies a cold-blooded killer on the screen, not in the first, but if you compare with “The Jackle” and “The Good Cat”, then “Good Cat” has more advantages, Willis endowed the hero with other, more human features than “The Jackal” and this is a plus.
A little bit about Lucy Lew
Lucy Liu plays a funny pathologist, funny outside of work when she's in communication with Nick Fisher. The relationship that Lucy and Josh play is interesting to watch how they discuss James Bond lying in bed and how the sincere heroine Lucy tries to help the hero of Josh. Chemistry was useful for the film.
Two strongholds
There is a certain “Ravin” and a certain “Boss”, two criminal authorities t-t-t, once friends, now enemies, two characters are closely related and important to our history. The roles were played by Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman, played very professionally, as befits actors of this level.
Rabbi – cold and customs-responsive, this is the first part of his nature, the second, he is a dangerous mafia and you do not know when he will pull the trigger.
Chess and philosophical speeches and no less dangerous mafia boss
Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman, Five Points
The musical accompaniment is good and does not strain the ear, for each scene its own necessary music, going to the beat of the film. Thank you Joshua Ralph.
We have an excellent criminal history, an action movie, with good actors and for this genre, the film can be highly appreciated.
And again with you "Kansas City Shafl"
So, I was presented with the movie “Slevin’s Lucky Number”, despite the fact that it was released in 2005, I managed to see it only now. I was almost disappointed that I hadn’t seen it before. The movie is so bad.
Let’s start with the beginning of the flight:
Plot. The guy gets into the apartment to a friend after a series of failures, and he turned out to have framed the unfortunate Slevin. The main character snatches from some, from others, and from the police too, along the way, a love theme is tied up (where else). And a simple denouement in the style of Tarantino - everyone is killed, the main character remains. Oh, yes, there's also Bruce Willis, and by the end of the film, his role as a hitman is less clear. The plot is based on such a human vice as revenge. That's nothing unusual about it, a thriller, a drama and a bit of an action movie. And from the militant here got a lot of blood, juicy shots and slides on the walls. In general, parallels with Tarantino’s films cannot be drawn, somehow very approximate.
Actors play. The main character Slevin (Josh Hartnett), around whom everything revolves looks nothing like this, although being in such situations, as if James Bond behaves, all so unflappable, unshakeable, confident and humorous. This is due to his strange pathology. Oh, come on. Liked Lucy Lew, looked pretty and her game, but Morgan Freemann and Bruce Willis somehow, played as if their roles from other films: the hero of Willis is like Korban Dallas from the “5 element” or “hard nut”, and Freeman ... yes to each of his characters in fact.
Musical accompaniment is good, melodic, where it is necessary to sound dramatic.
Costumes, scenery, effects - at the level, no more not less.
In general, the movie is so good, for an amateur. Honestly, I expected much more and exciting, because for some reason it is in the TOP 250, even in the top 100, reviews also spoke for watching this movie. But personally, I will not watch my verdict for the second time.
“When we don’t see the villain, he’s especially scary.”
In the center of the story is someone levin (Josh Hartnett), a young guy who, it seems, is not lucky chronically. Within one day, he lost his apartment, was fired from his job, lost a girlfriend who cheated on another, and was attacked by a street robber. And so, coming to an old friend named Nick, who lives next door to the attractive and not stupid Lindy (Lucy Liu), working as an expert in the morgue, Slevin is forced to pay for the sins of a friend who disappeared in an unknown direction. First, a couple of African-Americans deliver him to his boss, nicknamed "Boss" (Morgan Freeman), who urgently needs to return $90,000 or work off his debt by performing the duties of a hired killer. It is necessary to eliminate the son of another powerful mafia, known as "Rabbi" (Ben Kingsley), allegedly involved in the death of the offspring of a competitor.
- They call him "Rabbi."
- Why is that?
Because he's a rabbi.
Previously, they and Boss did business together, but then quarreled, dividing the territory of New York, but at the same time occupying neighboring skyscrapers. The next surprise will be the visit of people already "Rabbi", demanding from Slevin, again mistaken for Nick, the return of another 35 thousand dollars.
First of all, the intrigue is striking, not the most sophisticated, but calibrated to the smallest nuances, not allowing any unnecessary details, thereby meeting the requirement of classical drama, when any gun that falls into the field of audience attention must necessarily shoot - sooner or later.
Cinematography is virtuoso. The most unforeseen angles, the most unobstructed vision, the most interesting visual solutions are nothing more or less, which is rare. The external side does not prevail over the substantive, but balances it.
