How come so many Hollywood movies start out great and then fizz out in the final act ruining everything? I already complained about this odd phenomena when I reviewed I am Legend. No I stumbled onto another example of the same problem.
Lucky Number Slevin starts out great with a surreal, Kafkaesque setup. The titular character Slevin (Hartnet) arrives into New York and stays at a friends house. The friend is mysteriously missing but as if to compensate for his absence various people start barging into the apartment first thing in the morning. First it’s the oddly forward, nosy, yet cute girl next door (Lucy Liu) who comes to borrow some sugar and ends up launching her private investigation to discover whereabouts of Slevin’s friend. Next it’s a pair of gangsters trying to collect on a debt for the local mobster referred to only as “The Boss”. Then it’s a pair of Jewish mobsters working for another crime mastermind called “The Rabbi”. Why? Because he is one.
He also gets harassed by the police who wants to know why the two major crime syndicates in the town take so much interest in him. And there seems to be a contract killer lurking in the shadows who seems to be pulling the strings steering Slevin into these predicaments.
Slevin gets pulled across the town wearing only a towel around his waist. He is given and contradicting orders by the rivaling crime lords who both live in penthouses of twin skyscrapers across the street from each other. He gets hit, abused and exploited for absolutely no reason by people in power. But he takes it all in stride with good humor and overwhelming wide eyed innocence. The dialog is snappy and amusing if a little kitschy. But in this bizarre surreal setting it just works. The use of color filters, and attention to stenography only helps in building up this feeling of unreal, dream like world that must be navigated by the innocent Slevin. Just like Karl from Kafka’s America he gets pulled and pushed in many directions by powerful men with little control or inertia of his own – and his pleads of innocence fall on deaf ears.
Then the movie does a 180 degree turn rudely jerking you out of the dreamlike trance with a rather disappointing (considering the buildup) face to face confrontation between The Boss and the Rabi and a long and boring exposition that explains everything. Yes, there is a major twist at one point but have no fear. Everything is literally spelled out to you as one of the cops manages to piece together the whole picture and relays everything to his partner over the phone. As he does that we are treated to a rapid kaleidoscope of flashbacks, and scene changes.
The ending was probably supposed to be clever and trippy but it’s not. Its almost vulgar in it’s simplicity. It is the lowest common denominator of clever endings. It works, but it basically ruins the whole buildup and completely destroys the phenomenal surreal, dream like quality so meticulously layered up in the first 3 acts.
This movie could be so much more. In fact for a while there it almost seemed as if it would be kitschy, silly yet profound, thought provoking titles. Bit it is not – it is as shallow as your average Hollywood super production courtesy of the quick, easy and accessible ending that is forcefully spoon feed to the viewer completely stripping all ambiguity and doubt from the events in the movie. As you watch it you might be think that certain scenes have have deeper symbolic or metaphorical meanings but in the end you are basically told everything you read and see was supposed to be taken literally.
And the one character which really gets shafted here is Lucy Liu’s neighbor girl. I was entirely convinced she was either working for one of the mobsters, in cahoots with Mr. Goodcat or a mysterious 3rd party seeking to exert control over Slevin for her own mysterious purposes. She was just to useful – a regular treasure chest of information, and convenient skill repository. But in the end it turns out she was precisely that – Ms. Plot Device.
To bad. It is yet another of these movies which actually seem so much better if you just stop watching at some point and skip the last 15-20 minutes. This one had everything – a star studded cast, a very strong beginning and very good direction and scenography. It had so much potential, and it wasted it so foolishly. How come they always do that?
[tags]lucky number slevin, slevin, josh hartnett, lucy liu, movies, review[/tags]
Well, I don’t want to sound arrogant or stupidly anti-American, which would miss the point. But I think American main-stream culture (i.e. Hollywood) is representing and reflecting the nation itself: great mastery of technique and of the means of producing it, but too often lack of subtlety. There is a very American attraction for efficiency, straightness and being to the point, I believe, that somehow, sometimes, ignores nuances and shades… It is too bad, because otherwise, America would probably be an ideal cultural paradise. ;-)
Yes and no. I can’t deny that this is something that plagues Holywood. Smart, thought provoking movies are a dime a dozen these days, and most of the really profound stuff comes from indy studios working with incredibly tight budgets.
But is this truly a unique American quality? I saw bunch of foreign movies (Polish films, some Russian stuff and also Japanese Anime) that fell squarely into the same category: nice execution, good acting, but the potential is wasted with a script so shallow it is bound to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that big studios treat movies as consumer products rather than works of art. Thus they try to create simple, easily consumable pulp with lot’s of explosions and fight scenes, or angsty chick flix that will be gobbled up by the masses.
Making an artsy or experimental movie is a huge financial risk. Making a sequel to a successful production or an adaptation of a established and popular book/comic/video game is sure money.
If tons of money is involved and there are investors to be appeased, you can be sure that the script quality will be sub par. There are exceptions, but they are rare. :(
OK, you are right, it is something you will find in many cultures. Maybe it has to do with comercialisation of art.
There has been a discussion on this around the WTO last rounds of negotiations. Some European and some representants of emerging markets were making the case that work of art can’t be confused with other merchandise or services. Otherwise, the risk would be to see the actual production of subtle and sophisticated movies (or other art pieces) totally crushed by corporations. Not only Hollywood ones, but also the big Indian studios, the massive editors, etc.
uhh get over yourself. it’s an awesome movie, and it gets better and better every time i watch it. it’s full of games of words, the photography is great. i bet you’re that ‘david-lynch-is-god’ type of a movie critic. not everybody needs to get his brain drained to enjoy a good movie.