1. anothergene

   10

   The caliber of all the names involved with this show is amazing. Shows like this give me hope for tv in general as an entertainment medium. The cinematography was outstanding. The acting second to none. The story and depth of the characters is compelling leaves you wanting more. I could easily see this becoming my favorite show.… Collapse

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.
2. JennetP

   10

   Okay, here's what we can conclude from the reviews of "Luck." Critics are getting dumber. If a TV series doesn't make every little thing clear at first glance, they get mad and call it "impenetrable." Had they reviewed "Hamlet" in 1601, they would have complained about the "impenetrability" of the ghost. Critics also seem to believe that narrative momentum trumps all other dramatic qualities. If the plot doesn't flat-out gallop like a speed horse running wire to wire (sorry), then the show fails. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times writes that "Luck," like "Treme" (!) sacrifices excitement to "lofty intentions and a certain snobbery," by which she means the effort to create a rich and vibrant sense of place. If that's snobbery, then call me Thurston P. Howell III, because I enjoy the sense of being immersed in a new culture or subculture, and few shows do that well. As for users, we fall into two categories. Those literate enough to write reviews celebrate "Luck" and understand it much more deeply than the critics. Those who have strong opinions but don't express them in words are much less enthusiastic, putting "Luck" behind "Spartacus: Vengeance" in the user polls. I suspect that the critics and the numbers-only users are more alike than different and that, if Metacritic really wanted to offer viewers a useful index of quality, it would publish three numbers: the critics' average, the user-raters' average, and the user-reviewers' average. A long shot, I know. Anyway, "Luck" is superb, a smoldering masterpiece in which, like gamblers studying their environment for signs, viewers accept that their knowledge will always be partial because the underlying reality is mysterious and immense. That is why many of the characters are so circumspect, their acting so restrained, and it's a good--no, a great--thing. The opening credits tell viewers exactly what to expect and how to approach it, from the banked fire of Massive Attack's theme song to the subtle sequence of images: some partial, some barely focused, many deceptively simple. Pay attention. Be patient. Don't assume a fire is dead just because you don't see flame. Oh, and because everyone else is confessing, I DO love horse-racing and could handicap like a champ when I still had my baby fat. "Luck" doesn't get every detail of racing right, but it gets what matters, and it is one of a very few shows today that rise to the level of art.… Expand

   • Helpful? 3 of 5 users said Yes.
3. w_underwood

   8

   Too bad the show was cancelled due to to bad luck with three horses dying during production. Otherwise, I thought it was a realistic look into the the sport of horse racing and all the people involved.… Expand

   • Helpful? 0 of 0 users said Yes.
4. stormD23

   7

   I, for one, am not a horse racing enthusiast, but HBO's 'Luck' definitely makes me eager to learn more about it. Dustin Hoffman is great in mostly every role he has ever played in (Midnight Cowboy is one of my favorite movies), and his performance as Chester Bernstein is no exception. Nick Nolte and Dennis Farina are great, as well. David Milch is up to his old tricks with Luck (before John From Cincinnati). I'm not saying that Luck will fill the Deadwood void, but it sure as hell comes close.… Expand

   • Helpful? 2 of 3 users said Yes.

See all 10 User Reviews