Luck

:

Season 1
  • Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Dec 11, 2011
Season #: 2, 1
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 29 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 29
  3. Negative: 0 out of 29
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: David Hinckley
    Jan 27, 2012
    60
    At this point, [it's] somewhere between a long shot and a lock.
  2. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Jan 27, 2012
    60
    The plot is as stubbornly slow-burning as Hoffman's sharply reined-in performance and ultimately far less inspired.
  3. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Jan 27, 2012
    60
    Luck is suffused with brilliant acting and amazing scenes, but in a few unfortunate ways, it remains impenetrable almost until its last hour.
  5. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Jan 23, 2012
    60
    Luck--for all its quirky exchanges and marquee performers--proves at best a photo finish as to whether it's worth the effort.
  6. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    Jan 27, 2012
    40
    This nine-episode series is maddeningly and needlessly opaque, and so deferential to the rites and rituals of the track that the storytelling is labored and even joyless.
  7. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: Emily Nussbaum
    Jan 17, 2012
    40
    When it comes to story, unfortunately, Luck is a drag.

Awards & Rankings

33
#33 Best TV Season of 2011
78
#78 Most Discussed TV Season of 2011
68
#68 Most Shared TV Season of 2011

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 37 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 37
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 37
  3. Negative: 6 out of 37
  1. JennetP
    Feb 8, 2012
    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 clearOkay, 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.… Full Review »
  2. Jacklpuzo
    Jan 29, 2012
    10
    I don't like horseracing. It's boring, in my opinion. I loved Luck. Brilliant cast, brilliant writing and cinematography. I saw the pilot aI don't like horseracing. It's boring, in my opinion. I loved Luck. Brilliant cast, brilliant writing and cinematography. I saw the pilot a while back so that's why I'm reviewing now. I definiely recommend it to everyone. People who like horseracing and to those who don't.… Full Review »
  3. jonh
    Jan 30, 2012
    10
    Quirky, understated, and original, like nothing else I've seen in a while. I'd watch it just for the gorgeous shots of the horses (and I amQuirky, understated, and original, like nothing else I've seen in a while. I'd watch it just for the gorgeous shots of the horses (and I am not a horse-racing fan at all). This drew me in, in a big way.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »