Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Your Lucky Day
August 15, 2010 12:54 PM   Subscribe

Your Lucky Day. A short film involving a lottery situation in a convenience store that gradually escalates out of control. Rather grim, but very well made.
posted by BlackLeotardFront (29 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
Turned it off halfway into the atheist argument.
posted by hjo3 at 1:36 PM on August 15, 2010


That was amaaaaazing, hjo3 you totally missed out.
posted by dabitch at 1:38 PM on August 15, 2010


If this is considered amazing my standards must be way too high. I think Shakespeare and Quentin Tarantino fans would enjoy it though.
posted by LoopyG at 1:41 PM on August 15, 2010


Irritating.
posted by cropshy at 1:43 PM on August 15, 2010


Tough crowd. I really liked the editing, and the power-ball red-lazer shots. Nice details in there.
posted by dabitch at 1:44 PM on August 15, 2010


SPOILERS:

Not a bad video. Of course, it's a little negated by the fact that she'd never be able to collect a dime of that money.
posted by ColdChef at 1:52 PM on August 15, 2010


LoopyG: If this is considered amazing my standards must be way too high. I think Shakespeare and Quentin Tarantino fans would enjoy it though.”

That is some expert trolling right there.

Meanwhile: yeah, I saw this elsewhere a few days ago, finally watched it this morning. Pretty cool. I actually liked it as a short; I've seen at least two or three dozen full-length movies that were similar, and I hated all of them, but now it occurs to me that if they'd been fifteen minutes long they might not have been so bad.
posted by koeselitz at 1:54 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


....she'd never be able to collect a dime of that money.

I was wondering about that, what are the rules for 'finding' winning tickets?
posted by dabitch at 2:02 PM on August 15, 2010


SPOILY SPOIL SPOIL:

Really, really great right up until the ending, which was a total stretch. I didn't believe the character's motivation for his last two acts at all, I just saw the writer's transparent motivation to have an EVERYBODY DIES! ending because MONEY HAS EATEN AMERICA'S SOUL!, and because OH CRAP I KIND OF PAINTED MYSELF INTO A CORNER WITH THIS RELENTLESS BLEAKNESS.
posted by regicide is good for you at 2:03 PM on August 15, 2010


I was wondering about that, what are the rules for 'finding' winning tickets?

The general rule is that the tickets are bearer instruments, in that the person presenting it for redemption is presumed to be the rightful owner. I suppose, that if a 'found' ticket were not contested by anyone, the finder could get away with keeping it.
posted by pjern at 2:17 PM on August 15, 2010


Dan Brown's branching out.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 2:17 PM on August 15, 2010


I suppose, that if a 'found' ticket were not contested by anyone, the finder could get away with keeping it.

In Louisiana, there is a very elaborate background check (lie detector, etc...) required to claim a ticket. In this particular scenario, there's no way that someone would be able to collect on winnings from a store where there was an elaborate shoot-out right after a ticket verification. Also, that blood-splattered ticket may be a problem.
posted by ColdChef at 2:23 PM on August 15, 2010


too much swearing
posted by dydecker at 3:06 PM on August 15, 2010


I also didn't care for it. About the only positive thing that I can say about it is that it was properly exposed. I hated the editing, acting, and dialogue and thought the plot ridiculously stupid. I don't have a problem with a plot that generates from this premise but rather with the way it was executed.

An example would be the laser shots that people are commenting they liked both here and on the original thread on vimeo. The filmmaker presented the perfect scenario NOT to use the laser scanner (regular customer, first name basis with clerk, patterned behavior (always buys ticket, checks number, etc)) but rather than make the decision to go with the branch that strengthens his/her story, s/he goes the other way because it looks cooler. So essentially an astute viewer will immediately stop believing the story as soon as this becomes a problem--that is, as soon as the man is confronted by the guy with the gun the thought is, "He can't cash the ticket" and everything after that is downhill.

This is the same problem I had with Inception (with the train coming through town), and mentioned in that thread, except in this case, the filmmaker is breaking a rule of the real world rather than a self-created one.

Obviously way too much analysis for a short this insignificant. Also, that's gotta be one of the worst-presented cops I've ever seen on film. I'm far from pro-cop, but one can't help but think the only reason he pulled that trigger (twice!) was because the filmmaker needed him to. When basic, practically non-speaking characters can't even operate from their own motivations, you have a problem.
posted by dobbs at 3:53 PM on August 15, 2010


Wait, what? Why did the black dude shoot the cop? Why he head out of the door with a gun in his hand? That part seemed really contrived.


This is the same problem I had with Inception (with the train coming through town)...

This is because you didn't understand the movie and kept nitpicking it to death.
posted by nomadicink at 4:00 PM on August 15, 2010


The write should have dropped the framing sequence and just concentrated on the people in the store. What would happen if suddenly there's an old guy who won $150 million right in front of you? What characters are going to rob him, which are going to defend them? How is the old guy going to react?

It would have been far more interesting if they came out of the back, after the cop had called in backup, but he didn't fire. How do they convince him to take the deal? What story could they possibly tell in the 2 minutes before every cop in the city descends upon them? Oh man, the tension from that setup would have been amazing.

Instead, we get laser beams and a impossible shoot out as a play on the "Would you push a button to kill someone if you could get a million dollars?" question. And man did it fizzle.
posted by nomadicink at 4:08 PM on August 15, 2010


Wait, what? Why did the black dude shoot the cop? Why he head out of the door with a gun in his hand?

The black dude shot the cop because the cop had just accidentally killed his partner and unborn child (after accidentally killing the old man, which kicked off the whole hostage scene in the first place). The black dude then committed suicide by cop because the other cops were going to figure out what he had done, and his partner was dead, so he didn't think he had much to look forward to. The symbol the movie is offering here is a choice between money in the robber's one hand, and revenge in the other.
posted by jhc at 5:21 PM on August 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Ok yeah, it really fell apart at the end.
posted by nomadicink at 5:35 PM on August 15, 2010


Hey did anybody notice Sean Nelson from Harvey Danger as the male EMT? No? Just me?
posted by chaff at 5:40 PM on August 15, 2010


jhc, thanks, I'm really surprised people didn't see that was what he was doing. His entire future was just shattered by cop-who-can't-aim. He could either take the winning lottery ticket and live the rest of his life a billionaire, or as he chose, get revenge and join his unborn child and lover in death.
posted by dabitch at 5:53 PM on August 15, 2010


He could either take the winning lottery ticket and live the rest of his life a billionaire, or as he chose, get revenge and join his unborn child and lover in death.

Forgive me, but that's such a badly constructed binary choice. I can understand him being upset, but really, he's just going to walk out and commit suicide? really? REALLY?! He shoots the cop, but not the robber who started it all?

It just doesn't make any sense and the more I think about it, the more I vehemently dislike that turn of events.
posted by nomadicink at 6:16 PM on August 15, 2010


I also didn't get past the handing the coffee cup through the window to the atheist. Embarrassingly awful.
posted by gum at 6:52 PM on August 15, 2010


Allow me to pimp my own lottery story. Quicktime required.
Winner
posted by CarlRossi at 7:59 PM on August 15, 2010


This is because you didn't understand the movie

That's rich coming from someone who couldn't follow a 15 minute linear narrative.

I'm really surprised people didn't see that was what he was doing.

Not people. One person. It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the scenario spoken about 5 minutes prior (crazy black dude robs a store and starts shooting) was what the cops would have surmised happened and that the character took his fate into his own hands as a result.
posted by dobbs at 8:18 PM on August 15, 2010


Holy shit, it's Shawn Hunter!

Unabashed Boy Meets World fan here. Also, Rider Strong is just a hell of a name.
posted by kmz at 11:58 PM on August 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I liked it. It's a short time waster. Sure there were some holes but who cares? I found it entertaining. If there's one thing you can count on MeFites for it's to criticize everything. Plus it had Rider Strong.
posted by IvoShandor at 2:11 AM on August 16, 2010


That's rich coming from someone who couldn't follow a 15 minute linear narrative.

Eh, not every person can follow every narrative, I'll cheerfully admit that. I still got Inception unlike some people, so :P

I was really liking the story up to the point where they came out of the back, was really hoping it would boil down to a question of what they'd do about the cop with all the other cops on the way. That final shootout seemed too crafted and the actions of the black guy are just, to me, so out of left field that it left me confused. It doesn't make sense logically or emotionally, feels like a trite solution. I think that's what bothering me the most, there's this great build up, but no catharsis.

I'm glad it worked for others, but it didn't work for me.
posted by nomadicink at 4:02 AM on August 16, 2010


I think Shakespeare and Quentin Tarantino fans would enjoy it though.

I'm a big fan of both Shakespeare and Tarantino, and this was total rubbish. William and Quentin write outlandish and improbable stories, the hyper-reality of which is designed to highlight the subtler manifestations of the same conflicts and themes in our actual lives. This was a convoluted and impossible story, and one in which the idea of the piece is plot-dependent! It was like watching a politician blatantly lie in order to stress a truly important issue. Is this a Paul Haggis short? Because Crash did the same thing... using embarrassing plot devices and impossible plot twists to discuss a very real and serious issue.

...but yes, mainly I'm just disappointed to see how terribly things turned out for the boy after he met the world.
posted by jrking at 9:33 AM on August 16, 2010


Also, any writer who asks the audience to watch a pregnant female character get shot in the belly, better damn well be ready to back that up with some seriously good writing, otherwise, as is the case here, it's just in poor taste.
posted by jrking at 9:41 AM on August 16, 2010


« Older "We pray to God that this will not happen to the J...  |  "Darwin Fest" videos of talks ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments