Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with our first review of LUCKY YOU, Curtis Hanson's (LA CONFIDENTIAL) new movie starring Eric Bana, my little yummy Drew Barrymore and Robert Duvall. It's a poker movie with one of my big crushes (... and Bana and Barrymore, too ZING!) in it, so I'm there opening day no matter what. However the below review from the unfinished test screening is pretty negative and when he goes into a line that Barrymore says in the film... well, I did one of those sharp intakes of breath through the teeth things and went, "No... Really?" I hope Hanson has a great movie on his hands and I know he has some time to iron out the kinks, but at the time of this screening it seems he might have a little struggle ahead of him.
There are unfortunate films that, during viewing, fail to trap you fully. Instead of losing two hours within the story as it is played out in the film, the comfortability of the chair becomes a problem, the need to expel precious bodily fluids becomes urgent and above all, you become aware of the distance between you and the screen. I can count a number of instances where I literally forgot that I was in a theater, that I was thirty feet from a screen watch a film. Forgot about the talkers behind me, the back ache from the seat and noisy kid sitting in front with their "responsible" parent. Even a handful of films that retread familiar formulas were capable of this, making use of the familiarity to surprise the audience and/or expand what that formula's restrictions are. "LUCKY YOU," the newest film from Curtis Hanson, does not fare so well at this job or even seem aware that it needs to do these things at all.
Now, in absolute fairness and kindness to the director (who was there for the screening), this was a work print of the film and hardly a final cut. There were color timing problems, a couple synch errors and what I think (or hope) is a temp soundtrack. Given those signs, I think it's safe to assume that the film still has a bit of shaping to undergo before it is finished. I have faith that Hanson will identify some of the problem areas, and hope he'll pull a good film from the rough-cut.
The story goes as such: a man (Bana), rough around the edges (leather jacket, motorcycle and all), but a genuinely nice person with a heart of gold and a certain scruffy charm has to "beat the odds and his own demons in order to win a world championship." The world championship being the World Series of Poker and the demons taking the form of Robert Duvall (his father) and Drew Barrymore (....). This, clearly, is not a new set up, but that's fine. Archetypes (or formulas as I suppose they're referred to in film) exist for a reason and in the hands of a skilled writer or director, they serve their purpose wonderfully. Hanson seems to have trouble with them in this film, however. He literally covers zero new ground in this film, from the romance, to the familial conflict, to the final showdown at the WSOP - each hit such familiar beats, but unnecessarily so, that the film simply bogs under its own weight after an hour.
Rather than easily and gracefully sidestep the cliche-addled scenes and dialogue, the film belligerently plows through them. The movie's three-act structure is laid bare for the audience to see, particularly with the romance story between him and Barrymore. Every note that must be struck is hammered by the two leads that never look like they truly believe their characters and play them flat. In a scene later in the film, as Barrymore's "Billie Offer" is walking away from Bana's character after a fight, he asks her what she thinks she is doing. Her reply? "Making a good fold." Not only do they hit the "crisis stage" of the relationship where the future is thrown out of balance merely for that plot's sake, but they jam a poker phrase into the film in the most unconvincing way possible.
Rather than hammer away on the use of cliche, I will let it stand that there are more scenes where THE AMAZING WORLD OF POKER is used as flimsy stand-in metaphors for the situations the characters find themselves in. This leads me to another problem contained within the film - I don't think the filmmakers have a legitimate interest in the game. I'm sure they have an understanding since the film presumably has a pro or two as a consultant working behind the scenes. However, the way in which the card games are shot is awkward when compared to something as basic as cable coverage of the WSOP itself and seems to indicate a completely passive disinterest on the part of the filmmakers. Hanson (or his DP) seems unsure of what his camera should be doing at the table, and equally unsure what he wants Bana to do. There have been televised matches that have had amazing tension or speed to them that were exhilarating to watch (head to head match between D'Agostino and Ivey for instance), but the ones in LUCKY YOU are static and play painfully slow and elementary. There are also an obvious series of recycled camera moves that were obvious to the three people that came with me. Literally the same pan, the same reaction from the character (despite being a different one than the actor of the previous scene) and the same response from Bana. It is unfortunate because if you have played at a casino or in a tournament, there are moments when you think you're about to die. The blood pounds in your head so hard that it feels as though it'll explode. These matches, though? Nothing. At least in ROUNDERS, despite its own fratguy simplictiy, seemed excited by the game. The performances and cinematography reflected this.
There is a matter of pacing as well, but this problem is easily rectified. The reason for bringing it up is giving credit to the most interesting character, the most legitimately intriguing person in the whole film who will most likely end up on some backup DAT tape awaiting a special edition DVD release. There are a number of other characters that are so completely peripheral that they exist solely to chew up runtime, but Robert Downey Jr.'s character arrived unexpectedly. When his scene played out, Bana's character finally had its foil, not only that but the movie finally had a character worth spending time with. Sitting alone at a bar as Bana walks up to talk to him, he juggles six or seven cell phones all tied to 900 numbers, giving relationship advice, betting advice, etc, etc, etc. Sort of a more cheery Roy Cohn-type. The interaction between Downey and Bana is superb, but the problem is, the scene sits there in the middle of the film with absolutely zero purpose. There's a foolish reminder of Downey's character later on (a cheap attempt to maximize the "world is falling down on our hero" end portion of the second act), but ultimately, the scene left me wondering why it'd been there at all. Naturally, it's one of the few scenes that plays out at a perfect rhythm with natural humor and character development.
The portion of the film that is consistently interesting and compelling is watching Duvall work, although I cannot say the same for Bana who is operating at sub-Troy energy in the film. Now, there is a certain aspect to his acting that is simply Duvall being himself, which is fine by me. He has transitioned into older roles effortlessly and here, playing a surprisingly complex character in a sea of one-dimensional romance/sports film cliches is such a wonderful thing that he literally saves the film. There is enough nuance and sadness to his character that he elevates his paternal antagonist role up the cliche that the other characters seem to be stuck in. I don't buy Bana's struggles at any point in the film, from his inability to create a functional relationship with Billy nor his difficulty in landing the cash for a seat at the championship. Duvall, despite following a familiar arc, at least makes his character earn that right to a happy ending of sorts. His performance is risky given the context as he becomes increasingly fragile.
The genuine frustration comes from the fact that from ten minutes into the film, we know where it is headed and what the conclusion to each story will be and therefore it becomes a waiting game. The fault on Hanson's part is, if he is to take us through familiar territory, he ought to at least draw our attention to the unseen, underexposed portions of it. As I stated earlier, I'm fine with retreading familiar territory, but not if I have to see the same landmarks along the way every time. The fact that the most interesting portions of the film are treated as incidental asides makes the rest of the film that much more sluggish. With some heavy editing, particularly at the poker tables and with a few of the token "Vegas Types," the film will at least have the runtime it deserves. The cut we saw was far too long and the film suffered greatly as a result. Afterward a number of people were speaking of the romance story being problematic, so if nothing else, that will hopefully see some necessary trimming.
Not a total loss, really, but knowing what Hanson is capable of, it was a bit of a letdown.
Kurt Hectic
