The story:
Slevin Kelevra, a hapless guy visiting his buddy Nick in New York. But Nick has disappeared, leading to a wild rollercoaster ride of mistaken identities during which two henchmen grab Slevin (he's in Nick's flat, so he must be Nick too) and take him to their boss (Morgan Freeman), the head thug. The boss doesn't care that Slevin claims he's not the real deal - he just wants the $96000 Nick owes him back. One of several offers Slevin can't refuse is to kill the son of the boss's nasty nemesis (Ben Kingsley) or take a bullet himself. And a strange super killer (Bruce Willis) keeps turning up....
Conclusion: Again, I can't quite share the general euphoria. Not quite, the film itself is really a good trill, I have to acknowledge that, but with a few limitations.
First of all, the casting of Josh Hartnett, at the time I just couldn't take him seriously as an actor in such a role. Yes, I know, everyone can develop further or break out of their pattern. Hence subjective point, but one that somewhat disturbed my viewing throughout. (in this sense: Harry Potter will always be Harry Potter!) Furthermore, the story, in all its higgledy-piggledy, seemed a bit too forced to me in places. It seems as if they tried too hard to make similar "intelligent" trills, see e.g. Some Tarantinos, "Snatch" or "The Usual Suspects".
Positive for the film, as to be expected, the noble countenance of Lucy Liu at her peak and of course Bruce Willis, with his then (still) golden touch for choosing films, because he somehow doesn't play(E) in (almost) any bad ones.
All in all, the film was celebrated, and in retrospect it still is to some extent, but has it really withstood the test of time, does it (also) deserve the title "cult film" in comparison to similar genre representatives? I think not...
Conclusion: Again, I can't quite share the general euphoria. Not quite, the film itself is really a good trill, I have to acknowledge that, but with a few limitations.
First of all, the casting of Josh Hartnett, at the time I just couldn't take him seriously as an actor in such a role. Yes, I know, everyone can develop further or break out of their pattern. Hence subjective point, but one that somewhat disturbed my viewing throughout. (in this sense: Harry Potter will always be Harry Potter!) Furthermore, the story, in all its higgledy-piggledy, seemed a bit too forced to me in places. It seems as if they tried too hard to make similar "intelligent" trills, see e.g. Some Tarantinos, "Snatch" or "The Usual Suspects".
Positive for the film, as to be expected, the noble countenance of Lucy Liu at her peak and of course Bruce Willis, with his then (still) golden touch for choosing films, because he somehow doesn't play(E) in (almost) any bad ones.
All in all, the film was celebrated, and in retrospect it still is to some extent, but has it really withstood the test of time, does it (also) deserve the title "cult film" in comparison to similar genre representatives? I think not...