inkslayer Serial killer Ben Keller (Colin Hanks) murders a woman and steals her winning lottery ticket. After his newfound "luck," coworker Lucy (Ari Graynor) - who has known Ben since childhood, but have never given him the time of day, decides he's a catch. When Lucy finds out Ben is a serial killer, she helps dispose of the bodies. Then she decides she wants to wait until the next lottery check shows up in the mail box, take it, and skip town without Ben.There is a lot wrong with Lucky. First, the story. It's lame. (See above.) Second, the writer assaults the viewer with bland one-minute SNL-type scenes that are just not funny. Three, because the one-liners sink this movie like an iceberg hitting the Titanic, Ms. Graynor appears like she is overacting.The only reason I popped the DVD in was because Ann-Margret was in it.

kevin-1272 I'm stunned by the reviews this film received. It makes me wonder what audiences are looking for. Giant robot cars, maybe? Stereo-typical heroes and bad guys (with capes!)? This is an independent film and the reviews read like they were written by a church group. This film is innovative and clever and extraordinarily well written. Sublette and Cates' work here deserves better reviews than these. I feel bad that they have to be subjected to this type of unenlightened ridicule for such a wonderful film. I suspect that the film just didn't get a chance to find its audience (which is not the Bridesmaids/Hangover crowd). Lucky is a different type of romantic comedy that successfully takes brave risks and they all pay off. On to specifics:The screenplay was an extraordinary piece of writing. I won't give anything away, because if you like quirky independent film, you should see this movie. But, some of the scenes were beautifully nuanced. In particular, the final scene, which was an extremely difficult scene to pull off. Sublette manages to make it work. The pacing, editing, and direction are all as good as it gets. And the way the screenplay subtly builds these characters so that we believe their relationship (as bizarre as it may be) is masterful.The acting is superlative. Hanks and Ari Graynor are ideally cast as nebbish serial killer and quirky love interest, and their performances are exquisite. I was amazed at their work in this film. The emotionality of the scenes required refined acting chops and they delivered.I'd kill to work with any one of these creative talents and think they should be lauded for this film.

caiamdq I can't and I won't do an effort to explain this awful movie. It's plain horrible! Beyond ugly! Someone said amoral.That's right,amoral and extremely awful! Boring! Terribly boring! I don't understand how someone could spent money in making this movie! What a waste of resources! I watched all of it waiting for a good part that could justified the effort. But there wasn't any!My advice? Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this movie!It has nothing valuable. Not even a beautiful view of anything. They show some very brief seconds of Hawaii,apparently, but you won't notice.Colin Hanks? I liked The Good Guys very much. But I never enjoyed any other thing he was in. But this Lucky just made the top of all.I will have nightmares with this movie. I swear! I'm not bluffing!Now excuse me,but I need to watch something very good stuff before going to bed or I won't be able to get asleep! I hated it!

Matthew Stechel I like Colin Hanks. A lot of people just say that he's a complete knock-off of his father but that comment always completely misses the point. His father was darn likable even when being prickly or sarcastic he's still just effortlessly likable. Colin has a similar likability, one that certainly veers more to the prickly or complainy side--but still he's a guy you can either like or at least watch in most things that he appears in and not have a problem with. The casting of him in this movie should've been so perfect--unfortunately the movie itself is way too slow to set its premise up, even slower to get its other main character up to speed with what the audience already knows which kind of kills the suspense that's suppose to be building up. I should single out the other lead in the film--the nicely daffy Ari Gaynor plays her and if the movie works at all i would say its completely because of her ability to show you why she would do the things she does in the movie even if you're sitting there questioning why she would or should, you completely buy her character's motivation and reasoning.If you're reading this you probably already know the set-up and that's about all there is to know for this movie quite honestly. I was hoping for something a little more funny...or maybe even a little bit darker---the plot was really promising after all but its as if once the idea is established, the writer/director couldn't think of where else to take it other then the usual cat and mouse games that normally occur in these kinds of movies. (will the wife eventually snap? will the husband eventually snap? is the husband even the real killer? is the detective played by a seemingly bored Jeffery Tambor getting ever closer to the 2 of them? and what's the deal with Ann Margaret as Hanks'mother?) All of what happens in the movie happens really slowly until maybe the last ten minutes at which point if you're still watching, you're just trying to figure out how the director is going to wrap it up. The wrap up actually is pretty good--there's even an actual honest to goodness laugh from the delivery of one of the one liners here. (One of the few one liners that completely lands too) Its unfortunate that the director couldn't find this perfect balance in tone between discomfort and humor before the end of the movie but what can you do? movie's already finished at that point. I didn't dislike the film really--but there were scenes where i was more bored then interested in the storyline and that's not a good thing for any kind of movie. Essentialy the film could've done so much more with its plot line that its unbelievable that it doesn't.