Apuesta final

Rounders is I believe, one of the most widely underrated movies of our time.

I first saw this movie as it was a 'bonus DVD' thrown in for free with my DVD player back in 2000, so naturally I didn't expect much (as the other bonus DVD's were very mediocre), but what I found was a very enjoyable movie.

At that stage in my life, I had only played a little poker as a child growing up, and never 'Texas Hold'em' so to be honest, a lot of the terminology went 'over my head', but even so, the film became an instant favorite of mine purely because of the performances.

The film has so much star power, and yet none of the fine actors try to 'steal' scenes. Damon, Norton, Malkovich, Landau ... and then the fine supporting cast of Turturro, Jansen, and Mol.

In fact, there is a scene with Martin Landau and Matt Damon that is perhaps one of the most beautiful performances I have seen in a long time between two very fine actors.

So even if you're not a poker player, the story is tighter than a lot of Hollywood 'pop fluff' and the performances alone can sell the film as an enjoyable movie capable of multiple viewings.

But ... if you start playing poker and get really into what they are talking about, and reading about poker theory (like Doyle Brunson's book Super System) then the movie moves up to a whole different level.

A lot of the time, Hollywood will attempt to cover a specialized error, and usually fail, or at best only partially succeed, whereas Rounders managed to get everything 'spot on', just look at the US DVD, it has a commentary track from 4 World Champion Poker players, if that's not a stamp of approval then I don't know what is.

When you factor in how the film can be enjoyed by someone who has little to no idea about Poker (as I did when I first saw the film) just because of the tight story and stellar performances and also be 'immortalized' by poker enthusiasts as the best movie ever made on the subject (and truth be told, a big reason why the World Series of Poker has been doubling it's entries year after year) ... what you have here is a true gem that works on so many levels and what I believe is, as I said initially, one of the most widely underrated movies of our time.

Mike is a law student who is also a skilled poker player. However when he loses everything to Russian player KGB he promises his girlfriend that he'll quit playing. However a year later Mike's friend Worm comes out of prison and immediately entices Mike into an easy game. Worm still has outstanding debts and Mike is drawn back into this world in order to help him win enough to pay them off.

I taped this off TV with no real hope for it. I knew it hadn't done well at the cinema and that it wasn't exactly a well known film – so I assumed it must be pretty poor. However I was sold on it by the end and, although it's not brillant, it's good enough to watch at least once. The plot is pretty simple but the characters make it watchable and the poker action is good. How many of us long to be Mike – to be able to read a table like that etc? The poker scenes may not all have excitement (you know who'll win) but they are interesting to watch.

Damon caused me pause to doubt when he first came on the screen. I just saw him in `Bourne Identity' and here he looks very young compared to that. However once I got past his baby face I accepted him although someone else might have been better. Norton is great as always and very watchable. Good support comes from an understated Turturro, Janssen, Landau and a slightly hammy Malkovich. However they all do well given that they all drive the thin plot and make the film watchable.

Overall it's not a great piece of work but it does have some really good performances and it works well as a drama with knobs on. I wouldn't buy it but I'll watch it again if I see it on TV.

Rounders (1998)

A charming idea, almost romanticized: if you are young, clever, good looking, and savvy at playing poker you can be ultra cool and maybe even wealthy. That makes for a pretty good movie, if not a very accurate reality. It isn't quite enough to keep two hours going, however, and so the big picture here is to enjoy what it has.

A quick comparison might be made to "The Hustler" and related pool shark movies. And like that classic, "Rounders" is about charming deceit. Matt Damon is the main man here, an ex-poker champ who has "gone straight" until his former partner in crime, Ed Norton, gets out of jail and ropes him back into the thrills and malevolence. Like the pool movies, and like the glitzier and more ambitious "Oceans" movies, personalities matter most. The setting, the glint of money, and most of all the plots matter less than you'd think.

So everything is pretty good along those lines, partly because Damon is fun to be with and Norton is simply terrific. An embarrassing appearance in the beginning and end of the movie by an overacting John Malkovich gets in the way of Damon's performance, however. And the general attempt at creating a bunch of bad guys behind the scenes is filled with thin clichés and mediocre acting.

This is the result of having to make more of the story that was ever there. The main idea--that the two leads get into money trouble and have to earn a ton of cash in a few days of wild poker games--is eventually actually a bit of a bore. The gamesmanship is always interesting, of course, but the impetus behind it grows old. The addition of Martin Landau as a Jewish lawyer who gives Damon a mitzvah as a kind of honor paid to continue a favor once given him is a touching part of the larger plot, making you wish there was more of this somehow, more of something genuine and a bit different.

It might not have helped that I recently saw "Croupier" with a young Clive Owen as a poker dealer, because that movie, whatever its simplicity and other limitations, actually made the poker scenes more real for me. In fact, one problem with "Rounders" is you never get to actually sense the betting itself, and the cards--the playing and the strategies of playing--are glossed over with some tossing of chips and flipping of cards, all in a vague muddle.

I did enjoy watching overall, but it left me a little disappointed and restless.

Rounders is a story of a pair of prep school buddies, Matt Damon and Edward Norton, who are a pair of poker sharks. Damon's used his winnings to pay for law school and Norton's gone on to other enterprises like identity theft which has landed him a stretch in prison.

Damon after being taken to the cleaners by Russian mob guy John Malkovich has given up poker for law school. Norton's finishing his stretch in the joint and as it turns out he owes Malkovich some heavy duty debt. He's needing some help, especially after leg breaker Michael Rispoli gives Norton a sample of what he can expect.

Damon owes Norton as well for not ratting him out on some prep school scam that could have gotten him expelled like Norton. Needless to say he goes back into the life.

I'm willing to wager (no pun intended) that because Rounders came out right after Good Will Hunting that this was a project intended for Damon and Ben Affleck. I think Ben probably showed good sense in thinking he was not quite right for the role. Certainly Norton who plays some really edgy characters was far better for the role of Lester 'Worm' Murphy.

Damon does all right for himself as the standup Mike McDermott. He also because he discharges the debt he owes Norton, realizes that he should follow his dream as well. What it is and how the film ends I won't say, but if you have a dream you have to follow it because you won't know if you don't try.

In addition to everything else Rounders is quite a look into the world of professional gambling. As Damon says even if you play it honest, it's far more skill than luck. You read the opponent, not the cards.

Rounders was a great career followup to the acclaimed Good Will Hunting for Matt Damon. Even if you're not a gambler by nature, this film will fascinate one.

This film was unjustly panned as lethargic and bleak without a purpose. Considering how Hold 'Em has developed into one of the biggest social fads in the last decade, I would say that this film captures every emotional aspect the 'swings' of No Limit typically carry.

I had absolutely no idea how to play the game when I first saw this movie about five years ago. The dialogue is wrought with jargon that almost makes a mockery of itself. Especially since much of the movie is done with voice-over, I can see where critics are coming from. However, the viewer should not allow themselves to get bogged down with it all, we get the gist with well-developed staging and performances.

Damon and Norton play off each other better than Damon and Affleck. Though the story echoes in the wake of Scorsese's 'Mean Streets', the performances seem more detailed than the Keitel/DeNiro combo. The supporting roles add great depth to the film, and Tutorro shines as the wise-old has-been that successfully provides Damon's character with the cold-hard truth he never seems to adhere to (until it is too late).

Above all, we feel compelled to cheer for Damon's Mike McDermott the ENTIRE time. He acknowledges his 'bad' play but constantly tries to explain that this is a game of skill and not luck. This is an important element considering the widely accepted belief that any success in gambling is the result of luck. This may be true in the bloodsucking casinos, but in Hold 'Em you play the chips AND the man.

Now that baseball is out of the Olympics, perhaps we will see a push for a true "WORLD Series of Poker". Then again, I also wanted to see 'Four Square' made into an official event when I was 8, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass...

Should be commended as a precursor to a pandemic fad that is costing teens (and their parents) millions daily.

*** (of ****)