Lucky

I appreciate directors and writers who try to do things a little differently to the constant identical horror movies we see everyday. And I like the fact we get presented with movies that aren't as straightforward as others. This movies reminds me of Mother! While I like the ideas behind the movies and trying to get people to think outside the box, the execution of these films needs to be a little tidier. They start off really interesting and as a viewer, you're really intrigued and excited....and then they just go to a weird place and don't come back, and you're sitting there thinking...'huh?'

There were several plot holes in this film and many things that were introduced were not explained at all. Not everyone who watched will be able to deduce certain clues brought up. It doesn't need to be a blatant in your face explanation that takes away from the mystery of the film, but it does need to be addressed in a way the viewer is like, 'ah, ok...I see what they did there.' It felt unfinished at 1hr 20mins. Could have packed a bit more in to wrap things up.

Writer and protagonist Grant has something to say about violence against women-- something to say about the ways that some women are hobbled by fear of violence. Unfortunately, what Grant has to say is not clear.

Is Lucky a study on the meaningless surreality of some of these fears, that their focus is on some masked stranger in a parking garage rather than on one's husband, the vastly more likely source of violence? Or is Lucky instead arguing that those masked strangers are inappropriately disregarded as a legitimate source of fear? Does Lucky argue that women need to stick together to escape their chains? Or does it instead tell us that women should "Go It Alone" because solidarity is hopeless? When Grant angrily insists that her success is 100% a function of her hard work, are we as the audience supposed to be cheering for her self-regard or shaking our heads at her self-importance? Are we invited to think that all men (save our husbands, of course) are responsible for our fear, or are we instead asked if we're failing to see "Schrodinger's Rapist" as something other than an object-- a man with a face, many men with many faces?

Maybe Grant isn't sure about any of that, and Lucky is just asking a lot of questions. Maybe it's less of a manifesto, more of a meditation. But if so, even that uncertainty is unclear. Lucky merely allows us to be reminded of our own questions-- or of our own certainty regarding the answers-- and if we have none, then Lucky doesn't do anything to change that.

That might be okay sometimes. Like Inglorious Basterds, Lucky seems to be fine with you ignoring the critical questions. In Lucky's case, in favor of just watching a poppy, PG-13 thriller. Unfortunately, Lucky doesn't travel the traditional scales of pop. It is a thought experiment, with little relationship to reality, yet never embraces this, never surprises us with any genuine weirdness. Any transformation here is transient-- abandoned in the third act. And there is no reveal, no catharsis; the unmasking has no impact on the movie as a work of entertainment. There is no denouement. The plot questions are never answered.

But it's not poorly made: the acting is generally decent (although there are occasional awkward missteps); it's not overly long; the production values are good. Lucky may not hit the targets it aimed for, but it's an acceptable way to blow an hour and a half.

Although this is billed as a thriller/horror film, I'd place it more in the category of Black Mirror or Twilight Zone in that it's a satire about the state of things in the world, told with surreal/absurd elements. For example there were themes of people being disbelieved, while holding to an every-person-for-themselves attitude, further preventing people from getting support. There's much more to it than that (gender and class) so I'm summarizing very briefly.

Other points: Some of the acting was stiff at times but that became an advantage during brief kafkaesque scenes of the protagonist attempting to communicate. With surreal elements, it often comes with the territory in any case. The music was minimal and rather than announcing everything that was about to happen, it left space for the imagination to fill in the blanks, only containing a few themes that repeated, along with a few key visual leitmotifs.

I can see how a person following this as a literal story with a straightforward protagonist might expect things to go differently, but I felt a definite tension leading up to the end, wondering how the director would play out the themes presented in the story. Perhaps intentionally on the part of the director, while I felt sympathy for the main character, I felt even more for a few of the side characters, especially toward the end of the movie.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, found the themes timely, and will look up other movies by this director.

This movie has promising potential that sucks you in, and then quickly goes off the rails. The concept is entertaining, but the vision was lost. It would have made for an excellent horror comedy if they could have executed at least one portion of the storyline clearly.

I saw this film on Shudder, titled "It's A Secret", so I knew to expect something off the beaten path from a typical horror film. The constant looming presence of the silent killer has a very Michael Myers-esque approach to an abstraction of the turmoil the protagonist faces as she (Goes) It Alone with some fairly well-put together kills along the way, but the climax isn't one for anyone who expects clear answers. I had to stop treating this film as a standard film with a beginning, middle, and end (?) and instead focus on the way she deals with the killer rather than expect any explained reasons why he's there. It gets surreal towards the end, but I can't say I disliked it.