MovieChat Forums > Lucky Number Slevin (2006) Discussion > What I didn´t like

What I didn´t like

posted 14 years ago by cory-latimer
42 replies | jump to latest

*I posted this in a thread and then decided to create a new thread*

I liked the first half of the movie, before everyone started getting murdered.

One thing in specific that I didn´t like was how Lindsey met Slevin at the airport after she knew he was an assassin. It was out of her character and very unrealistic. In real life, a self-respecting female professional like that would never abbandon her life and take off with a killer, and anyone who argues this point never has met one.

Though what I really didn´t like, one point I haven´t seen anyone else make (it actually disturbs me slightly the quantity of people who say they really liked the movie and that it had a brilliant plot) is the following:

This type of film promotes murder if there exists a ´just cause´ for the murder such as revenging the murder of loved ones. This brings to mind the quote ´an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind´. It´s films like this which are one part in creating a pro-violence popular culture which perverses the minds of impressionable people (especially, but not limited to, children).

We have US and NATO soldiers murdering innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan among other countries. I believe that the pro-violence popular culture is one of many culprits of this terrible loss of human life, not to mention the agony that follows. Senseless violence in movies, at some level, condones senseless violence in real life.

The heroes of the film are portrayed as bad-ass icons who plan a masterminded revenge. Some young males will look up to this and imagine themselves doing the same. What was really revealed at the end? A mindless and exaggerated murder spree in a massive act of revenge. Great message to our children, all so they could create a ´hip and witty´ action/suspense film and hope to bring in a profit. I ask myself how much time and money they wasted on this instead of creating a piece of real cinema.

[–] jrokshady 14 years ago

I disagree with you entirely on the idea that there is no just cause for murder. If someone killed a member of my family and got away with it, I would kill them with no regret and not feel guilty. This film does not promote murder, but depicts the guilty being punished.

"We have US and NATO soldiers murdering innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan among other countries."

The accurate version of that sentence would be:

"The US and NATO continue to protect the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from the portion of those countries' populations that would give them less freedom and liberty than a Communist government would."

Thank you for confirming that you are a coward. Have fun sitting home complaining about the war while our nation's soldiers protect your right to even formulate an opinion at all.

[–] cory-latimer 14 years ago

You, sir, are brain-washed (I was going to throw in a fool too, but let´s not demean ourselves with petty insults). Whether or not there exists just cause for murder is debatable (but not that it´s wrong), but that US occupation of Afghanistan has anything remotely to do with freedom is not, amongst well-informed people.

Just read/watch interviews with AFGHANS, and you will hear them call for an end to US occupation. While most of them hate the taliban and warlords alike, they also hate the US because of its murders/killings of civilians.

To share a couple of links (and don´t say this is liberal propaganda, General Petraeus himself confirmed this through an apology statement):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html

And are you living under a rock? Haven´t you heard about the ´kill team´?

www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

This has been publicized by virtually every major and non-major news outlet, as well as being acknowledged (and apologized for) by the US Government.

These are just two recent articles about civilian deaths by US and NATO forces, but trust me, there are plenty more.

Are you really so daft to think that war and occupation EVER has ANYTHING to do with freedom and liberty? Look at the INSANE corporate profits earned through war/occupation. Just look at the profits from contracting corporations like Haliburton, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Boeing or General Dynamics (just to name a couple). They spend millions of dollars lobbying to win over lawmakers and in return recieve BILLIONS of dollars in private contracts, given to them with TAX-DOLLARS, of course. Are you a tax-paying citizen? If you are, doesn´t that bother you? Last year, Lockheed Martin got $31 billion in Pentagon contracts.

And how on earth am I a coward for simply denouncing an unjust war/occupation? Actually, I believe it is quite the opposite. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Are you aware of the mass veteran suicides and post traumatic disorders? Or the huge numbers of veterans who now protest the wars/occupations?

Look man, there is nothing wrong nor cowardly about admitting that yes, perhaps you were mislead and lied to. Try it, you might even feel relieved.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cory-latimer 14 years ago

Damn fool. There I did it, petty insults.

[–] Lucifer9999 14 years ago

@jrokshady -> I think u are or were a f...d up american soldier.. there is no other explain for this...

"It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is progress!"

