Poker Face

I really don't get the people who did not enjoy the film. Nobody claims that it is a masterpiece. Not even that it is remarkable in any way. Nevertheless,the cast and the plot make it entertaining at least. I think,though I am far from sure the the idea belongs to him, Matthew Arnold once said that any art to be enjoyed begs for suspension of disbelief. Suspend,therefore, any disbelief and go and enjoy a non-demanding,well acted,adequately directed film without compulsively seeking compulsively more where there is not any. Or,alternatively,don't even bother attending the movie. Easily a 6-7 grading. I have seen quite a lot far worse!!!!

Sorry, Mr. Crowe.. writing & directing do not seem like your forte. Poker Face has so little to do with poker.. or friendship, or betrayals, or anything meaninful for that matter. It's just a blandly written, blandly performed, blandly directed film with no takeaways. For a film branded as an action-crime-thriller, it does no favors to any of the genres. Why was Liam Hemsworth (32) cast as Crowe's (58) childhood friend? Every character is painted in broad strokes, not giving us any particular reasons to care - I simply couldn't buy into Crowe's "virtuous, wealthy guy" character at all (a tad too indulgent?). The action itself is surprisingly ordinary, even when a subplot regarding a heist slowly develops.

I think this movie is being absolutely torn to shreds where it probably doesn't deserve that much backlash.

Is it amazing? No. But I didn't finish watching it with a sour taste in my mouth. It was alright.

The Australian shots are spectacular in some scenes, I particularly enjoyed the architecture and homes/apartments that were showcased. Russell Crowe's acting was good, I thought he fit the character well enough and the last 30-60 minutes where the action occurred was actually pretty good.

All of the other characters did have problems being understood and became irrelevant. I was excited to see Liam Hemsworth but became really confused why he was cast as a guy in his late 50s? It just didn't make sense at all. Also the first half of the movie is pretty slow and doesn't really go anywhere.

Overall it's okay to watch.

A disjointed film that one can assume was written by aspiring film graduate mates in a pub. The plot holes are as bad as the consistency. A soap opera drama attempt at a thriller (most of which should have been crossed out, rewritten, and edited out). If it was not for the main actor Russell Crowe and a selection of quality Australian actors, this movie would have been a complete disaster. Made worse by poor research into topics such as professional gambling, self-healing retreats, and fine art. To begin with, the Archibald is for a subject of Science, Arts, Letters and Politics. Why paint a gambler? And some of the things said about certain works was so off the mark , I did a wtf and burst out laughing. There was so many pub-written subplots in this movie that went completely nowhere. This movie would have been so much better if someone tutored the script and simplified to a basic panic room thriller without the mess. Russel Crowe and other actors save this movie with quailty acting otherwise it would have been rated as low as 2/10.

Russell Crowe plays a billionaire who has to confront his own mortality, so he does it in a very billionaire-ish manner. Only problem is his plans are interrupted by art thieves...

It's well filmed and almost worth watching for the scenery and camera work alone. The real issue with Poker Face is that it wants to be too many things and doesn't succeed in any special way at any of them. It's not much of a drama about life and mortality, though it is a little bit; it's not much of a thriller though there's some crime and betrayal; Action? Forget it (though it does try to tease at it with fast cars and a few guns).

It's basically a boyhood to adult buddy film with lots of cash thrown at it. It's okay, you probably won't feel bad for watching it, but you won't be telling many people about it either.