Bookies

Bookies was a good movie. It had a fast pace that didn't leave you behind and didn't tread. It had some good acting, especially by Johnny Galecki. It had an engaging plot and interesting enough characters. However, the characters were left feeling rigid and inaccessible and at times the movie coasted without enlightening.

Bookies was an intriguing movie from the common format of a Blow type movie. Watching a young group of three guys set up a sports betting ring, listening to their clever intricacies, then watching it fall apart. Even cocaine makes an appearance in this movie. What I thought was very interesting was some of the piece shots and how some audio montage clips were assembled very well. As i stated the acting was good, but Johnny Galecki made it that way. He outperformed everyone. Without him the acting was a bit stiff.

There were some problems with this movie. I enjoy a movie that spends the time to establish the plot then moves through it briskly. But at times this movie jets from one situation to another without explaining how certain events happened. Given the fast plot, this created some confusion. Also I don't think Bookies did anything to distinguish itself. But, it is a type of movie that there are so few of, that I don't care too much.

I would recommend this movie to anyone. It's not going to wow you, but it is worth the watch.

This is what every school going teenager dreams of. i always thought the Netherlands where missing out on a lot. we don't have school campuses here in the Netherlands, i love the idea of living on one over these. Doesn't matter if you see it in the movies or hear from people who studied in the us, the stories always sound amazing. This is one of the amazing examples what teenagers whit an idea and enough balls can accomplish. to bad they had to give it up. and "Rachael Leigh Cook"...what a FOXX!!!!

My Final conclusion; It's a easy to watch, entertaining & exciting story. well played by the actors. Love to see a part 2 on this movie.

Bookies sometimes feels like a tv-movie but that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. It's just not a high budget movie, again nothing wrong with that, but it made it look like it was ready to be aired on television and nothing else. The story isn't bad though, it's easy to watch and the acting was decent. Johnny Galecki finally plays in something else than that dumb show The Big Bang Theory (never got what all the fuss was about with that show), and he did okay. I wouldn't categorize this movie in the comedy genre though. Comedy is supposed to make you laugh and this was clearly not the case in Bookies. It's just easy entertainment, an easy to follow story with an interesting subject of gamblers and bookies.

Johnny Galecki is great in Bookies. His performance is nothing less then stellar. I've seen him before in other things, but always dismissed him as character actor. He shines in Bookies. If this movie had a higher budget, his performance would have garnered him an award. Galecki plays Jude, which is the most developed character in the movie. Also the character I hated. That's probably why I noticed Galecki's excellent performance.

Rachel Lee Cook sadly has the weakest character. Her acting wasn't weak, her character was. Without giving anything away, there is a scene where Stahl tells her he has given up, then she lectures him that he should give up, I'm sorry, didn't he just say he did give up??

The plot gets weak toward the end. You'll need to lend some creative license, but not so much that it enters the "Oh Come ON!" stage.

Good movie, worth the rental, or even purchase it in the bargain bin.

This past Tuesday, While taking in the whole "Sundance experience," I got up early to see Mark Illsley's "Bookies." I was very disappointed, and would have been well served to sleep in. I recall the buzz that surrounded Illsley a few years ago (Happy Texas), and was very curious as to how he would follow up that... project. I should have left it at curiosity.

I'm not sure where exactly to begin, and I'm not going to do a point by point analysis here. My overarching feeling is that I dont' understand why this film was made. It just seems so pointless. I won't blast the acting, because a few performances were ok, and frankly, an actor can only work with what a script writer provides. The script was extremely weak and the film uncreative and obvious. Oooh - another mob related plotline! How original! I don't see how this film will find an audience, let alone be profitable. I don't even see this as a straight to video release.

My chief disappointment lies in the fact that the subject matter is very compelling. A fantastic film could be made on this subject matter. With the Superbowl right around the corner, I am reminded of how many Americans gamble - of how much money is at stake throughout an NFL season. Sure, some of that money is wagered legally in Vegas, but the lion's share of dollars at stake in "middle America" is certainly not bet through Vegas or even an offshore casino. There are people out there somewhere taking action and living a lifestyle I am curious about. Illsley's characters are not these people. And don't tell me about how the mob is out there to take back its turf. My twelve year old son could have done better(that's actually not as bad as it sounds - he is a very talented writer for a twelve year old).

Although I think this film is weak on its own merits, my chief criticism of the film is relative to the huge potential that is left on the table. I would be surprised to see this film obtain a distribution deal, particularly with the other quality films out there currently seeking such arrangements. Sorry - I hate to post negative thoughts, but this had to be said. Nothing is sadder to me than unrealized greatness.