Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Scott Hicks
A Marine travels to North Carolina after serving three tours in Iraq and searches for the unknown woman he believes was his good luck charm during the war.
|The Lucky One (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x800 px||Total Size: 1588 Mb|
|The Lucky One (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x536 px||Total Size: 651 Mb|
|The Lucky One (DivX)||Resolution: 608x256 px||Total Size: 700 Mb|
Brandon Chiau (21 May 2013)
I know this movie got a lot of decent ratings.. but seriously.. likethe conclusion of the movie is. logan got saved by beth's brother(picture) so he goes back to America to bang his sister. that's super.and yeah. at the end, the kid got someone killed because he ran away.hope he feels bad. even though the guy who got killed was a douche,he's still a person.im mad.so mad.im writing more because this stupid site needs at least 10 lines oftext.mad.
sddavis63 (21 May 2013)
Wow. What a great & fantastic movie! I mean - as long as you like poorpacing, a weak script and story, one dimensional characters and dull,tedious acting, you'll find this great & fantastic. Otherwise, it'sdreadful. I can't be bothered going through too much of this, except tosay that Zac Efron plays a Marine who after an ambush while on a tourof duty in Iraq finds a picture of a beautiful girl who he comes tobelieve is his guardian angel because he survives the rest of his tourand so he wants to find her when he gets home to say thanks. OK.There's so much about this that I really, really didn't like, but letme just mention this. Near the opening of the movie it seemed to beestablished that Logan (Efron) had a family. A wife (or at least agirlfriend) and a son (or at least her son) who he obviously lived withand had a relationship with. So, all of a sudden, he just up andleaves, choosing to walk - yes, walk! - from Colorado to Louisiana tofind this "guardian angel" - and the people he left behind are neverheard from - ever again in the entire movie? What is that? And maybe Ijust missed it (because almost from the opening scene I was boredalmost to tears) but how did he figure out that Beth (Taylor Schilling)was in Louisiana, anyway? And about the dull, tedious acting?Thankfully there were only a couple of scenes in which we had to watchEfron and Schilling grope each other while displaying no otherbelievable signs of emotional attachment to each other.Just dreadful. Really dreadful. (1/10)
james_morton_89 (20 May 2013)
The basic premise of The Lucky One is simple. Zac Efron is anex-marine. Whilst being a marine in his third tour of duty in Iraq, ZacEfron finds a photograph of an attractive blonde woman, which Zac Efroncredits with keeping him alive. Zac Efron then returns from Iraq andheads out to Louisiana, with the sole purpose (in anot-at-all-stalker-y way) of tracking down the woman, in which ZacEfron ultimately succeeds.Of course, it's not Zac Efron, or it's not supposed to be. It's LoganThibault or something. But watching Efron playing a marine, it's quiteeasy to forget that we're meant to be watching someone called Logan.And quite hard to forget that we're watching a High School Musicalalumnus.Perhaps it's his signature eyes, which are so extraordinarily massiveand blue, the BBC could position Charles and Camilla in front of themfor a repeat of this week's alternative weather forecast(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18023552). Perhaps it's the focus thefilm's marketing has placed on his physique, which automaticallyundermines his acting abilities. Perhaps it's the fact that his actingabilities just aren't that great compared to others his age, likeAndrew Garfield or Jesse Eisenberg. The issue I have with Efron is thathe is so pigeonholed in the High School Musical category that I canonly ever envision him playing some variation of an all-singing,all-dancing teenage boy, and any attempts he makes to encourage us totake him seriously are hindered by this instinctive association. Efronsuffers from a distinct case of Daniel Radcliffe Syndrome, in that nomatter how disparate the roles he takes on are, the initial role wecame to know him as will permeate his career for a good while to come.And The Lucky One is no exception Â most scenes seem set up to convinceus that Zac Efron is able to play an adult role, particularly the sexscene, which, despite its tame nature, was accompanied in the screeningI saw by various mothers clapping hands over their eleven-year-olddaughters' eyes, evidently not anticipating something so salacious fromthe former Troy Bolton.I'm not saying Efron will never escape the HSM shadow Â it's beenaccomplished by countless others in the past. Mark Wahlberg dropped theMarky Mark persona in the early nineties and is now one of Hollywood'sleading producers, and always acts commendably in supporting roles.Anne Hathaway abandoned the "tweenage" realm of The Princess Diariesvia The Devil Wears Prada, ultimately proving herself to be animpressive actress worthy of acclaim through films like BrokebackMountain and Rachel Getting Married (be sure to check out the latter ifyour opinion of her acting is low). I'm sure Efron will manage tosqueeze through into genuine adult acting eventually, but the film'smarketing team, and their decision to advertise the film with theslogan "Zac Efron just got hotter" is doing him no favours.I should point out that Efron being chained to his High School Musicalhistory is not the only facet of this film worthy of criticism. Theacting is questionable from all involved, the script is crammed withcheesy lines like "I'll always be next to you," Blythe Danner'scharacter hovers about but seems fairly redundant, and the filmmakerscome across as reasonably aware that the film's only noteworthystrength is Efron's muscular build. It's also distressingly formulaic,despite a slight surprise towards the end. Check it out if you're anEfron fan, but otherwise, wait until he's gone the Wahlberg/Hathawayroute and completed the transition to Serious Cinema. Then maybe you'llbe able to watch him in anything without expecting a spontaneous song.
Denise Go (20 May 2013)
I don't think it was worth watching in the movie theater though. Sosave your money. It would be a movie I would watch from netflix orcable. I did not feel the chemistry was there for the two characters.The woman seemed way too old for him. That bothered me the whole time.They should have chosen a older guy if they wanted to keep her. ZacEfron looked too young for her and remembering that hes from Disneymakes it even worse. The movie also just seemed too predictable. Not asgood as other nicholas sparks adaptations. It cannot compare to thenotebook or the vow. If you want to watch a good love story with moreconnection to the characters love for each other.
tstrycula1 (08 May 2013)
I just got back from seeing this in theaters and let me tell you, itwas a bad attempt at every romantic clichÃ© that not only manages toolose our interest, but fail in every aspect of a romantic film. Firstoff, the beginning of this film seemed very rushed and didn'tcontribute to the overall plot development. It was too fast to wherethe end of the movie didn't make any sense to me. The casting was not astrong point either. Zac Efron was not very lively at all and kind ofbrought the tone of the movie down from the first minute he was onscreen. To me it was not a very good performance on his behalf andTaylor Schilling's wasn't very high standard either. The plot to thisfilm was very predictable and has been done to death. Not to mention itwas slow from the very beginning and I never got into it very much.There were many poor attempts at character development that could havebeen a lot more in depth. It seemed like they just put those cutemoments in to fill time. The script was poorly written and some of thedialog seemed very cheesy. For example, "You should be kissed everyday, every hour, every minute." This line was thrown in there in a veryawkward moment and left you feeling embarrassed for Zac Efron'slifeless character. Another thing that bothered me was that TaylorSchilling's character's life seemed too unrealistically tragic for herto be meeting new people. She was a little too happy for the way herlife was going. Now there were very minor things that I thought wereokay about this film. For instance, I thought that the music was prettygood and added a lot drama to the film. I also like the portrayal ofaverage family life and the family was very relatable as far as mostfamilies go. Overall, I didn't think much of this film, but thequestion I want you to ask yourself is, "What does this film teach us?"I couldn't think of a really good moral that came from this film like Ican with other movies. I guess that's up for you decide, but I feellike I've definitely seen this film many times before throughout thepast decades. I give it a 4 out of 10.
Raul Faust (07 May 2013)
The first minutes of this picture are extremely dull, and I reallyhoped it would change eventually. Sadly, it doesn't. Zac Efron's actingis lame, I don't know if he has no charisma at all or if his characterjust plains boring, but I can affirm it is very painful to see his jobin here. He has answers for everything and engages a conversation withmore than a simple phrase. In fact, all characters are very hateful,which exception of Blythe Danner's. Story is pretty clichÃ©, girl notbelieving the main guy would be a good person and ends up falling inlove. Directing is predictable at times, making you easily notice thismovie's been made for a young female audience-- maybe director isn'tthat bad, he could have just chosen a wrecked story to work with. Theonly thing to not complain is the letter subject, giving it at least apoint of originality. I also have to confess I fastforwarded the lastfifteen minutes. All in all, it's just another cheesy movie made byHollywood.
lola_bunny316 (05 May 2013)
out of all of the nicholas sparks books that have been adapted intofilm, i feel this one was done the most poorly and changed way too muchfrom the actual book. the book was good, not my favourite to start withbut some of the best parts and character qualities are cut or changeddrastically. the female lead was over dramatic and annoying to watch. her characterwas so much better written and portrayed in the book. in the book sheis so strong and in the movie she just came off as a whiny and about tocry at any moment.the little boy was cute but was overly childish. in the book he seemedmuch more mature making it more easy to draw the connections andsimilarities between him and logan. also they left in a huge part inthe boys character which was the poor relationship he had with hisfather. i felt that really added to the book and was extremelydisappointing to see he liked his dad. zac efrons performance was better then i thought it would be but notthe best at the same time. i feel like they put way too much emphasison the fact that logan was quiet. yes he was to himself in the book buthe sure seemed to talk a lot more. also they over did his trauma fromthe war, it wasn't that bad in the book AND left out an amazing storyabout his close friend that pretty much lead him to beth. that friendis slightly mentioned and very poorly.they over dramatized many scenes that were not part of the book at all.they changed things around a lot. at least a lot more then usual innicholas sparks adaptations.i would not recommend running to the theater to watch this movie, likei did. it's over hyped and the book is much better (which I'm sureisn't surprising, but the book was more better then the movie comparedto any other time)
prairiestar (05 May 2013)
I watched this movie on Memorial Day, and was reminded all over againthat freedom isn't free. So if you are a past or present member of anybranch of the US Armed Forces, or if your loved one has paid theultimate sacrifice with their life, fighting for our freedom, pleaseaccept my heartfelt thanks.I LOVED this movie. Everyone did an excellent job with their characterÂ especially with Logan. So much feeling and emotion in his expressionand actions, even when no words were needed. I felt like I could seeinto his very soul. I saw a young man who still can hardly grasp thefact that he has survived 3 tours of war in the middle east, when manyof his comrades didn't come home. You can sense the depth of emotionand turmoil, and can easily understand why it was often hard to justfind words to express himself. You can see the military training anddiscipline, the steel resolve to control his reactions, even whenharassed by the town bully/ex-husband. There's also loyalty, concernfor others, tenderness, selflessness, willingness to work hard Â he'sthe man of every woman's dream! It's easy to see that Beth is a survivor of an extremely abusivemarriage. Even though she's now divorced, she's still not free from theabusive and controlling ex-husband. She's very careful in how sheresponds or endures his abusive threats, in order to keep him fromgoing into a greater rageÂ and I cheered for her when she finally foundthe courage to speak up and take control of her own destiny. Keith, the ex-husband, is easy to despise, for his hateful, snarly,manipulating characterÂ and yet in the end we saw a little glimpse ofgood in his soul as wellÂ a little glimpse of what he might have beenif he'd only been willing to humble himself and get help much earlier. I loved the happy ending, I loved the story, and I very muchappreciated that the producers kept it clean. I can't wait for the DVDÂ this is a keeper!!
