The Winner

Rebecca De Mornay - yes! Vincent D'Onofrio - yes! Delroy Lindo - yes! Michael Madsen - yes! What more could you want in a movie.

Put them in Vegas and give us a story about robbery, and you got me. yes, you got me - with a movie that just didn't seem to go anywhere. It just jumped all over the place and had no consistent theme.

Wendy Riss is just not a scriptwriter, yet. Work some more and get it right.

I expected much more from director Alex Cox, especially after the job he did with Rosario Tijeras. I was so disappointed.

Not a winner!

Thought quite possibly this film would be entertaining due to the fact that it was dealing with Las Vegas. After viewing a few scenes, I was completely disappointed in the story. However, the poor actors all did a great job despite their horrible scrips and story line. Rebecca DeMornay,(Louise) played a gal who has been around the block quite a few times and decides to get her eyes and claws into a certain guy who bets only on Sunday's at a casino and always wins. As soon as the guy wins large amounts of money, like $150,000. he gives all the money away and keeps about Five Thousand dollars so he can play next Sunday. Saverio Guerra,"Becker" TV Series '98-03(as Bob) makes a few brief appearances and acts just the same way he did in Becker. This is a big waste of time and not worth waisting your time.

Alex Cox will always be remembered for the astonishing one-two punch of 'Repo Man' and 'Sid and Nancy', yet his finest achievement was the daring, career-destroying 'Walker'. As if being exiled from the studio system wasn't enough, Cox then made the diabolically awful 'Straight To Hell' to seemingly bury any credibility he may have had left. 'The Winner' represents yet another oddity from Cox's years in the indie wilderness, but perhaps has the highest curio factor due to its eyebrow-raising ensemble cast. Yet what makes 'The Winner', ultimately, a loser, is in all fairness not attributed to Cox but rather its unimpressive, derivative, post-Tarantino screenplay (allegedly adapted from a play, presumably off-off-off-off Broadway). Cox and the cast struggle with its uneven tone and, despite Frank Whaley scoring in a hilariously slimy role, the unfunny nature of the script is barely able to justify the film's incessant stylistic zaniness. While it does work in small doses (an effective opening and a memorably odd ending), it simply isn't enjoyable enough to even warrant minor cult status. That said, it is at least a slight cut above the other interminable 'Pulp Fiction' clones that plagued the mid-to-late nineties. But what sort of endorsement is that?

Yes, I agree with people here; this is a "coulda, woulda, shoulda" film. It could have been better and should have been.....but it's horrible, an absolute stinker.

I liked the premise but the story turned out stupid. The comedy was lame and the characters - all of them - were so sleazy and unlikable, how could you like the film?

After watching three years of Vincent D'Onofrio play the soft-spoken, super-intelligent "Det. Robert Goren: on Law and Order: Criminal Intent, I am amazed to look back at this film resume. Prior to that, he played almost nothing but despicable, demented characters. The rest of the cast in here wasn't shocking, either, as they have done similar work. They all can act, though. I'm speaking of fairly big "name" actors in this film: D'Onofrio, Rebecca De Mornay, Billy Bob Thornton, Michael Madsen and Delroy Lindro.

But, it's hard to overcome a very bad script and lame one-liners that were supposed to be funny. Now I am more familiar with these actors than I was a dozen years ago, this might be better or at least interesting. Yet, I can't help but think a script that features nothing but unlikeable and sleazy characters is usually going to fall short

It's too bad, because I like stories centered in Las Vegas and gambling and this cast certainly is interesting.....but the story was anything but that. Maybe it's the director: his hits, "Sid And Nancy" and "Repo Man" also were way too sordid for me.

Could of been a great movie, would have a been a great movie, but it wasn't. Bad camera shots, made it look like a drunk guys point of view. Paper-thin script, the plot was good, but it looks like someone was in a hurry when making this, so instead we get bad one-liners, and some ideas that don't make any sense. Really bad acting. This had some real uninspired, that reminded me of puppets. I can't say everyone was bad in it though, Vincent whatever his last name is, who played Philip I think, looked really vulnerable, and brought some realism to the movie, and Frank Whaley who played Joey, the only person who was symphaphetic of Philip, was pretty cool, what a quack! Though I don't believe he was gay, I think he was schizophrenic.

But all in all, I would suggest to stay away from this movie, unless your into really weird stuff, or some of the actors/actresses.