I happened to be one of the few, very fortunate people to see this at a recent screening during the "first annual" NYC (Independent) Horror Film Festival, and let me tell you, it was a real treat! It was far and away the favourite-of-show (winning Best in Show by the judging panel, and - ballot tabulation not having been posted, I can only guess, but probably - audience favourite as well). Pray that some distributor has the good sense to overlook its idiosyncratic, non-mainstream nature and recognise it as must-see cinema. This is one hard film to describe without ruining surprises or giving away too much. The writer, Stephen Sustarsic, has done a great job of summarising it without including spoilers, so I will try to give you a feel for the movie instead of a synopsis. In Hollywood Speak, it would be The Secret Life of Walter Mitty meets Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, with dashes of Amelie and Twin Falls, Idaho (and possibly Crumb) thrown in for flavour. But it is definitely much more than the sum of its filmic predecessor parts. First and foremost, it has a loopy, loony, don't-take-me-too-seriously quality, augmented by the music (one almost expects an accordion from some French cafe to be playing in the background, as in Delicatessen or Amelie, but it's a bit more restrained than that), which absolutely belies the seriousness of what's actually taking place. But it is this deludedly, deceptively droll approach which helps take the audience by the hand and lead them willingly along to the abhorrent shocks that await.<br /><br />It also has similarities with films like Eraserhead - NOT the dreadfully slow pacing, but the way in which it takes an absolutely pedestrian look at a life filled with increasingly bizarre occurrences. Again, it is this dichotomy of style and substance - the absurdist, banal storytelling method used to describe horrific atrocities - which helps the audience accept and even welcome each new level of insanity that develops as the film progresses. This dichotomy is even further augmented by the casting. You have all seen the lead, Michael Emanuel; he is perhaps most recognisable as the guy who "lowered his cholesterol" in those ubiquitous TV commercials (and was also the husband in the McDonald's commercial in which the son gets the mother and father to believe each wants to take the other out to dinner by way of apology). He is the absolute, quintessential Everyman, the down-on-his-luck, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly kind of guy you wouldn't look twice at on the street. He is so normal, and so much the secret us, the part of us that "knows" we're doomed to failure and mediocrity, that you can't help rooting for him when he begins to succeed, no matter what the cost. And it is our belief in and acceptance of him as our own most prosaic self that helps us exonerate his actions and empathise with his plight.<br /><br />This isn't exactly entirely new territory, nor is it mind-bendingly innovative or inventive. Certainly there have been dozens of other films to explore ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, as well as the nature of sanity, the dual-edged sword of creativity, and the ways in which perception is more real than "reality." There are even numerous directors who have taken similar approaches to the story telling found in Lucky - Jean-Pierre Jeunot, the Cohen brothers, and Woody Allen (in their darkest periods) all come to mind. But this is good company to be in. And it has a smallness, a personability and charm to it, that makes you feel as if you've discovered the movie yourself, and want rush out and tell your friends, as I am trying to do here. So if you like absurdist serio-comedy with a sting to it, please, please, please be on the lookout for this movie, see it, and support it the best you can. You won't be disappointed!