"Lucky Number Slevin" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

Watched this movie of the top 250, according to the description, he seemed a stranger. But when you view first appeared deja vu, and then the confidence that had seen him before. I understood literally for some frames, but not on the story, because he does not remember. (Which is good, though the intrigue kept).
plot is built on "noble" places, cherished for years to come, and finally realized. Such things retribution for sins. When such a theme inherent in the story, it is assumed that the viewer's soul must be some moral satisfaction from retaliation, from the committed equity. This film, unfortunately, it is deprived. I am sympathetic to the mental attitude of Western man to act in line with the ancient commandment "eye for an eye" (although I prefer the New Testament to "love"). I understand that for the ancient wild consciousness is in the order of things - vengeance. Therefore, it is ordinary so-juicy beat Hollywood and other film studio.
But again, unfortunately, did not work out with a vengeance and a sense of justice in this film. Because the audience was thrilled by the whirlpool "masking" of events, anticipating an act of retaliation. The script is too much focus on the "jack-of-the-box", which was supposed to jump in at some point, bluff "original" ideas from the actors. As a result, under the influence of this, by a deft combination of fraud does not feel important - justice
But worst of all, that in trying to soberly reflect on the validity of this, involuntarily roll into the analysis of that same combination, for which a real and filmed this movie. . Justice left background, the practical justification of what happened on the screen, the logical compensation. But no more. So with the moral content of the film is rather weak. Alas.
Home intrigue of the plot revolves around a plan that could turn the main character. Imparted to her the most attention, so all efforts were concentrated on this facade: thoughtfully and artistic dialogue and instruction, operetta-lohovatye bandits, klutz, police, art faces and postures, and pathos, pathos, pathos ... Played even fantastically idiotic design with neighboring rival across the street bandit camp. Kindergarten!
As part of the conversation, of course, shone Morgan Freeman, who plays in his unusual charisma of the boss of the powerful role of a gangster clan. It was boring and absurd, as always.
As part of the mentality should be noted bulldozer-inevitable flirtation neighbor Asians-that literally hung on his neck and YY in the end, "divorced" his relations. According to the cinematic canon looked quite romantic.
Unfortunately, due to its bulky, ornate design of the plot leaves a lot unexplained simple questions. For example, what was the motive of the character of Bruce Willis? Let's be realistic and immediately Throw towards "paternal feelings." And considering that the execution of the heroes of the picture plan became possible only after many years, in the darkness of absolute uncertainty remained all issues related to how the years have passed, and what these characters are doing. Willis repeatedly emphasized that he was a professional killer, but then who was his partner? Do law-abiding pizza boy .. The movie categorically dismiss any version of law-abiding, the professionals do not care about justice, their interest - just business, nothing personal. But then the hypothetical moral core, which must keep justification of revenge, is strongly bent or absurd. There is only one conclusion: closer to the cherished dream, a lot of blood was shed. Perhaps, and innocent - just business
We still say about the situation around the events with his father, a loser at the beginning of the movie!. After all, "a tear of the child" - the measure of all pacing in works of art, for the sake of it can ruin the whole world ... Does anyone thought that the root cause of this "tears" were not violent criminals, and the boy's father? It was he, personally made a fateful bet on a horse race, and he realized what risk. I risked - and was expected. Bandits just did their job (well, work is this: wolves - forest orderlies), and is to blame for what happened in the first place - the father
Let's go further.. At the beginning of the film killed a family because of the debt, and it becomes the basis for further developments of logic with the "restoration of justice". Then what is justice, when, as a means to achieve the goal of the heroes killed in the same way the debtor (debtor of another!), And not even for the sake of duty, and for the sake of assigning his name !? It's disgusting cynicism and unjustified cruelty. The heroes of the film - antiheroes. They even worse criminals than those against whom they act. So this whole stupid pathos with mzdovozdayaniem and a happy ending is strongly obgazhennym and ugly.
plot with cunning, but still not fun. I viewed - missed. Perhaps tedious statement. So the film and does not remember the first time, he's just stupid!
output. About the colorful, intrigue and setting the picture is quite decent. Within the meaning of - trash. I object to the location of the film in the top, and even at that height. But - democracy can not be helped
5 out of 10!

How to cite this essay: