Lucky 13

2005 "Abbey's the one. She just doesn't know it."
Lucky 13
4.5| 1h35m| R| en| More Info
Released: 02 January 2005 Released
Producted By: MGM Home Entertainment
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A man revisits the previous significant girlfriends in his life in order to win over the girl of his dreams.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

MGM Home Entertainment

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Ana_Banana The funniest thing about this movie is that there actually were people ready to put their money and work in it, and other people to buy tickets to see it. It's like a stupid teen comedy with overgrown actors/characters. The so-called actors read throughout their so-called lines expressing nothing but boredom. Imagine what a real writer and director would have done with the premise of this movie. The only exception and the only reason why I watched it is Lauren Graham, a really good actress with a bad agent, at least at that time. Did she read the script before? Was she in big debt? They forced her somehow? Why, why, why did she appear in such a horrible thing? Where is the role worthy of her? I gave this movie a 1, and that's only for the too few scenes with Lauren, otherwise it would have been a 0 (a big fat zero, that is).
funkymonkey_11 When I saw this at the store, I thought it looked like a cute idea with a decent cast. I like Lauren Graham in Gilmore Girls, but she ended up having very few lines in this movie, much less any witty ones. Harland Williams, or as I know him, the hitchhiker Ted picks up in There's Something About Mary, has some humorous lines, but always seems rather out of place and and also not used to his potential--or maybe he's just a bad actor. Although the main actor is decent, I think the supporting actors do a better job overall of making their characters interesting for the audience. I think all the main characters were kind of dull. Anyway, don't get your hopes up for this one, but it is a decent lighthearted movie that's worth seeing if you don't have to pay for it.
ArtistGrl I wasn't sure whether to watch it or not, but since a few people here did give it 8-10 stars (die-hard Lauren Graham fans I guess), I decided to see it anyway.And well - don't believe them - I don't remember the last time I was so bored! the naysayers weren't exaggerating one bit! the plot never develops, the acting is worse than in "Days of Our Lives", everything feels completely forced and unreal, very poorly-edited, and it's just not funny at all (seriously, I find more humor in watching the news). The only nice scene they could think of - Zach throwing souvenirs into the water, was overdone so much that it made me feel they were only trying to justify the price of the underwater cam, which frankly wasn't worth it.3 stars are only because it was not completely antagonizing or patronizing, and because the soundtrack was pretty nice, especially if you like 80s music.
white__shadow This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen. And I am willing to admit I enjoy a lot of really bad movies. There was really nothing redeeming about this movie. It had no pace, didn't go anywhere, didn't bother to develop anything, and wasn't funny. The best thing about this movie was Sasha Alexander's character chasing around the lead (who looked like he was asleep 90% of the time). I'm a big fan of Lauren Graham and Amanda Detmer as well but neither one was really given the opportunity to do anything for the movie. I can't fathom how anyone can be amused by Harland Williams and his dead-fish looks. But as proof of dead potential for this movie. I couldn't believe how many well known actors participated in this tripe. Need proof? Kaley Cuoco (of 8 simple rules fame) plays the ever-so-blah sister of the main character. What a waste of talent, time (both theirs and mine), and money (again, both the production company's and mine).