Il giocatore - Rounders

I have no idea if this movie is at all realistic (certainly so many people inhabiting this strata of the poker world can be so good looking), but at least it has the ring of verisimilitude. Not only does it show us the workings of a somewhat exotic (to me, anyway) part of the world, but it manages to do this stylishly while treating us to an interesting character study and a clever plot.

The story is about a young "rounder" who is trying to go straight by going to law school (although our first glimpse of him shows him losing all his money in a high-stakes poker game with a Russian gangster). He quits gambling for a while until a old friend (played by Norton) returns to his life and lands him in deep trouble. What I especially like about the movie is that is starts off as if this plot line is the main subject, when in fact the movie is about this person learning important things about himself. And there is a lot of information about poker...

Damon is especially impressive among a uniformly good cast.

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 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.

Mike is a law student who is also a skilled poker player. However when he loses everything to Russian player KGB he promises his girlfriend that he'll quit playing. However a year later Mike's friend Worm comes out of prison and immediately entices Mike into an easy game. Worm still has outstanding debts and Mike is drawn back into this world in order to help him win enough to pay them off.

I taped this off TV with no real hope for it. I knew it hadn't done well at the cinema and that it wasn't exactly a well known film – so I assumed it must be pretty poor. However I was sold on it by the end and, although it's not brillant, it's good enough to watch at least once. The plot is pretty simple but the characters make it watchable and the poker action is good. How many of us long to be Mike – to be able to read a table like that etc? The poker scenes may not all have excitement (you know who'll win) but they are interesting to watch.

Damon caused me pause to doubt when he first came on the screen. I just saw him in `Bourne Identity' and here he looks very young compared to that. However once I got past his baby face I accepted him although someone else might have been better. Norton is great as always and very watchable. Good support comes from an understated Turturro, Janssen, Landau and a slightly hammy Malkovich. However they all do well given that they all drive the thin plot and make the film watchable.

Overall it's not a great piece of work but it does have some really good performances and it works well as a drama with knobs on. I wouldn't buy it but I'll watch it again if I see it on TV.

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.