"Lucky number Slevin" - a criminal detective with a slight bias in black comedy, the plot of which is twisted quite famously. All events in the film have their own clear background, and the audience will be able to make a full picture of what is happening only at the end of the film.
To intricate script vortices added a talented cast. One mafia boss is embodied by a venerable actor Morgan Freeman, another boss is played by no less venerable, no less an actor, and even Sir Ben Kingsley. A lover of private investigation and a fan of Colombo depicts Lucy Liu, and the "servant of two masters" is a dispassionate, unflappable Bruce Willis. The role of the "loser" remained for Josh Hartnett. A star is on a star, and it chases a star.
Of all the acting work, the most pleasant impression was left by two authorities – the Boss and the Rabbi, performed by Morgan Freeman and Sir Ben Kingsley. That's the power, that's the characters! The rabbi there generally gives out absolutely luxurious phrases with an incredibly impressive look.
The authors of "The Lucky Number of Slevin", the screenwriter Jason Smilovich and the director of Paul McGuigan, quite briskly adopted the Tarantinian way of telling a story simultaneously from the beginning, middle and end.
However, “Slevin’s Lucky Number” is not only entertaining to listen to, but also pleasant to watch, even after you gave up and despaired of unravelling a clever combination of storylines: the film was filmed quite skillfully with a clear intention and on a visual level to convey the complexity, multilayered design. For example, one of the key dialogues of the characters leads to a game of chess, where strange glass prisms are placed on a transparent board instead of pieces (which are as easily confused as the characters’ personalities are confused), and the camera tries to catch the expression of the eyes of impenetrable heroes trying to beat each other in every sense.
P.S. “Lucky number Slevin” is a dynamic, dramatic inventive, harsh on the subject and at the same time – rich in irony and self-irony action movie. The picture is worth seeing for everyone who likes to work while viewing the head: the plot is sufficiently confused that you can be lost in guesses until the very end.
9 out of 10
There are movies that play with the audience. We are shown the story of a robbery, revenge or scam in a way that at first you are confused by what is happening on the screen. Breaking the chronology, showing fragments of scenes, the authors try to confuse and intrigue the viewer at the same time, so that in the end everything is laid out on shelves. And the more foldable the final picture is, the more pleasure we get from satisfying our craving for understanding. Such films want to review a second time, notice details that were not noticed at the first viewing.
The lucky number of Slevin is one of them. The film is even emphasized game: a series of murders in the prologue, a grotesque story from Bruce Willis in a wheelchair, stylized interiors, two identical skyscrapers across the street, where the main villains fighting each other live in penthouses. Seeming at first strained, the story gradually acquires graceful harmony in the best canons of the genre. Even Kansas City Shuffle has a rightful place.
7 out of 10
Revenge is a dish served cold.
I still wonder why I, a lover of Chase and Utger, did manage to miss this film. No, I remember him walking on central television, but I don’t understand why he wasn’t watched by me back in the 2000s. You don't know?! I don't know, either.
Jason Smilovich, better known as the writer of the little-known series ("Kidnapped", "Karen Sisko", "My personal enemy"), wrote a really cool script in the genre of drama / crime. It is a pity that from his pen came the script so far only one feature film, the second kind of on the way, the release date is 2016, and it will be a comedy with Miles Teller and Jonah Hill (you will definitely not forget – and check it out!).
English director Paul McGuigan, more and more now shooting series (but among them the notorious “Sherlock”!) last stood at the helm of a full-length film in 2009, and it was quite weak, to my taste, fiction – “Fifth Dimension” with Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans. McGuigan's peak came in the early 2000s - Gangster N 1 (2000), Obsession (2004) and Slevin's Lucky Number (2005) - but he intends to return to the big movie this year with Frankenstein, starring Daniel Radcliffe and James McAvoy. There. So screenwriter Smilovich and director McGuigan met, and the result of the meeting was the best film to date in the work of each of them – “Lucky Number Slevin” / Lucky Number Slevin, which, in fact, we are talking about.
The main character Slevin (Josh Hartnett) is catastrophically unlucky. One failure after another: fired from work, the house to demolish, the girl cheats. And then his friend Nick offers to come to New York and live with him for a while. That's what a hero does. But bad luck is on his heels - his documents are stolen and he arrives at a friend's apartment without them. There, he meets his charming neighbor Lindsey (Lucy Liu) instead of Nick, and then events begin to develop rapidly and completely in the wrong way in which the hero would like. First, he is kidnapped by the Boss (Morgan Freeman)’s men, mistaken for Nick, and an ultimatum is given: pay back a debt of thousands or kill the son of a rival Rabbi (Ben Kingsley), then the Rabbi’s men, again mistaken for Nick, kidnap and demand – again! – a multi-thousand debt. In addition, a local cop (Stanley Tucci) gets nervous, who has his own interest. Plus, there was a hired killer in the city - Mr. Goodcat, who also "sharpens a tooth" on the main character. My head is all around... but as my favorite phrase goes, “Owls aren’t what they seem.” Everything will be turned upside down. It's so dynamic, I bet you'll like it. Of course, if you loved/love to read Chase and Utger, or any of the master detectives mentioned above, then the finale will not come as a shock to you, although some storylines pleasantly and unexpectedly surprised me. You know that with such a powerful cast – just an old school almost in its purest form, with the exception of Lew and Hartnett (but they too – wow!!!) – the film just can’t be uninteresting, a failure or whatever. So watch, watch, watch!
There is a movie that almost everyone has seen, called Sin City. A screen adaptation of three books and one short story from the Frank Miller graphic cycle. We will talk about a short story, the sixth in a series of books. The sixth book, unlike the other six, is not a complete story. The sixth book is a collection of short comics. Among them there are very interesting, and there are not enough interesting. There are links with any of the full-fledged books (for example, “Ordinary Saturday Evening” and “Fat and Small”), and there are several short, related ones (the story of “Blue Eyes” for example in “The Wrong Turn” and “The Wrong Way”). Among them is a very interesting story, which is called “Client is Always Right” (the book is not related to any of the history, but the film is related to the story of Dwight, one of the main characters of the cycle “Sin City”), which became the opening and closing scenes of the film. The main character is a killer in the person of Josh Hartnett. We don’t know his story in the film or in the comics, because that was his only appearance. Knowing nothing about him, he became one of the important characters, thanks to the final scene, which was invented especially for the film, and therefore I wanted to expand his story, but this was not the case. Even when Rodriguez and Miller for the second part created two additional stories that are not in the comic, they did not bother to tell about the same killer, instead writing completely uninteresting and unnecessary stories about the revenge of Nancy Calahan (although her story relatively logically ended in the first part), and the illegitimate son of the Senator (the same unnecessary story, we already know how bad a man the Senator, and the appearance of a son does not give us anything, much less disappears as quickly as it appears). A year later, after the premiere of the first film, the film “Lucky Slevin” by Paul McGuigan was released, with the same Josh Hartnett in the title role.
In the film, the character of Sir Ben Kingsley (Rabbi) mentions Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest, where everyone takes Cary Grant's character for another person, as does Slevin Kelevra, Josh Hartnett's character in the film. That's actually what the movie is about. Slevin Kelevra comes to visit his friend, Nick Fisher, who managed to owe two crime bosses who are opponents. Since Nick Fisher has disappeared somewhere, Slevin finds himself alone in his apartment, and the bosses and bosses themselves take Slevin for Nick Fisher and demand debts from him.
The second joint work of Paul McGuigan and Josh Hartnett, turned out quite in the spirit of Wicker Park (we are better known as Obsession), a remake of the Franco-Spanish-Italian Apartment with Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci. Also quite interesting, confusing plot, will not drag out the unexpected ending. But there are downsides to the second film: unlike Wicker Park, you can’t say, “Yes, it can happen” (although Wicker Park can’t really boast about it either). The second disadvantage is the style of the film (for me personally is also a plus, but more on that later). The film is shot in the style of Tarantino and Guy Ricci (it was also called a British parody of Tarantino), but it looks more like a parody than their successor. But if Tarantino breaks stereotypes, McGuigan didn’t, which is why I called him a parody. But if Ritchie both starts and ends films anecdotally (I’m only talking about Ritchie’s early films), McGuigan tries to be serious, trying to turn anecdotally started story (not counting the prologue) into a heavy drama about loss and revenge, although he does not succeed.
But despite all this, McGuigan's film is quite fascinating, I would even call it good.
With the same Josh Hartnett in the lead role, the film looks like an extended story of the main character from the opening scene of Sin City, like the backstory of the Client Always Right segment, like the story of how he chose his specific profession, because not only the actor is the same, but the characters themselves, and the style of their work are very similar. This is the plus of the fact that the film looks like a parody of Tarantino, because it is in his style that the apogee in the work of Robert Rodriguez is shot, in which Tarantino is a guest (third) director. The first comic book author is Frank Miller.
7 out of 10
Judging by the number of positive reviews for this film and the rhetoric presented in them, it is possible and necessary to speak about Slevin’s Lucky Number only in excellent degrees. Perhaps that would be justified if I watched the movie the year it was released. But after a while, I watched the movie just now. This means that I was prevented from enjoying/surprised/admiring the intrigue by hundreds of movies, many of which also hang out in the genre of crime/thriller.
I can't say I didn't like the tape. Not at all. It has everything that allows the film to take a worthy place in the number of stylish, intriguing paintings that can be cited as an example to friends, listing the most twisted paintings on the plot. But still...
Unhurried, in the style of Tarantino, the beginning of the film, which for a long time did not fit at all with the main line, gradually grows into a funny story about the unfortunate boy Slevin, by the will of Destiny, who was in an unfortunate place at an unsuccessful time. Two opposing mafioso, mistaking our hero for another person, gave him contradictory tasks, unable to cope with which Slevin would have received from each of them deadly tumaks. Gradually, the plot begins to twist, overgrown with details, acquire tragic notes. And then, when most of the viewers fall into tension to the screen, everything became clear to me: about Slevin, and about the good Cat. So it got a little boring. Look at the picture forced 20 minutes of remaining time and curiosity.
By looping the plot and bringing it to the starting point, the director created a good, one might even say dramatic picture of revenge and fatality. There are many dialogues in the film, the style and duration of which both before and after the "Number" were repeatedly seen in the multi-time films of Tarantino, Richie, Cohen. It was a bit boring, although it was taken with interest.
As for acting. Josh Harnett was very pleased. The actor managed to show his character diverse, interesting, deep. Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley were also pleased. Why should I be surprised? When did they play bad? As for Bruce Willis, whom many people admire everywhere. I don’t really like this nut, which usually plays with the same, very tense, facial expression. In this case, I always thought he would hit the ground and turn into Jimmy the Tulip. It was a big distraction. I'm also not sure Lucy Liu is a good choice. Do you find any funny parallels with the story of O-Ren Ishia from the first part of Kill Bill?
In general, “Lucky number Slevin” is a good picture, which, however, its intrigue can shake only very naive movie lovers. Everyone else will quickly understand what is going on, and, therefore, will largely deprive themselves of most of the pleasure that, of course, was potentially laid in the tape.
The story of one noble loser who played hide-and-seek with the mafia
The magnificent story of one loser who happened to be in the wrong place, on the wrong day, at the wrong hour and made friends with the wrong people.
At first, the disparate plot of the film is gradually coming together, and its denouement turns out to be entertaining and dashingly twisted so much that the genius of the characters (I won’t say which ones exactly) can only be envied.
A guy named Slevin Kelevra arrives in New York to visit his friend Nick, who, however, is not home. Slevin decides to live with his friend and soon realizes that he did a big stupid thing. Slevin gets hooked to two mafia bosses, which not only should not be hooked, but even know about them (bosses) is undesirable.
It turns out that Slevin takes for his friend Nick, because he was in Nick’s apartment at the time when the mafiosi came there.
Loser Slevin, in order to stay alive, will be obliged to perform a couple of simple at first glance services for mafia bosses, and in order for him to perform everything properly, he will be assigned a hitman Good Cat, who suddenly appeared in New York after one bloody massacre that happened here a couple of decades ago.
The film, which took place in 2006 and went unnoticed for the big screen (at least in Russia), gathered an amazing cast under its wing and became, in my opinion, one of the best thrillers of that year.
The plot of the film, scattered in the form of a mosaic, gradually forming a single whole, but not giving answers to all the questions that arise, takes place under the motto of the Kansas reception, about which the Good Cat told so in detail at the very beginning of the film. Attention! The truth is very close, you should be a little more attentive and then it will be possible to catch this notorious Kansas reception by the tail.
But only the last minutes will dot all the i, and the unhurried dialogue and bickering of the characters (at least remember the loser Slevin and his suffering dialogues with the bosses), will grow in action and smell the smoke from the explosion and shots.
10 out of 10
One, two, three, four, five Hartnett came out to shoot.
The first after watching the film was the feeling of déjà vu. However, fans of Richie and Tarantino, don't boo me. First impressions are misleading.
Okay. A young and charming shalopai gets to the wrong place at the wrong time. Moreover, they take him for another and demand a lot of money or a small favor. Work as a hit man. And then there's the charming neighbor, who decided to do a private investigation in between. A little Chinese Miss Marple. But not our young hero to let himself die for a hundred and twenty thousand bucks. And, as it turns out, it really is not a finger made.
