अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA law student and his pal gamble for high stakes.A law student and his pal gamble for high stakes.A law student and his pal gamble for high stakes.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 1 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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 ****)
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 ****)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Rounders is I believe, one of the most widely underrated movies of our time.
I first saw this movie as it was a 'bonus DVD' thrown in for free with my DVD player back in 2000, so naturally I didn't expect much (as the other bonus DVD's were very mediocre), but what I found was a very enjoyable movie.
At that stage in my life, I had only played a little poker as a child growing up, and never 'Texas Hold'em' so to be honest, a lot of the terminology went 'over my head', but even so, the film became an instant favorite of mine purely because of the performances.
The film has so much star power, and yet none of the fine actors try to 'steal' scenes. Damon, Norton, Malkovich, Landau ... and then the fine supporting cast of Turturro, Jansen, and Mol.
In fact, there is a scene with Martin Landau and Matt Damon that is perhaps one of the most beautiful performances I have seen in a long time between two very fine actors.
So even if you're not a poker player, the story is tighter than a lot of Hollywood 'pop fluff' and the performances alone can sell the film as an enjoyable movie capable of multiple viewings.
But ... if you start playing poker and get really into what they are talking about, and reading about poker theory (like Doyle Brunson's book Super System) then the movie moves up to a whole different level.
A lot of the time, Hollywood will attempt to cover a specialized error, and usually fail, or at best only partially succeed, whereas Rounders managed to get everything 'spot on', just look at the US DVD, it has a commentary track from 4 World Champion Poker players, if that's not a stamp of approval then I don't know what is.
When you factor in how the film can be enjoyed by someone who has little to no idea about Poker (as I did when I first saw the film) just because of the tight story and stellar performances and also be 'immortalized' by poker enthusiasts as the best movie ever made on the subject (and truth be told, a big reason why the World Series of Poker has been doubling it's entries year after year) ... what you have here is a true gem that works on so many levels and what I believe is, as I said initially, one of the most widely underrated movies of our time.
I first saw this movie as it was a 'bonus DVD' thrown in for free with my DVD player back in 2000, so naturally I didn't expect much (as the other bonus DVD's were very mediocre), but what I found was a very enjoyable movie.
At that stage in my life, I had only played a little poker as a child growing up, and never 'Texas Hold'em' so to be honest, a lot of the terminology went 'over my head', but even so, the film became an instant favorite of mine purely because of the performances.
The film has so much star power, and yet none of the fine actors try to 'steal' scenes. Damon, Norton, Malkovich, Landau ... and then the fine supporting cast of Turturro, Jansen, and Mol.
In fact, there is a scene with Martin Landau and Matt Damon that is perhaps one of the most beautiful performances I have seen in a long time between two very fine actors.
So even if you're not a poker player, the story is tighter than a lot of Hollywood 'pop fluff' and the performances alone can sell the film as an enjoyable movie capable of multiple viewings.
But ... if you start playing poker and get really into what they are talking about, and reading about poker theory (like Doyle Brunson's book Super System) then the movie moves up to a whole different level.
A lot of the time, Hollywood will attempt to cover a specialized error, and usually fail, or at best only partially succeed, whereas Rounders managed to get everything 'spot on', just look at the US DVD, it has a commentary track from 4 World Champion Poker players, if that's not a stamp of approval then I don't know what is.
When you factor in how the film can be enjoyed by someone who has little to no idea about Poker (as I did when I first saw the film) just because of the tight story and stellar performances and also be 'immortalized' by poker enthusiasts as the best movie ever made on the subject (and truth be told, a big reason why the World Series of Poker has been doubling it's entries year after year) ... what you have here is a true gem that works on so many levels and what I believe is, as I said initially, one of the most widely underrated movies of our time.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाMatt Damon and Edward Norton played the $10,000 buy-in Texas Hold 'Em (No Limit) championship event at the 1998 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. During the first of four days, Matt Damon had pocket Kings and was knocked out by former world champion and poker legend Doyle Brunson who held pocket Aces.
- गूफ़Mike goes to a check cashing place with a personal check for $10,000 from his professor. Check cashing businesses never cash personal checks on the same day; they require a 3-5 day waiting period so the check can clear. And even if it was a payroll check, the business would have taken a percentage to cash it, so Mike would not have had the full $10,000 to bring to the game. The filmmakers have stated (in interview with ESPN.com's Bill Simmons) that the cash checking location is run by a friend of his professor's, but the scene was cut to bring the film's running time down.
- भाव
Mike McDermott: [Narrating while entering Teddy KGB's underground gambling parlor] In "Confessions of a Winning Poker Player," Jack King said, "Few players recall big pots they have won, strange as it seems, but every player can remember with remarkable accuracy the outstanding tough beats of his career." It seems true to me, cause walking in here, I can hardly remember how I built my bankroll, but I can't stop thinking of how I lost it.
- साउंडट्रैकBaby, I'm A Big Star Now
Written by Adam Duritz (as Adam F. Duritz)
Performed by Counting Crows
Courtesy of Geffen Records, Inc.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Apuesta final
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- 15 Washington Street, न्यूआर्क, न्यू जर्सी, संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका("City Law School" scenes)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $1,20,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $2,29,12,409
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $84,59,126
- 13 सित॰ 1998
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $2,29,12,409
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 1 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें