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.

I really tried to like this film; I wanted it to be a success. But some weak characters kept the film from rising above a kid fantasy movie. It had little relation to real-life college gambling or real-life bookies (both of which I unfortunately became far too familiar with while living in Union CIty in the early 1970s. Galecki was a bit over the top, and one rooted for him to get shot. Stahl, on the other, was a sympathetic character, who was the voice of reason, while Luke Haas was pretty much just a third wheel in the film. The character of Hunter was also underdeveloped and suffered from poor dialog as the romantic interest. David Proval was pretty good as the older bookie, but his partner and strong-arm, Vincent, played by the competent John Diehl, was highly unrealistic as a bookie's arm. Most bookies I knew were loners, who operated on their own without strong-arms. So that device did not work well.

The story line was interesting, but once again, depending on the school (I went to Columbia U, which had no shortage of rich and powerful students with money), the volume of sports betting was just not that heavy. Most bets were between $10-$50, and the idea of a player throwing a game has been done a few times before; most notably in The Gambler, with James Caan. Occasionally, a good business student would go off the deep end and start betting $100s of dollars, but not thousands, and certainly not the amounts mentioned in this film. I would say the film was a good try, but no cigar. Because of the realism factor.

Just watched this movie for the first time today... This film had a good mix of funny moments and tense moments. Nick Stahl and Johnny Galecki stand out the most, I didn't really follow the whole betting bookie thing cause I'm not into that stuff. This is still a fun film to watch...the back of the box literally says "A COOL FILM" And it is!

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.

watched this the other day on IFC, pretty interesting movie about college guys trying to make a buck. they set up a bare bones bookmaking system with an illicit way of picking up and dropping off money. as they make more money , they upgrade to computers and the like,, only problem is the mob soon finds out what the young men are up to,, then it starts to get very interesting. not a bad little movie, especially for an independent,, it's a study in bookmaking old school i guess you would say.. everything from writing bets down on a marker board to a massive computer system,, i particularly like the express drop off and pick up at the local library,, taking envelopes full of cash and stuffing them into books that have never ever been checked out,, very sneaky but brilliant also.