Lucky Number Slevin

Lucky Number Slevin has a lot going for it. It stars a half dozen “A-list” actors who seem to enjoy themselves. A hip, young screenwriter wrote the script. Numerous producers offered funding. Scottish director Paul McGuigan (Gangster No. 1, Wicker Park) captured the story on film. What more could a group of filmmakers ask for?

How about Bob and Harvey Weinstein, whose pockets are lined with Goldman Sachs capital and who recently aligned The Weinstein Company with MGM Studios? When producing a project fueled by more creativity than cash, these two moguls – known for their acquisition acumen – are exactly whom filmmakers dream of meeting.

In addition, the cast is an ensemble that would impress the most jaded moviegoer. Josh Hartnett, Bruce Willis and Lucy Liu play opposite Morgan Freeman and Sir Ben Kingsley. Stanley Tucci keeps tabs on them all in his role as a detective.

Lucky Number Slevin is a hybrid thriller that takes style cues from 1990s-era thrillers such as Reservoir Dogs, The Grifters, The Usual Suspects and Bound. The thriller is a genre that has prevailed for decades, and Lucky Number Slevin includes some of the genre’s best elements.

Slevin (Josh Hartnett) is the unluckiest guy on the planet. His friend Nick is missing and a case of mistaken identity thrusts him into a world ruled by two warring crime bosses. Bruce Willis launches the film by retelling an involved story that includes a flashback. Slevin himself doesn’t enter until much later.

Harnett plays Slevin as the likeable know-it-all. The film’s rapid-fire dialogue keeps viewers on guard. Lucy Liu plays Nick’s neighbor, Lindsey, with a gangly version of panache. As they try to determine what has become of Nick, Lindsey and Slevin trade clever dialogue. It’s the sort of shorthand speed-talking that one can only get away with when talking to a close friend.

Lindsey is definitely interested in getting close to Slevin, especially when he is beat up and hauled around by thugs who think he is someone else — someone who owes a lot of people a lot of money. Slevin sports a broken nose from the start and is walloped with great frequency throughout the first half of the film.

To further underscore the fragility of Slevin’s situation, Hartnett spends the first part of the film wearing only a low-slung bath towel and a smirk. The idea of a half-naked Hartnett was allegedly a creative decision, but the actor’s fans and the movie’s marketing staff will be thankful for the wardrobe that was sacrificed in the name of art.

The money saved on Hartnett’s wardrobe was apparently invested in wallpaper. The insular sets kept characters contained and intimate. Visual interest came from a number of bold patterned walls. Exterior scenes are nearly non-existent. Lucky Number Slevin could easily be adapted as a stage play. This is not only because of the wallpaper, but because McGuigan shoots scenes in their entirety rather than cobbling bits and pieces of performances together. Director of Photography Peter Sova lights McGuigan’s sets 360 degrees so that actors and cameras can move around.

Style alone carries the film a long way. It has a bit of a 1970’s vibe, in that it features violence, nudity and cursing without apology. These elements belong in a picture like this and the filmmakers did not excise them or play it safe.

This film requires viewers to be patient. A slow start shifts into fast gear, bogs down and then moves forward again. The ending is not as brilliant as the “Kaiser Sose” ending in The Usual Suspects, but neither is it as ridiculous as the tidy endings in Angela Lansbury’s Murder She Wrote. The cast’s excellent performances don’t save Lucky Number Slevin from falling short.

Lucky Number Slevin has everything a film needs to succeed. But, it doesn’t reach its full potential. Luckily, there are enough interesting elements to hold an audience’s attention. Familiar filmmaking styles are blended with palavering dialogue that somehow still manages to satisfy. Style wrestles with substance in Lucky Number Slevin. They both bring important elements to the story, but it’s a draw. There is enough style and enough substance, but neither one wins.

Both novice and serious moviegoers will find fault with Lucky Number Slevin. Everybody in the middle will enjoy the film’s stylish and quirky personality. If you don’t think “clever” is a bad word, this may be the film for you.