Talk:Lucky Number Slevin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

How is it spelt - Slevin or Sleven?--Tom Gibbs 09:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this myself and edited to match. Added Bruce Willis too.

Contents

[edit] s and l crisis

I haven't sleen the movie, but it sleems to me that slomeone has gone in and replaced many of the leading s's with sl's. I sluspect this isn't how it's slupposed to read.--Justfred 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL:) I was about to write the exactly the slame kind of comment before I slaw yours:)--Yobaranut 07:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The only innocents?

What about Slevin's mother? Since they lived off the proceedings of criminal empires, can they really be considered "innocent"? And what does this have to do with anything? Twin Bird 04:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I too question the relevance of "innocents killed." And even if it were relevant, who has the right to say who is innocent and who isn't? Is the author implying that rapists deserve death? Both sons had bodyguards paid for with blood money, and it'd be hard to believe that they were both oblivious to that fact. On a purely subjective note, it bothered me that they killed a gambler indebted to the mob in order to avenge the death of a gambler indebted to the mob. When they threw in the "raping a 14 year old" thing, it felt forced. I mean, you don't need to be a rapist for the police to know who you are, and the police don't need to explain to you how they know you aren't so-and-so. I suspect they just threw that in there to band-aid the moral dilemma presented by killing Nick. 207.145.29.90 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is much of a moral dilemma for Slevin or Goodkat. Goodkat is a professional ("world-class" as he puts it) assassin and Slevin is looking for revenge. Goodkat must have a reason for going along with this plot besides his pity for young Slevin; it wouldn't seem in character for Goodkat to be doing favors. (ericfassbender, 11 October 2006)
  • Just plain and simple mercy (he also left Slevin and Lindsey alone, too). It was stated in movie the bosses had to hire a specialist to kill the child Slevin, and even then the guy couldn't do the job. They also said Goodkat didn't operate in New York for two decades afterward as well. Shadowrun 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Trying to determine who is truly "innocent" and who isn't is a waste of time. Yeah, they all lived on the illegal proceeds, but there was nothing revealed in the plot to say Slevin's mother was involved in the mob other than by marriage to her husband; so what was the point in killing her? Revenge and a warning to others. The loan shark clearly warned the father about the implications of the money he was borrowing, and when the drugged up horse failed to win, the mob took it upon themselves to make examples of Slevin's family. Shadowrun 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


This movie could look like a modern Hamlet (don't misunderstand: Hamlet is much better of course) in which some innocents people die (Polonius, Ofelia, for example), without any problem for the public. Some movies just serve the main plot without considering morality as a necessity. I personaly regret this, but, viewing this movie yesterday, this is the conclusion where I arrived. In a way, this movie justifies personnal revenge the way a government can justify civil casualties by bombing another country arbitraly accused of being responsible for a previous attack... for example... I liked the construction of the plot, but certainly not the ideas. (thierry thomas, july 2007)

[edit] Reoccurring Themes

I notice two reoccurring 'themes' or elements in the movie.. which could be an allusion to Hitchcock films (items being passed all the way through the movie, I guess the watch could fall into that as well).

Sandwiches, they're in a lot of scenes

and

No white walls. There isn't a single white wall in the movie, they're either painted or have wallpaper on them.

What do you all think?

Airport has white walls. On the left, with Brown Sugar facing you.
Still kind of weird that there's only one white wall in the entire movie. Floors are usually designed too.. just an overactive set designer?
  • Watch the director's commentary - at about 23 minutes he comments on the wallpaper and how he wanted the designer to be part of the movie - so, you can easily state that it was with the director's blessing/encouragement. Krupo 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What became of The Fairy?

Can someone confirm that The Fairy was actually killed? Yes, I know we saw him shot. We also saw Lindsey shot.

At the end of the film, during the phone call just before the Kelevra revelation...

'We got a new guy in the precinct. Jewish fella, funny little guy. Talks a lot.'

Is that The Fairy?

—

Hmm. I've watched it again, and it's kinda hard to fake a headshot, so I'm gonna go with 'dead'.

Besides, the police knew who The Fairy was. He wouldn't be able to just join up with the police and go unnoticed.

Yes, The Fairy is almost certainly dead. He was shot by first Slevin, then GootKat. (He would have summoned the guards with his alarm at this point if he were still alive.) Oh, and then his apartment blew up; that would definitely kill him. Later on 2 burnt bodies are brought to the morgue, and two more are on the way (those bodies; the two guards, Nick Fischer, and The Fairy.)

The only way he could've survived: He was wearing a bullet-proof vest, he pretended to be dead (instead of summoning the guards), And, he had a dead body stored in his apartment, which he left there to fake his own death. (This is a joke; it's almost certain he's dead)JimmmyThePiep 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

goodkat is the one hu actually pressed the buton on the fairy's alarm , then he killed the body guards. and one ore thing the rabbi was jewish right so he must have been a israeli but the boss and max(slevin's dad) calls him a "fuking backstabbing palestine". but it should actually be "fuking bacstabbing Israeli"

He (Freeman)calls him a philistine, not a palestine. --24.18.172.229 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence with The Man Who Fell To Earth

While watching the deleted scene of the bodyguard's story, the wallpaper in the bedroom appeared to be the same as that in the ping-pong table room in The Man Who Fell To Earth. I watched the scenes from both films next to each other and believe they could be the same. Has anyone else noticed or attempted to confirm this?