[–] HotRod_SC 14 years ago

I think jrokshady and codylatimer are the same person, cody uses the other name to make any pro-war dude look bad. Jrokshady is too cliched to be a real person, imo.

now this is acting: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2458172160/tt1528718

[–] reddpill 13 years ago

Are you aware that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? That the 9/11 commission determined that the Iraqi government had "no working relationship" with Al Qaeda? That Bush and his cronies had expressed a desire to invade Iraq even before 9/11? Are you also aware that the Afghani government had stated before the invasion that they would turn over bin Laden if the US government supplied evidence of his guilt -- a normal requirement in extradition cases -- and that the Bush administration ignored the request? Are you aware that both invasions were violations of the UN Charter, which is part of US law by virtue of the fact that the US Senate ratified the charter and signed by President Harry Truman? There were many times more innocent victims from both illegal wars than there were on 9/11. There is also plenty of cause to debate whether we are safer or less safe as a result of the invasions.

On the broader question of whether there is ever "just cause" for murder, you say that you would carry out revenge killings if a member of your family were killed and that you would feel no remorse about it. Lack of remorse is, I'm sure you will agree, a completely different issue than the question of just cause. You might feel OK about doing it, but that doesn't mean it is justified. That is a far more debatable question.

To bring it all back into the context of the movie, cory-latimer has a problem with the movie portraying murder as justified. I am not sure that it does; it merely says that these murders occurred as revenge for the murder of "Sleven's" parents. At no point does it actually say that the revenge is just. There are a lot of movies that are built around revenge killings. I, for one, can separate movies from real life and say that things can be entertaining in a movie without being justifiable in real life. That is ultimately a question each viewer must decide for his/her self.

[–] pauldada 11 years ago

Revenge killing is a fine old standby of storytelling through the ages. There are specific moral issues in this movie that might be examined. SPOILERS EVERYWHERE! The Hartnett and Goodkat characters have scripted and choreographed the whole thing to avenge the kid's family's deaths at the hands of ruthless killers who target more or less innocent (though
opportunistic) people to 'send a message.' In doing so, the revenge killers also target the arguably innocent Nick Fisher, who's written into the story as a gambler who's in over his head. That's bad. They kill the Boss's son to get the ball in play, which might be a bad thing: he's a gangster's son, but we haven't seen him do any harm to anyone. Then they kill the Rabbi's son, and we know he hasn't done anything worse than have poor taste in boyfriends and home decor. Then near the end Goodkat shoots Lindsey to tie up a loose end, even though he knows she's innocent and that the kid cares for her. That's bad, too.

But what makes it all OK in terms of movie conventions is that the starring killers are stylish and charming: in the eyes of the audience, you and me, they can do no wrong; all is forgiven them, and they must as a matter of course get away clean.
What makes us this way? Why does this story, told again and again in a million ways, so predictably entertain us? That's
the moral issue here, us giving up our ten or twelve bucks on a regular basis to see our day-to-day idea of fair play torn apart by cool people, and then drive home from the cineplex smiling. We are strange, aren't we? And Hollywood knows it.

The big unanswered question in the story: What did Willis do with the kid for the fifteen or so years between the original setup and the revenge plot playing out? Did he send him to scout camp? Cough up his college tuition? Take him to ball games despite his own dislike of baseball? And how did he steer himself out of the same culpability for pointless murder that targets the rest of the people who've done the kid wrong? Or maybe we're just not shown the inevitable final moment when Hartnett turns on Willis . . .

[–] xuerebx 13 years ago

jrokshady, one of the stupidest comments I ever came across on the internet. From a redneck American, that part was expected.

---------------------------------------

I don't do drugs; I am drugs - Salvador Dali

[–] minimontana 13 years ago

you sir are an idiot...a real idiot

[–] bartvanree 12 years ago

Wow, you must be American :-D

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deconstructing 14 years ago

First of all, I'll ignore the political rant (though I appreciate it), because I don't think it's really relevant for the topic.

I liked the first half of the movie, before everyone started getting murdered.

Everyone starts getting murdered in the beginning; only the middle of the film is somewhat murder-free.

One thing in specific that I didn´t like was how Lindsey met Slevin at the airport after she knew he was an assassin.

Yes, we could question Lindsay's motives for staying with Slevin (and not reporting to the police). But remember, it wasn't just the last scene: she (presumably) knew who he was long before that. He told her the morning after they've spent the night together. Well, he told her that Goodkat would try to kill her (and I assume he also told her who he was). Why she decided to stay with him is, admittedly, a mystery, but I guess she was in love. And yes, it sounds horrible, but it's not like this story is realistic in any sense of the word (and it's the beauty of it; the whole thing is highly styled and the whole plot is perfectly arranged to be realistic).

Personally, I find it more disturbing when women end up with abusing men in movies that are meant to be realistic (thought, sadly, reality IS that they do often choose abusive men), OR when this trope is used in stories targeted to young girls (Twilight, for example).

The heroes of the film are portrayed as bad-ass icons who plan a masterminded revenge. Some young males will look up to this and imagine themselves doing the same.

Yes, art and media influence people. But hey, I actually believe parents are more responsible for raising their kids (and installing moral values) than the media. If a kid thinks murder is cool just because he saw that in a movie, then it's his parents' fault, not the filmmakers'.

That being said, I do dislike excessive violence in movies. What I find particularly hilarious in American films is that violence is always seen as less harmful to children (when it comes to movie rating) than sexuality.

I ask myself how much time and money they wasted on this instead of creating a piece of real cinema.

I don't know what "real cinema" is for you, but classic stories are full of violence, tension and revenge. What is your example of "real cinema", btw?

[–] LinkGoku 14 years ago

Well first about the movie,
I think Lindsay stayed with Slevin because he saved her so she saw how much he loved her.
As for the violence, you do realize your watching a R-rated movie right? parents who let their young kids watch this stuff deserve to have focked up kids.

Now about the war,
you see Afghan civilians say that they do not want the American troops there but the Afghan government has nothing to do with the Afghan people.
the American troops are there guarding making sure that the Afghan government doesn't try anything stupid.
Yes some innocent people are killed because they riot and attack the American troops.

You can keep on with your anti-war spew,
but as a wise man once said:
"Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead"
- Harrison Star (as told in Kurt Vonnegut's "slaughterhouse-five")

[–] cory-latimer 14 years ago

I appreciate the response, it´s filled with sound logic and intelligence. I especially agree with the 3rd point about how the result of a human is firstly a result of his parents and not gory media. I think I was ranting a bit irrationally in some of my points.

When I mentioned ´real cinema´ I was refering to films such as, Good Night Good Luck, Bobby or Conviction. Just to mention three very well-made films that I saw recently.

Do you have any film recommendations?

[–] deconstructing 14 years ago

I especially agree with the 3rd point about how the result of a human is firstly a result of his parents and not gory media. I think I was ranting a bit irrationally in some of my points.

Well, I don't enjoy or support excessive violence in movies, but seriously, I do think parents are responsible for their kids. Media IS quite powerful, but I do think that the damage can be minimized with good parenting. Kids should learn from the day one not to trust everything they see on TV. But if parents themselves believe everything they see on TV, they would be unable to help their kids understand this.

That being said, I am against movies that promote violence... But this film was obviously not meant to be a realistic representation of reality; in fact, it's so styled and visually peculiar that it almost doesn't seem like it's our world (but a strange one similar to ours in which people are still into 70s fashion and interior decoration). So I don't think "being a hitman is cool, I want to be that when I grow up!" is the message kids might get after watching that one.

<em>When I mentioned ´real cinema´ I was refering to films such as, Good Night Good Luck, Bobby or Conviction. Just to mention three very well-made films that I saw recently. </em>

I only watched the first one, but I am not sure if you can compare it to Slevin in any way. You might like that sort of films more, which is ok, but it doesn't automatically make Slevin, or a similar movie, bad. (Or unhealthy).

<em>Do you have any film recommendations? </em>

Well, I don't know what kind of movies you like.