Richard Reilly (03 May 2013)
When you walk into a Nicolas Sparks movie, you expect certain things.The Lucky One follows a storyline similar to most of Nicolas Sparks'other adapted novels. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. So longas the movie can stand on its own feet, it deserves recognition. Onthat ground, The Lucky One does hold its own. The acting is great andthe story held my interest. In the end, specific problems make thismovie much worse than it should have been.The main fallback of the story is the characters. Stereotypes areabound. The mayor-to-be is the same as any story that tries to cover atrapped-in-a-small-town feel. The father is an incredibly flatcharacter that is in no way believable. Even Zac Efron's character istoo mysterious for his own good. Although Efron pulled off the rolequite well, it was the way the character is presented that is theproblem.The other problem with the film is its climax. I won't give it away,but I have seen the same climax more than once. It was an unfortunatelow point in a movie that was incredibly well acted. The rest of thestoryline was quite unique and enjoyable. Even the modern setting ofPTSD and soldiers who have served too many tours was a fascinatingsetting for the movie. Unfortunately, the amateur screenwriter droppedthe ball.I must point out an unfortunate fact of this movie. It's only 101minutes. Since it is so short for a complex drama, it drops the ball onmany occasions. In the beginning of the film, Zac Efron's characterwalks from Colorado to Missouri. This fact is almost addressed at onepoint, but then dropped and never brought back. Things like this happenthroughout the film. These holes could have been filled with 15 to 20minutes more screen time. Unfortunately, the push to keep films shortermade The Lucky One significantly worse.If you are a Nicolas Sparks fan, this movie is worth seeing. If youenjoy romantic dramas, I would recommend renting The Notebook, A Walkto Remember, or Dear John. If you don't like romantic dramas, there isno reason for you to see this movie. Nicolas Sparks is one of the fewauthors who deliver consistently good plots. Unfortunately, his lasttwo films have fallen flat. Maybe it's time for him to stop using thesame formula again and again.reillyreviews.wordpress.com
napierslogs (03 May 2013)
"The Lucky One" is a romantic drama stripped down to its bareessentials, so it's kind of romantic and kind of dramatic. Zac Efronstars as Logan a marine who finds a photo of a beautiful girl in therubble in Iraq. It would have belonged to a fellow soldier, most likelya fallen soldier. Logan keeps it, believing it keeps him alive, andwhen he returns to the States he travels across the country to findthis woman.That's the premise. The entire story is that they fall in love. I wasreally hoping that they were going to give me something moresignificant, or at least a plot. Logan is lonely, depressed and in abrooding state of life. There is a sudden moment when he brightens upand cheerfully imposes himself onto her even though it is clear thatshe doesn't want a marine around. I thought they were going tointroduce a baiting angle of familial or brother-sister relationshipdynamics. But instead they chose the straight romantic drama route.They chose it because it is the Nicholas Sparks'books-turned-into-movies appeal. They know their audience and it willkeep them in the theatre in droves. "The Lucky One" has the idea offate or destiny determining the nature of true love set against agorgeous backdrop. And I don't mean the actors. I mean the light fromthe morning, noon or setting sun shining through the forest trees,reflecting off windshields, watching as the single leaves dance theirway down through the air. It was just all so romantic. And for me, thatwas the problem. I wanted something more.Follow my blog at Napierslogs' Movie Expositions athttp://napierslogs.blogspot.com
moonspinner55 (28 April 2013)
Scott Hicks directed this adaptation of Nicholas Sparks' novel...butI'm not sure how he managed to look his loved ones in the eye after thesticky-sweet results were unveiled. One-dimensional 'chick flick'involves a drifting Marine, a single mother who runs a doggyboard-and-kennel (along with her feisty mother), and a photograph ofthe woman dropped by a fallen soldier overseas. Turns out the soldierwas the woman's beloved brother, and the Marine believes finding herpicture amongst the rubble was his saving grace. Prettily-photographedyarn has two or three interesting character conflicts, nothing more.There are montages here (set in the sunshine with pups running orswimming) that resemble dog food commercials, while the denouement ofthe plot mirrors any recent movie made for the Lifetime televisionnetwork. *1/2 from ****
trini316 (28 April 2013)
I normally do not like sappy romantic movies. I typically don't reallyenjoy Nicholas Sparks movies in particular, with one or two exceptions.Guess I'll have to add another exception now. While there was nothing particularly groundbreaking about this movie,and there were a few clichÃ©s (I spent the first 10 minutes countingevery time a character was portrayed back-lit by the sun. I lostcount!), I ended up being surprised with the subtlety of the story-telling. Every time I expected, for instance, the small-town cop,abusive ex to: arrest Logan for a trumped up charge, beat him wheneveryone was looking and then deny it, beat up his ex-wife when shedefied/challenged him, or any number of movie tropes, the story took amore subtle route. He is portrayed as the "bad guy" so to speak, butnot in a one-dimensional manner. And every time I expected the love interests to: rip each other'sclothes off at the first opportunity, fall head over heels for eachother in a melodramatic, saccharine fashion, and over-explain everyscene at every given opportunity, they surprisingly didn't. Instead, the love interests are portrayed as gradually falling for eachother over a period of time in a regular, reasonable manner. I especially appreciated that dialogue was used sparingly andeverything wasn't talked to death like a lot of movies these days. If you're looking for a witty, fast-paced, sex-filled movie with lotsof dialogue and plenty of action, this definitely isn't the movie foryou. But I thoroughly enjoyed the refreshing change of pace, the sweet,gentle love story, as well as a surprisingly decent performance by ZacEfron. My main gripe is that there were entirely too many back-lit scenes. Iwish I could have the sun following me around all the time, back-lighting my profile. Overall, though, I recommend it. Will probably watch again.
rgkarim (27 April 2013)
One of the few movies I have yet to make it through all the way is TheNotebook, the movie that started the Nicholas Sparks trend. Thisweekend his latest installment the Lucky One flooded into theaters. Nowever since being bored to death by The Notebook I have avoided most ofhis book based movies like the plague. However, this movie I decided togive a shot, mainly due to going to see it with friends. How was it?Read on to find out.In case you haven't read the book or seen the trailers, I'll recap themovie for you. The film centers on Logan (Zac Efron) a marine who oneday stumbles upon a picture during a tour of Iraq. This picture is of abeautiful women named Beth (Taylor Schilling) and becomes the luckycharm for Logan. After service, Logan finds his life is not what itused to be and decides to seek out his guardian angel as a start. Soonafter arriving, he begins to get to know Beth and her family and beginsseeking out his place in life. Yeah I know this story has been used endlessly over the last decade,but I assure you there are some things in this film that keep itentertaining. For one thing the acting is decent for this romancedrama. Efron at first didn't impress me because he mainly just walkedaround and said very little, but once he got on a role he did a prettydecent job. I felt he captured the emotion pretty well a majority ofthe time, but there were parts where he acted the part too extreme. Hisco actor Schilling was the same way, sometimes taking the crying orpouting a little too far, which got a bit annoying for me after awhile. However, she still brings pizazz to the role and her combinationof beauty and grace keep the male audience members into the film. Thetwo actors I want to give the biggest props too though Riley ThomasStewart_ and Blythe Danner. Stewart being so young played his part of achild prodigy well and seemed to not be acting as well. Yes there weretimes where there was some overacting, but hey he is young and has alot of time to improve. His delivery of the lines, his skill withinstruments, and his ability to be awkward were all well integrated tomake a fun character that helped drive the story. Danner is just aswitty and kind as she was in Meet The Parents, and for me had the bestlines of the movie. Countless times she broke the tension or cheesinessof the movie with a well-delivered phrase that made me laugh fairlyhard. I say that without her the humor in this movie would have beenconsiderably limited, so I applaud the directors for picking her as thegrandmother. What else was good about this movie? Okay let's see well for one thingthis movie wasn't that slow, a big relief for me. Although a few scenesdragged on, the movie as a whole had a good pace and kept me interestedand awake. Part of my interest came from how relatable the characterswere to me. Although many were incredibly cheesy extreme romancecharacters, Efron and the gang had qualities I could latch on to, suchas brotherhood, creativity, and kindness all of which were shown well.The camera work combined with the music was also well done, workingtogether to bring out the emotion of the scene without you evenrealizing it. The scenery as well was beautiful too, the area theychose to shoot in having a beautiful assortment of nature shots thatmany fans, myself included enjoyed seeing. It was nice to finally see amovie that didn't involve CGI or artificially painted settings. Yetanother factor I liked were the dogs in this film. These well trainedcanines brought another factor of fun to the movie, and those impressedby dog training will be happy to see some of the tricks and commandsthey listen to you. I found this movie still had some weaknesses though and I wish tocomment on these as well. For one thing, this movie is predictable outthe wazoo with where it is going and what is going to happen. I knowmost romance movies are supposed to be predictable, but surely someoneout there can put a twist in the movie I don't see coming, like Crazy,Stupid, Love did last summer. The second weakness for me was some ofthe crying scenes, although I could sympathize with some of the cryingit did get a little old and annoying as the movie progressed. A thirdthing was some of the romance was incredibly cheesy and overdone, whichI know again is used to rope in the main demographic for this film. Despite these weaknesses though The Lucky One was an okay film. It'sdefinitely a date movie, but also can be seen with a group of friendsas well that will enhance the enjoyment factor. If you're a NicholasSparks fan, like one of my friends is, then you may find this to be thebest film of the bunch. If you're not, well hopefully the dogs, BlytheTanner and Riley Thomas Stewart will entertain you as much as theyentertained me. Is it worth a trip to the theater? In my opinion no,this film is more of a Netflix/movie rental film for couples to enjoyin their own homes. My scores for the movie are as follows:Romance/Drama: 7.0-7.5 Movie Overall: 5.5-6.0 as it is a generic dramathat really didn't add anything newSo until next week my friends enjoy the movies and tell your friendsabout my blog!
