Starring: Josh Hartnett, Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Sir Ben Kingsley, Lucy Liu
Cert: 18
Released: UK - 24th February 2006; US - 7th April 2006

Slevin (Hartnett) is your atypical 'wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.' Having turned up at his pal's deserted apartment after losing his job, catching his unfaithful girlfriend in 'the act' and getting mugged, he thinks maybe his luck is changing when feisty neighbour (Liu) takes an interest in him and his plight.

Then two rival mob bosses mistake him for his AWOL pal and demand the thousands of dollars that he (pal) owes them. One, The Boss (Freeman), offers him a get-out; if he carries out an act of vengeance by killing his rival's son the slate will be wiped. His rival, The Rabbi (Kingsley) just wants his money back or Slevin is dead.

Of course all of Slevin's toing and froing from the premises of the city's most notorious gangsters does not go unnoticed by the local constabulary (Stanley Tucci) but they can't identify him so take him aside to 'feel his collar'.

At the same time both bosses are holding court with a notorious hitman called Mr. Goodkat (Willis) making it obvious that something more sinister is afoot than a simple mistaken identity.

If Slevin's problems weren't bad enough he suffers from a severe case of 'wise mouth' which adds more injuries from every party he encounters to the compiling insults.

Does Slevin have the wit and charm to get him through all this or is every one of his actions the result of someone pulling his strings?

Every now and again there comes a film that is just, you know, too cool. Where each person - be they good or bad - is such a remarkably well defined character with their own nuances and eccentricities that they could justify their own film. Where the action is bloody and violent and the humour is so sardonic that it hits harder than the bullets. Every guy has a cool line to outdo the other and every girl is sexy and sassy.

There was Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty (NOT Be Cool), Sin City and now Lucky Number Slevin.

Naysayers might sneer at a film with Hartnett in the leading role but he's always shown he can, at least, deliver a line and the script is so laudable that even Steve Martin could have gotten a few laughs. His clean, pretty-boy image is perfect for Slevin's 'boy-next-door/fish-out-of-water' persona and his calmness, considering his deadly plight, is humorously breezed over as a medical condition.

The supporting cast, as already hinted at, is a smorgasbord of cinematic talent. Willis is his standard cool, calm and ruthless self; completely unchallenged but unhindered by his part. Freeman is as Freeman does; amiable and charismatic yet able to switch on the dangerous and threatening without any effort. His lines are delivered so dryly that the extreme ridiculousness of Slevin's situation is made so much funnier. Liu is, surprisingly, quite inoffensive as the cheerleader-esque neighbour. Positively bubbling with girlish enthusiasm is obviously more appealing than watching her performing dodgy martial arts.

The crowning glory of this film has to be Sir Kingsley playing Schlomo The Rabbi ('Why's he called The Rabbi?' 'Because he's a Rabbi.') This is such an odd little man with his Jewish wisdom and pacifism that conflicts with his violent mobster lifestyle. His performance is akin to his psychotic role in Sexy Beast; hilariously off-the-wall yet dazzlingly authentic.

If that wasn't enough then the sets and costumes are also noteworthy with Hartnett and Liu attired in some incredibly eclectic outfits of varying styles and patterns. Then as a backdrop to their odd costumes comes some horrendously busy décor in every interior room adding optical confusion to the steadily building plot conundrums.

But with all that said, I fear there is a downside that seriously knocked the enjoyment factor down a few pegs (but, hey, perhaps I read too much into these films, huh?). The plot is convoluted with so many sides trying to play off the other; who's crossing who? Double-crossing, triple-cross-bluffing or making it up as they go along?

Then comes the reveal and, in my opinion, the let down. Yes, the filmakers are very clever to set up this premise and tie it all together so neatly and you get shown what is going on. Then again. And again. For every time a protagonists elucidates to their victim we are given a filler scene to show exactly what happened. Then again. And again. So no longer is it a case of me sitting there thinking, 'Oh, aren't these people clever,' but rather the filmakers themselves saying, 'Look! Aren't we clever. And don't we think you are so stupid that we have to spell it all out to you over and over again!'

Ultimately, it could have been twenty minutes shorter and a lot tighter but is still a wise-cracking, gun-toting fun fest.