Lucky (2002)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This film has nothing to do with the 'horror' tag it is being sold on it is more of a sit-com about a screen writer's delusions (in more ways than one). The film's central character provides a cliché ridden narration from start to end - on word count alone it would probably be enough for 4 films however the schoolboy shallows that are being scraped make it wearisome after the first five-ten minutes. Maybe this is intended but it makes any genuinely interesting (visual) details, and there are at least enough to count on one hand, seem forced.I think the only reason this film has been noticed in any way is though some cabal amongst screenwriters determined to see their profession on the silver screen, which judging by this effort must be resisted.The next bit contains SPOILERS.Into our hero's world comes Lucky as soon- to-be undead dog whose magical 'knowledge' helps our hero to hitherto unknown success (which isn't enough for a rags-to-riches story). The dog is as clichéd as the hero (I think velvety, pimp voices as signifying 'knowledge' outdated themselves in the early 70s) but his acting is marginally better. A major turn for the worse is seeing the sexual fantasies of our middle-aging hero in their full suburban banality, and for these segments the narration intensifies to full-on teenage angst. It would have been a far, far better movie if we actually saw the dog killing the women that provided the energy for his scripts rather than hearing the hero sitting at his computer.

This movie is complete garbage. I didn't think it was funny or anything. I could find no redeeming value in this movie at all. Do you think it would be okay for someone to make a movie about a child molester killing kids and raping them? Neither do I, and I also don't think it is okay for them to make a movie where the killer does this to women. When is the world going to wake and realize that this kind of stuff is not okay? This movie supposedly won awards. So did Eminem, the guy who sings about raping his 10 year old sister. Well, I think it is very misogynistic and Hastings should not be carrying this kind of movie. Next time I'll be renting at Blockbuster.

Honestly, I was a little surprised when I came here and found that this movie had won a couple of awards. I pulled it off the shelf because I'd read a couple of good reviews on horror web-sites and I'm always up for something a little different. After watching the film, I can't help but think that the praise and the awards come from the fact that it is a decent effort whose low budget rarely shows in the production. With really good horror films a rarity, especially when you discount the teen-beat cash-cow flicks that hollywood cranks out, a movie like Lucky seems better than it really is because at least it tries to do something different, with "natural" actors, without relying on cliches and market research. Still, Lucky doesn't cross the line of cleverness that really would have made this one special. Throwing in a talking dog that helps you and then wants you to kill is the premise that sold me on this film but as it turns out it doesn't deliver. It's ok, with maybe a little too much graphic abuse to women, and you've seen it all before. But hey, at least they tried and if you ever sat around dreaming of making a low-budget horror movie you wouldn't fault yourself by watching Lucky and taking some notes.And now a little bit of commentary that requires spoilers:*SPOILER* The demonic talking dog actually works in this film. They don't use a cartoony voice for the Lucky (which, in the context of the film would have worked since the narrator is a cartoonist) but instead use a velvety, street-savvy voice and this really helps add a sinister edge to the creature. What doesn't work is the fact that the film boils down the hallucinations of a serial-killer which you expect from the first ten-minutes. The evil dog could have been a toaster by the end of this film for all it mattered and that really is too bad. It's not often you get such a silly image of evil in the guise of a cute little dog and when you got it working you have to run with it. A lot of potential lost here.

I saw this film at the New York City Horror Film Festival, and have to say it was one of the scariest but funniest movies I've ever seen. I was laughing out loud when at the very same time I was scared half to death by Millard Mudd, the lead character. This movie is brainey, sick, and yet very entertaining. I couldn't believe how I was laughing even at the most horrifying things. Very well done! It truly deserved to win Best Film at the festival. I really reccommend it if you like creepy black comedies.