[edit] Music

Can anyone identify the string music used in the end of the film, during the scenes where Slevin has The Boss and The Rabbi, and also during the 'Kelevra' phone call? Is it on the OST? Must own. Must own now.

[edit] Minor Note

I just read the recap, and there's one point I think should be changed; the part where The Fairy's killed, the recap makes it seem like the guards were on their way in and GoodKat just happened to kill them.

What actually happened was GoodKat hit the panic button to call the guards in, so he could kill them. He & Sleven easily could have gone in-and-out without them (guards) even noticing. (They were killed because they were loose ends; in this manner, almost every single character gets killed.) JimmmyThePiep 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anorexia?

Hi there everyone, great page. I was hoping you could tell me if Slevin's description of anorexia is correct (midway into scene 7 "Lindsey's Investigation"). He says 'it's a condition characterized by freedom from worry or any other preoccupation'. I always thought it was an aversion to eating, which he seems to be doing a lot of considering the sandwhiches. Anybody able to enlighten me on that? Was he just being funny? Maybe it's worth mentioning in the Trivia section if it's wrong? Thanks, and again, great page! Nefylym 04:29, 11 December 2006

  • The word he used was "ataraxia", not anorexia. Ericfassbender 16 December 2006

[edit] Clean Up

  • The plot description is too long for an encyclopedia. Perhaps a link to an off site plot description could be valuable, with this plot description being shortened.
  • The term "official synopsis" is a bit concerning. Is it a copy? If so is it plagerism or infringement?
  • The pertinent text from a separate article on Slevin has been merged here as a "Character Summary". Someone may want to offer summaries on other major characters

--Kevin Murray 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only is this plot summary too long, it also reveals things out of chronological order. A good synopsis would reveal the secrets when they are revealed instead of explaining them when they happened. I don't think an explanation for why things happen is necessary until the end. Anyone else think so?

--User:princesabin 12:00 6 February 2007

[edit] Merge from Slevin Kelevra

Please merge any relevant content from Slevin Kelevra per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slevin Kelevra. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:13Z

[edit] Recycled Yojimbo Plot??!!

The movie is a retelling in contemporary times of the main plot elements of Akira Kurosawa's film Yojimbo (1961), (and thus Sergio Leone's 1964 film, A Fistful of Dollars). [citation needed]
I think this is quite a stretch... other than the fact that two antagonistic crime bosses are played of one another, I don't really see this one at all. True for "Last Man Standing" perhaps. Not true for this film. I hesitate to delete it myself without discussion. --24.18.172.229 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The theme that plays in the background at key points and during the credits is the same theme from A Fistful of Dollars (the watch). Obviously the producers wanted to make the connection.--Energman 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20 years later?

There's a problem here. The death of the family is in the late 60s. If we take the events of the film as happening 20 years later that would place it in the late 80s. But the problem is cellular phones hardly existed in the late 80s not to mention they didn't have cameras and color screens. Is this a goof or are the events unfolding much later than 20 years from the initial murders?--Energman 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The death of the family is in 1979. 20 years=1999

--princesabin09:57, 6 February 2007

Still doesn't make sense. The first camera phone in the US appeared in 2002. See Camera phone --Energman 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

3 years difference, big deal. Just like in real life, people can approximate in movies. How believable would it be if they described it as taking place 23 years, 2 months, 3 days ago? Sounds like you've got nothing better to do than nitpick. Just sit down and enjoy the movie, don't get caught up in irrelevant details. mclawson 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I love it when people assume stuff about someone just because they noticed something...--Energman 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While the deaths took place in 1979 the Boss and the Rabbi split in 84 after the Rabbi tried to kill the boss. I believe that is what is referred to when they speak of 20 years ago.

have you noticed though Slevin does not eat in the movie?

Also keep in mind that when Goodkat was talking to Nick Fisher in the airport he says "over twenty years in the making." Feral Mind (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LLJHL-Slevin.JPG

Image:LLJHL-Slevin.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry never found?

I may be wrong but I believe, "Moments later, Detective Brikowski answers a call from a fellow officer, who after looking at Slevin's surveillance picture recalls that 1979 incident; he mentions that the boy was never found, and that "Slevin" was the name of the horse," is incorrect. As I recall, the very same detective said that, "They went to town with a tomahawk. They killed everybody: Max, his wife, the kid, even the goddamn horse died." Which would seem like they had reason to believe he was dead. While watching the movie, I all along figured that Slevin was Henry but that bit the detective said about Henry dying made me second guess myself for a second. Quietmartialartist (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)