Lucky Number Slevin

When the third meaningless murderous scene appeared within the first quarter hour, I started to feel slightly uneasy, and when everything in its ironic spirit led to the same culminating point, I was already almost irritated. But then came what I expected couldn't possibly come. I forgot that Slevin was directed by Paul McGuigan (he definitely wouldn't be pleased to see how many people accuse him of plagiarizing Tarantino), who once played with a confused tangle when he presented me with the excellent film Pushing Tin. And he pulled off something similar here as well when he comes up with a complicated, but brilliantly made gradation that is longer than usual and gives very clear and sufficiently effective answers to all questions. At this moment, I think that the ironic detachment in the first part was actually not so unnecessary because it was balanced by a superb atmosphere and soundtrack right on the border between sarcasm and gangster themes. In the end, just under 80%, absolutely flawless Willis and above-average rest of the cast, along with excellent camera work and McGuigan, whose next work is worth waiting for. (28.11.2006)

This film was a very pleasant surprise. I hardly had any expectations, I don’t like gangster films and and I’m not a fan of Josh Harnett, and even the title wasn’t very appealing. But I ended up having fun from the very first minute. Lucky Number Slevin begins as a very funny crime comedy with a fleeting plot, where everyone behaves very weird, which I thought was fine since comedies can push the boundaries between logic and stupid behaviour as they see fit. I was very surprised when things got serious in the last half hour, the story becomes rational and the behaviour of the protagonists is explained. Unfortunately, the explanation is quite messy at times, I would have been more satisfied if they’d stuck to the comedy all the way till the end. Regardless, the positive feelings prevail. (05.08.2011)

Lucky Number Slevin is black-humor gangster flick that wants to be a Tarantino and/or Ritchie film, but it just does NOT have what it takes because of the immature screenwriter. I’m just surprised that director Paul McGuigan thought it did. After the brilliant Wicker Park, I expected more from him. (14.11.2006)

Every movie fan since Kill Bill knows that revenge tastes best served cold. Unfortunately, I got my mouth properly scalded by McGuigan. Initially, the story is promisingly paced, narratively enjoyable and witty, with no fucking around with machine guns, and with likeable characters. But about half an hour before the end it changes its face completely, the narrative lightness is gone and the overwrought resolution with tiresome explanatory flashbacks and a numerous body count comes into play, lacking insight and thus putting McGuigan's film among this year's unoriginal, long-worn by me uselessness of the type of Running Scared. I'm just bored of all these ultra-hyper-cool Tarantino clones! Ben Kingsley can only remember his Gandhi and Itzhak Stern with a tear in his eye, his acting is awful (especially noticeable in the dialogue scene between him and Freeman), some of the holes in logic of the plot are truly remarkable, and Josh Hartnett proves that he is just a mediocre actor and simply not up to serious roles. (30.09.2006)

The first half, full of wanna-be cool dialogue where the characters are supposed to verbally make fun of each other, is pure misery. Then the action gets going and McGuigan finally puts some edge on the overwrought story. The explanatory flashbacks are fun, but there’s no believability. Hartnett actually acts (!), Willis is stony as usual, and the rest of them sort of shuffle around, content that they have famous names, count their film awards by the metric ton, and try to look terribly above it all. Awkwardness is the impression that best describes it, and I'll probably never give it a second chance. I give it a weaker three stars. (22.10.2010)