whitekiks (27 April 2013)
I have never wrote a review before, BUT, I felt impelled to do so withthis film. I read the book enthusiastically, in 4 days. BUT, I have noidea what the film has to do with the book. MANY important plot detailsare left out, including the camera and the coeds in the beginning ofthe book. Therefore, it never, ever, got the main plot across re: Loganand Clayton. Maybe it was just my imagination but I totally pictureddifferent people in the roles. Zac Eron was of course handsome, but notwhat I imagined. Blythe Danner was , of course, great, as always, but Idefinitely envisioned a much older, and more physically challengedbecause of her stroke, as stressed in the Spark's book. I, will alwaysbe a Nicholas Sparks fan, but I truly hope that the film versions willremain more "close" to the book's plot. Sorry if I have offendedanyones' opinion of this film !!
robert-temple-1 (18 April 2013)
This is a pleasant and well-made film of what has come to be called the'chick flick' genre. The reason why it is meant to appear to 'chicks'(otherwise known as women and girls) is that it is all about romance.And as we all know, if there is one thing which most women and girlshave in common, it is an interest in romance. However, this film is notonly for a female audience, because it has a strong story about a youngman's dilemma at its heart. Zac Efron plays a sergeant in the US MarineCorps who finally completes his third tour of duty in Iraq and comeshome to civilian life, where he cannot settle. He stays with his sisterbut is too restless, and he goes off in search of a girl whose photo hehad salvaged from the site of an engagement of two platoons of Marineswith 'the enemy'. She is a beautiful blonde girl, and this photo hadbelonged to an American soldier who must have been killed in theaction. He finds the girl living in a large remote house in the bayousof Louisiana, and she turns out to be the unmarried sister, rather thanthe wife, of the dead soldier. However, Efron does not tell her why heturned up, because due to a misunderstanding upon his arrival, shethought he had come to apply for a job assisting in the dog kennelbusiness run by her and her mother, excellently played by BlytheDanner. So Efron just takes the job and settles in. Later on, thisleads to a crisis of misunderstanding which threatens the burgeoningromance (there's that word again!) between the two. Efron is perfectlycast in his role because he has that semi-bewildered expression of aman who has served too long in the military and cannot understandcivilian life. He is a master of inarticulation, saying little, beingrespectful to men whom he calls sir, and keeping his surging emotionsmore or less to himself. He spends many weeks undertakingreconnaissance of the object of his affections, too timid to speak toher properly, perhaps because he fears machinegun fire. He looks like across between a little lost boy and a tough, silent, stubborn fighter.There is little need for him to act, as the role does not particularlycall for it. The girl is played by the pretty and lissome TaylorSchilling. I have criticised her severely for her appalling performancein ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART I (2011, see my review), in which she wasfantastically miscast as the heroine Dagny Taggart. The film of thatgreat classic novel by Ayn Rand was simply unwatchable, becauseeverything about the film was terrible. (And since the story entirelyrelies upon Dagny being perfectly cast, Taylor Schilling was inevitablya disaster in it.) Here Taylor Schilling in in her milieu, beingsensitive, distraught, falling in love, crying and experiencing romancein all its many hues. So that's OK then. Keep her out of an Ayn Randnovel and she does very well, for she is no Patricia Neal, but then sofew are. The film is directed by Scott Hicks, well known for many afine film, and it is based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks, who has hadeight of his novels filmed, including the interesting and impressiveNIGHTS IN RHODANTHE (2008) and MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE (1999). Sparks seemsto have found some kind of formula for success, or is it his mastery ofsentiment and his feeling for the smouldering embers that set heart onfire?
