Poker Face

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.

It's okay, but took way too long to get going.

This film is just okay, nothing spectacular and it's very low-key. The acting performances are good enough.

Briefly outlining the plot, it's about a man with cancer who gives money to his friends and family and his house gets invaded and people want to steal his art.

There's not much to the plot at all, this 90 minute film could easily be condensed into 20 minutes and not much of the plot would've been lost at all.

The first 30 minutes are a chore to get through, far too slow to show far too little. Additionally, that first third of the film is very very exposition heavy.

Hemsworth is hardly even in the film so if you're watching for him, then I've got bad news.

Overall, just an okay film.

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!!!!

I found this film to be a mixed bag of good and bad.

The first 20 minutes it tries to be way too clever and some of it is just nonsense. Some of the flashbacks and plots just don't come out later in the film.

Once they get the cars from the garage, it starts to get a lot better. The story really starts to unfold and the game begins.

The ending was good, it wraps it up nicely and the added bonus is that it was only on for 90 minutes! So many films drag on for hours, that it was refreshing to watch one in 90 minutes!

The sets used are awesome, as are the cars. There's clearly been a good budget for the production.

All in all, it was definitely worth watching and nowhere near as bad as some of these reviews are making out.

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.