In principle, movie gourmets at the beginning of the film will not bother to recognize Hitchcock’s motives “North by Northwest” and will be right in their recognition. But don't rush to point your finger. In the film itself, the creators will draw a parallel and it acts for the time being. Familiar with many Hollywood cliches and clichés, an observant viewer himself can instantly build a further course of development of the picture and he can only sit and wait for his expectations to be justified and the main character will turn from a victim of circumstances into a noble avenger. Here lies the main surprise of the plot twist. Instead of a noble avenger, a cute young man with an interesting curlyness slightly below his stomach turns into a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But even about such a buck guessed intelligent viewer. However, purely psychologically, we still want our expectations to be deceived, and when there is no deception, we cry out indignantly: "How come! I knew it! This is an interesting trick that McGuigan pulled.
A devoted follower of Guy Ritchie, McGeegan went beyond his teacher. In this particular case, I mean the Revolver. The style is similar, the psychology is similar, but the differences are clearly not in favor of the Master. Ritchie, in my opinion, in Revolver, has outwitted himself (now you can boo me). McGuigan created the creation straight as the corner of a house. And he does not care that the viewer guesses where the dog is buried, and does not care about the audience’s cry: “They did not cheat!” In this frightening directness and shocking spectator foresight of the development of the plot and there is the main charm. No, of course it's not that straight. There are a couple of zagogulins that can deliver true pleasure.
The scattering of stars gathered under the shadow of Slevin’s Lucky Number was very pleased. Bruce Willis, still going through the movie image from the noble savior of the planet to the cunning killer; Josh Hartnett is one of the sex symbols of a new generation (and by no means talentless); and most of all, two veterans of the Hollywood front – Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman. Their five-minute explanation at the end of the film is impossible to watch without a touch of compassion, despite their portrayal of hardened wolves. Lucy Lew was a little confused. But most likely the puzzle lies in her very presence in this male world full of weapons, blood and wiring. She is an extra element and interfered like a baby in bed. Although, I tend to consider her figure as an allegory of a pawn, which one way or another will be sacrificed.
On the screens at the time, “Lucky number Slevin” was held as a comedy action movie. In my opinion, to label the filmed as a comedy action movie is a hasty decision. But the blame most likely lies with our distributors. Fighter on the face, comedy... I don't think so. Somehow I don’t want to laugh at bullet holes in the skull, spreading brains and bags on the face. In the film, I saw two or three really good jokes, but it seems from the whole cinema only I appreciated them, indecently laughing at the dangerous, on the verge of anti-Semitism, parallel of the names of the son of a gangster and the shot Prime Minister of Israel, and on the verge of homophobia joke about the back door. However, the jokes here could be my idea.
Now for the film's flaws. I have them. I’m not going to talk about rivers of blood and other horrors of modern cinema. A fighter without blood is like a bird without wings. Slightly strains the notorious clip style of Richie. It certainly reflects the dynamism of the action, but by the end of the film you get a little tired of the kaleidoscope of shots. I want to pause, drink a beer and watch a cartoon about a hedgehog in the fog.
By and large. The film is worth watching surrounded by friends, beer and popcorn. Enjoy it. And then pay attention to the familiar fools of the King of Heaven. Believe me, someone with a sloppy mask exactly covers the essence of a bloody killer.
7 out of 10
The film exceeded all expectations. It is one of the few paintings that have been so impressive recently and have become a favorite. Before I watched half the movie, I was sure I would watch it the next day.
Picture, soundtrack, special effects - all at the level and harmoniously. Loved the acting. Bruce Willis organically fit into the role of a kind of killer, leading his game according to his own script and pulling the strings when he wants. The actor's crown grin also came to the place.
Josh Hartnett is above all praise, during the film, along with his character, you experience a whole range of emotions, positive and not so much. I can’t imagine anyone else in his place, he did a great job.
Lucy Liu isn’t particularly impressed, but her character is amusing to say the least and adds flavor to the film. Kingsley and Freeman also coped with their task, but were not particularly impressed, the bombastic importance and conceit of their heroes are rather repulsive and annoying.
There is a parallel between ' Slevin's Lucky Number' and ' Obsession' the same McGuigan - confusion, Josh Hartnett, an unexpected denouement and eventually high-quality and first-class cinema. However, in ' Slevin's Lucky Number' the theme of justice and karma is raised in earnest and, most pleasingly, ' justice begins and wins' 'To each according to his business' and 'Everything is not at all as it seems' - to be brief, the main ideas of the film.
Separately, I want to note humor and instructiveness - subtly and tastefully, after watching, there is a desire to stretch the film for quotes and use it on occasion.
10 out of 10