Hey folks, Harry here... and ya know... it sounds like with the exception of the last ten minutes... LUCKY NUMBERS is a really solid comedy... but over and over again I hear that the last ten minutes diffuses the whole thing. I doubt they have time to make a change.... if Nora feels it warrants it... but neverthless... it sounds like a good film otherwise... Here ya goes..
I’ve got good news, and I’ve got bad news. The good news is that “Lucky Numbers” is a much better film than it should have been. With Nora “Hanging Up” Ephron directing John “Battlefield Earth” Travolta, and a script that often reduces its actors to cartoon characters, this movie could have been a real disaster. But somehow, the movie keeps on getting funnier and stranger, and the double-crosses keep coming fast and furious until you find yourself sitting in the theater with a huge smile across your face. Then it’s all topped off with one of the lamest endings I’ve seen in awhile – and that’s the bad news.
Russ Richards (John Travolta – doing his usual Travolta thing) is a big fish in the small pond that is Harrisburg. Channel 6’s goofy weatherman, Russ has it all – fame, personality, a snowmobile dealership, and a reserved table at Denny’s. During the particularly warm winter of 1988, however, Russ finds himself in deep trouble financially. When his sketchy stripclub owner friend Gig (Tim Roth – the best he’s been in a long time) suggests that he rig the state lottery held at his television station, Russ has no choice but to go along. Soon, he creates a plan with Gig and lottery-ball picker Crystal (Lisa Kudrow, again proving she’s the only Friend with talent) to weigh down certain balls in the air machine, thereby assuring that their numbers will be picked. Sounds like a foolproof plan, huh?
It’s not giving anything away to say that the three pull it off, and soon possess a winning lottery ticket. At this point, the movie seemed mildly enjoyable to me, but mostly average. It’s the events that take place after the lottery theft, that middle 75 minutes or so, that really make this movie worth the price of admission. One after another, great character actors pop up and mine for gold. Michael Rappaport, as Dale “The Thug”, steals every scene he’s in. Ditto for Ed O’Neill, who plays slimey station manager Dick Simmons, who might just be the most intelligent character in the film. Michael Moore (yes, that Michael Moore-who knew he could act?), Daryl Mitchell and Michael Weston also do great jobs in smaller supporting roles. But the biggest surprise of the film might just be Bill Pullman, believe it or not, as Police Officer Lakewood, quite possibly the laziest cop this side of Chief Wiggum. I’ve never been a big fan of Pullman, but here he goes a long way toward erasing some of those horrible “ID4” and “While You Were Sleeping” flashbacks that haunt me on a daily basis.
“Lucky Numbers” reminds me a great deal of Gus Van Sant’s “To Die For” – both are dark comedies, based on true stories, portraying local television personalities and the weird characters who threaten to ruin their “perfect crime”. However, where that movie was good but halted just short of greatness by its darkness, “Lucky Numbers” is similarly hindered, but with the reverse being true. The best dark comedies – “Dr. Strangelove”, “Pulp Fiction”, “Harold and Maude”, “Funny Bones” – manage the difficult task of walking the fine line between the comedic and the dramatic. The worst – “8 Heads In a Duffle Bag”, “She-Devil”, “A Life Less Ordinary” – fall too hard in one direction, leaving the other half of the equation to stick out and fall on its face. “Lucky Numbers” is like “To Die For” in that it comes close to walking the fine line that a dark comedy must, but falls too far to one side. Because it’s so silly at times, the dramatic moments of the film are diminished, and as those fade, so does the plausibility of the film.
Up until now, I’ve discussed every part of this film except for the horrifyingly lame final ten minutes.
SPOILERS BEGIN HERE SPOILERS BEGIN HERE SPOILERS BEGIN HERE
Granted, I saw an advance audience preview of this film, and it’s possible (although unlikely this close to the release date) that the ending will be changed from the one I viewed. Keeping that in mind, this is a film that centers around people screwing each other over, forming alliances and breaking them off, and doing anything they can to get the upper hand. So why, after two hours of listening to characters debate who gets what percentage of the money, and who would go to the police with their knowledge of the theft, would anyone feel satisfied with a vague ending that allows the lottery ticket to be cashed and Russ happily living out his dream while Crystal, Gig and Dick all end up spending the rest of their lives miserably? Why wouldn’t any of the three take the story to the police, as they often threatened? Why would Dick, especially, allow himself to end up the way he does, rather than take Russ and Crystal down with him? Perhaps Russ split the money with them – but if he did, we’re never told that he does, or what amounts everyone got. And could I just make a decree right here and now - “NO MOVIE CAN EVER END WITH THAT LAME ‘ANIMAL HOUSE’ ENDING WHERE YOU SHOW PICTURES OF THE CHARACTERS AND GIVE US GOOFY EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THEY WENT ON TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES!!” It’s just lazy filmmaking, pure and simple. And speaking of lazy filmmaking, although Bill Pullman’s character might be dim, is he really stupid enough to not notice when Russ asks, “That guy that you shot, was his name Dale?” Unfortunately, these final ten minutes of sloppiness knock a star off what should have been a three and a half star film. My advice? Go see a matinee, be prepared to laugh your ass off, and hope for a better ending than what I saw.
If you need me, I'll be off whittling.
Dutch Engstrom