tabuno (17 April 2013)
It's note easy to find a dramatic romance movie that captures theimagination and runs away with a memorable storyline and actingperformance, especially one to compare with The Lucky One. Chocolat(2001) stands out for its quirky theme of cooking sweets against thebackdrop of a rigidity of an entire community, The Air I Breathe (2007)has a gritty flavor and more harder but strong fictional contentbetween Brendan Fraser and Sarah Michelle Geller, The Cooler (2003)where Mark Isham's music also appears as a special relationship connectbut with a anti-hero of sorts, The History of Violence (2005) that hasa questionable man uphold the integrity of his love of family againstthe darker forces that catch up to him, and much more dramatic flourishof Moulin Rouge (2001) or at its most extreme Excalibur (1981) wherethe knights of the round table upheld the most chivalrous standard ofman. Last year's Tree of Life (2011) probably depicted the higheststandard by which to compare this movie while perhaps, The Bridges ofMadison County (1995) and the Memoirs of a Geisha (2005) reflect theprolonged character development and more sedate, involving, andsubstantive counterpoint to the more populist The Lucky One.What this mainstream movie is able to accomplished in all itspredictability is good editing, good inclusion of the main plot pointswithout excess, and in most cases a nicely refined underplay of theusual story narrative. The movie almost qualifies for an excellentreview except for the climax and the possible author's own submissionto the stereotypical and perhaps easier and dramatic ending which turnstoo much of the movie back into a more black and white, two-dimensionalmovie. Nevertheless, the movie was well done and for the most partmaintained its cool above most of the rest of the flotsam of similarmovies out there.
blogurious (16 April 2013)
As the main character on the film says, life can take you places youcould never imagine. But it's always up to you to make those placescount, by simply accepting circumstances that, if not clearly at first,will eventually show that everything happens for a reason. "The Lucky One" is meant to be a romantic story and indeed it is. ZacEfron seems to be growing little by little in his talent, although hehasn't yet found the role that should dig out the best of him. The filmhas an average pace, but I wasn't quite happy with its direction.Everything seems so predictable, even though it gives way to otherideas, making you hope they might surprise you. But unfortunately, thestory is like smooth sailing and by the end you get to feel as ifsomething was missing the whole time. Romantic, but not an attentiongrabber.
minki-daka (16 April 2013)
I would first like to say that this movie was great. I enjoyed watchingthe actors and the storyline greatly. I've read the book and of coursethere are several differences, but I would have to say I enjoyed themovie more then the book, which is quiet rare for me. There weremoments that were romantic, light humor, action and just plainenjoyable to watch. Zac Efron has greatly improved and has showed us adifferent side of him. Taylor Schilling who I've never seen before waswonderful and beautiful actress. I enjoyed watching both of the mainleads, but most of all it was a great romantic to watch. The Louisianascenery was beautiful. This definitely is a good movie to watch.
MLDinTN (16 April 2013)
Zac Effron and Taylor Schilling had no chemistry and she looks 10 yearsolder than him. Both were miscast in this very predictable love story.First I never understood how Logan found Beth from a picture when hehad no idea who she was. How did he know to go to Louisana? Then hesays he walked there with a dog, silly. Worst of all was thestereo-typical ex-husband, whom acts jealous and childish and abuseshis power. And why couldn't Logan tell Beth the truth and why would sheget mad after finding out. It's not like it was some kind of bad lie.Then there's the death that no one cares about. It's like the writerwanted the audience to root for his death.FINAL VERDICT: it wasn't good, I don't recommend it.
VillageVoiceNY (16 April 2013)
It's Nicholas Sparks' world; we just live in it. Sparks, in case youhaven't scanned the paperback racks lately, is the formerpharmaceutical salesman who's written 16 bestsellers since 1995, whenThe Notebook was plucked from the slush pile by a wily publisher. The2004 movie version of The Notebook was the third Sparks to be filmed,but it's the one against which all other adaptations are measured. Litwithin an inch of its life, and corny as hell, it's one of those datenight flicks we're all too cool to fall for, but the chemistry betweenthe leads, Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, is pretty irresistible.Directed by Scott Hicks (Shine), The Lucky One is the seventh SparksmovieÂtwo more...Read the full review here: http://www.villagevoice.com/movies/
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20