Les Joueurs

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 about a straight-flying legal student (Matt Damon) who leaves behind his gambling habits to satisfy his moralistic girlfriend. However when his best friend "Worm" (Edward Norton) is released from jail, the two embark on a cards-journey that leads them from success to misfortune after Worm is caught cheating and the man who caught him (John Malkovich) wants his money back.

Whereas Ben Affleck continues to go downhill after "Good Will Hunting," Matt Damon has striven uphill, taking on daring productions such as "The Talented Mr. Ripley," "The Bourne Identity" series, and of course "Rounders," which features one of his best performances. Damon has become typecast as some sort of bad actor in the league of Affleck, but he's much better than his pal, and films like this prove it.

Norton is once again superb as one of his characters you love to hate. He's got the character of Worm down pat, and it really elevates the acting (along with Damon) to a level of greatness.

The film is directed and written very well, offering realistic dialog and gritty environments. However the flaws of the movie are its long running time (two hours exactly), which could have been shortened, and probably the fact that its card playing is sometimes a bit alienating to the audience.

That said, this is still a very underrated movie featuring outstanding performances and a unique spin on gambling flicks. Worth watching at least once in a lifetime.

Have to first mention the great performances by Matt Damon, Edward Norton, John Malkovich, and Martin Landeau. Good story, although Worm was one the biggest jerks I've seen interpreted on film lately. Really liked the narration of what's going on during high stakes poker matches. Talked to poker playing people who thought the game was represented well. The one-on-ones between Damon and Malkovich were terrific.

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 ****)