Average

Rating: Null/10 (14 August 2006)

I have no doubt that the filmmakers had great expectations about their creation. They may have thought they were delivering a new "Pulp Fiction". And I'm not making just a random reference here, since "Lucky Number Slevin" is a classic example of the disaster Tarantino's success has brought in cinema. Every year, dozens young filmmakers come out with a straight recipe of copying the Tarantino's filmic universe (that is, if we accept the existence of such a universe after a very short  so far- career of the man). However, in this particular film we shouldn't blame only the director, Paul McGuigan, who had after all warned us for his limited potentialities since his previous film "Wicker Park", where one could easily see the absence of a personal style and his tendency in stumbling in front of weak choices from the scriptwriter. Once again, a great deal of responsibility for this hollow film should be "recognized" to Jason Smilovic, who wrote the screenplay. When Tarantino made the choice of using everyday dialogue and scenes that until the dawn of the 90's the rest filmmakers would leave out without any second thoughts, he made it with a certainty. The certainty that was given to him, first of all from his wide ranged knowledge on cinema, and also from his contact with literature  more particularly with contemporary American novels from which he has borrowed his famous narrative techniques and devices. And this fertile dialogue of mediums, combined with Tarantino's intelligence, created a very distinctive signature, both on the grounds of subject and style. And "Lucky Number Slevin" lacks all these.
Someone could argue that McGuigan also starts a dialogue with cinema - Tarantino's cinema. But it's more than obvious that he hasn't got neither the talent nor the knowledge needed, so he just copies. The characters speak in between their troubles about their favorite films or about super heroes (sounds familiar?). And when we are presented with original lines, they aren't much superior than this: "I'm a world class hit-man", Bruce Willis says in one of the worst moments of his career. And that's too bad, because of the excellent cast including Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley, who little can do to save this mess. As leading actor, Josh Hartnett who also starred in "Wicker Park" and who Hollywood systematically promotes with no obvious reason, not even after this film (waiting for "Black Dahlia" from master Brian DePalma). So, "Lucky Number Slevin" is indeed a well made film, but one made by craftsmen. But cinema is art, not craft, and more than a hundred years after its birth, it shouldn't feel the need to prove it.