[–] LinkGoku 14 years ago

to deconstructing:
while you do have a valid point saying that if parents believe everything they see on TV then kids will to, I think then that the parents have probably believed everything they saw on TV since they were kids, which leads to their parents being at fault.

to corey-hamilton:
I can't really think of any other movies that are like this on.
I would recommend watching "interview with the vampire", "watchmen", "defendor", "world's greatest dad", eternal sunshine of the spotless mind", and/or "sweeney todd; the demon barber of fleet street"

[–] deconstructing 14 years ago

It's true that can be a never-ending process. People do tend to believe what they see on TV too much. Still, I am not sure if a movie (or a song, or whatever) should be blamed for kids behavior. I won't deny the harmful effect violence in movies can have on kids, but I do believe parents influence is stronger. Any violent film can be an opportunity to talk to your child about the difference between art and reality, and the fact violence is wrong.

[–] LinkGoku 14 years ago

Well I do agree that movies have some influence on people, but as you said earlier movies such as this are not meant to be realistic, plus it's rated R, kids shouldn't be watching realistically violent movies until their old enough.
I don't fully agree with your statement that violence is wrong, you just need to know when violence can be used for good.

[–] doctorcrimedog 14 years ago

I agree that it felt unrealistic that Lindsay would still go off with Slevin after finding that he was a killer who had actually been lying to her all along, and who had killed her neighbor, no less. This isn't a film about good guys versus bad guys. It's about the criminal culture. I think it would've been a better film if it more clearly acknowledged that his revenge scheme, understandable that it was, made the victim into a villain, as well.

However, I cannot agree less with the notion that it's somehow the responsibility of filmmakers to teach moral lessons to your children. That's the individual's responsibility. I do not want all media sanitized so that it's all safe and harmless for the precious little children. Films and books and media in general have to have the freedom to address adult ideas. This film wasn't made for children. I believe that's why it wasn't rated "G."

People don't decide to concoct preposterously complex revenge schemes because they saw them in movies. People become enamoured with revenge because they've been wronged. No one is going to watch this film and think, "Hey, I think I'll spend ten years plotting a murder because someone hurt my friend or family member. It never occurred to me to think of that before seeing this film, but now I'm totally all-in for it!" The revenge story wasn't created by movie-makers. It appears in movies because it's an idea that already has a long and storied history throughout human cultures. Only the specific presentation is anything new.

-There is no such word as "alot."

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 13 years ago

Great posts, guys!

"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit' me!" Hudson in Aliens.

[–] chilone 9 years ago

I agree that it felt unrealistic that Lindsay would still go off with Slevin after finding that he was a killer who had actually been lying to her all along, and who had killed her neighbor, no less.

I think it's totally realistic. Consider the countless cases of single parents that protect and/or participate in the murder/rape/abuse of their child by a non-biological "partner" because they "love" them.

Plenty of "real life" Lindsays out there too.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Radalan 13 years ago

Is this the first film with people getting killed that you've ever seen?

What clichés? Thats a word the wannabe critics use when they want to whinge.

[–] reddpill 13 years ago

@cory-latimer: This thread should have been marked for spoilers. If you see this post, please edit the subject accordingly.

[–] coindudej2 13 years ago

SPOILERS:

First off, Lucy Liu's character may have felt sorry for him, or understood what he was doing, et cetera. And don't act like you can speak for all self respecting female professionals. There are a number of variables that could have resulted in her deciding to show up there, and so you can't just say she wouldn't be there. Plus, how do you know it's out of her character? Are you inside her head? Are you... *gasp*... her CONSCIENCE??! No, you are not. It was a little odd, but not out of character enough to seem particularly out of place, at least in my book. Besides, this movie pulls a lot of punches in the character department, so you can't really say any character wouldn't do something in this movie.

And your big point is irrelevant. It doesn't really say anything about the movie or the quality of the movie. It just says you're getting your panties tied up in a knot about the violence. So what? A lot of movies are violent... many way more so than this. This character's whole family got brutally murdered. His mum was shot in the torso with a shotgun, his dad was beaten brutally and then suffocated by way of a bag over the head, and they tried to kill him. Plus, he knew that they did that to many other people, too. So, is it really unreasonable for him to go on a rampage, killing tons of mostly bad people (with some exceptions, of course) in order to get to the killers of his family? I'm not saying it's a good thing, but is it really hard for you to understand why it happened? It's a revenge flick. There are tons of them. This one just happens to be good.

And what the hell does the Afghanistan war, or any war, have to do with this? Are you just such a stiff pacifist that you happen to lump all violence or depictions of violence into one pile, making every little nugget of violence responsible for the other act of violence? This has nothing to do with wars. Wars happen because people get pissed off at eachother, and decide that the best way to handle their disagreements is by killing eachother. It's stupid, and nobody but sick, pathetic bastards like wars. But they have nothing to do with this movie.

And if somebody happens to look at this movie and decides to do what the characters in this do, then they are idiots. Nobody decides to do something just because they saw it in a movie. They do it because they wanted to do something like that in the first place. The movie is nearly a suggestion. Somewhat responsible? Yes, sure, but the viewer had the right psychology to do it in the first place. And, hell, this movie doesn't say it's what you should do, it just portrays somebody doing it. It maybe glorifies what they did, but doesn't tell you to go out and do that. It's meant to be entertaining, and it is. It is also brilliant and 'witty' and 'hip'. It's a damn good movie, in my opinion.

I could go into even more detail on why I disagree with you, but alas, I have better things to do with my time, like rating this movie 10/10 for being what it was: A brilliantly entertaining revenge movie with several twists. I guess I'm easy to please, but in this case, the movie deserves it. You can respond, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

P.S.- I am also a liberal, like you, and I don't think violence is a solution to problems. I'm also 15, and after watching this, I don't find myself any more likely to kill somebody than I was prior to watching it. I think you're being ridiculous.

'Your mother ate my dog!"- Dead Alive

[–] LinkGoku 13 years ago

I agree with most everything you said coindudei2 except for your opinion on why wars happen.

Wars don't start because people are mad at each other, but they instead happen because people think they need more.

WWII began because the Nazi's thought they needed to be saved.

The Civil War began because South Americans thought they deserved more land then we gave them.

The Revolutionary War began because we knew it was our only chance of making America a free country.

The African Civil War began because the Somalian people were starving and their leader was stealing food.

The Afghan War of course was started on hate but it's no secret that other countries hate and fear us because of our masses.

But your excusable, your only 15

"Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" - Harrison Starr

[–] Liz99 12 years ago

"WWII began because the Nazi's thought they needed to be saved.

The Civil War began because South Americans thought they deserved more land then we gave them."

Seriously? You graduated from high school? American education is clearly not doing its job right. This is so bad that I'm half horrified, half hysterical at your misunderstanding of history.

[–] pauldada 11 years ago

Link--Your take on history is pretty amazing, but I love the tag at the end, whoever Harrison Starr is. (No, wait, just googled him: cool.)

"Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" Yes indeed. Think of the classic anti-war books: War and Peace, The Thin Red Line, Goodbye to All That, ad infinitum. They're great books; their hatred of senseless bloodshed is clearly stated, and they all describe war in the obsessed detail that we as audience can't get enough of. We love it, we don't understand why, and we don't care. We respond in the gut to the call of violence, despite the risk of personal extinction, whatever the flimsiness of the rationale ("the Nazis thought they needed to be saved"?). Men, obviously, but women too.

It doesn't look like we'll get over it any time soon, but it might help to keep in mind that it's in the blood. It's not just crazed jihadis or apenecked Special Forces goons, it's everybody who goes to the movies and comes out buzzed by the action. Just don't go straight into a voting booth after you've licked up a helping of screen violence!

[–] pauldada 11 years ago

Wait, wait, I just thought of something to give us all hope, pace Harrison Starr. The glaciers ARE melting. When they're through, all the existing seacoasts will be hundreds of feet under water, but wouldn't that be a small price to pay if war became a thing of the past too?

Not that it follows, obviously: climate change, with vast numbers of people migrating toward high ground, fresh water, etc., is likely to cause land and resource wars beyond anything the human race has experienced to date. 'Noah,' anyone?

[–] ewfleming-616-650888 13 years ago

You must be a man. I am a self respecting professional woman and I would have run off with him in a second. IN A MOVIE.

If I wanted real life I skip the movie and spend all my time gossiping about the real life men I know and have been with, none of whom are as cute or interesting as Josh Hartnett in this movie. And a whole lot meaner and nastier to women.

[–] alan98 12 years ago

Let's not forget that Lindsay was on Goodkat's list after she took his picture. Have she run away after Slevin told her, she would never feel safe. She had to abandon her life anyway. Going with Slevin was an option.
Makes sense ?