Les Flambeurs

Could of been a great movie, would have a been a great movie, but it wasn't. Bad camera shots, made it look like a drunk guys point of view. Paper-thin script, the plot was good, but it looks like someone was in a hurry when making this, so instead we get bad one-liners, and some ideas that don't make any sense. Really bad acting. This had some real uninspired, that reminded me of puppets. I can't say everyone was bad in it though, Vincent whatever his last name is, who played Philip I think, looked really vulnerable, and brought some realism to the movie, and Frank Whaley who played Joey, the only person who was symphaphetic of Philip, was pretty cool, what a quack! Though I don't believe he was gay, I think he was schizophrenic.

But all in all, I would suggest to stay away from this movie, unless your into really weird stuff, or some of the actors/actresses.

The Winner's a loser.

Sometimes it's hard to conceive of how anyone could ruin a movie. Totally ruin it that is. How bad would a screenplay have to be? How bad would the directing have to be? The acting? These things have a tendency to correct each other.

Then along comes 'The Winner' and you realise not only how difficult - and how much hard work - it must be to produce a 'good' movie, but how many means one has at one's disposal to completely ruin one.

How about sloppy scene shots where the director forgets to watch he's got photographic continuity, so you end up getting a Francois Truffaut effect - as that's all he's got to work with? If you want to break the 35 degree rule you'd better have a good reason and be consistent. This (sorry) 'jerk' of a team that made this piece of junk have no such ambitions. Artistic integrity? A message to convey? As if they think they're working on art?

Forget it.

Oh - by the way: what is Rebecca doing in this movie? Worst yet, what is she doing producing it? Still have a few things to learn about the industry, Becks old girl?

What a disappointment - with such good actors like D'Onofrio and director - Cox - we were all primed for, if not a great thriller, at least a decent gambling, Vegas movie. It was hard to maintain any interest in the insipid and one-dimensional characters and uninvolving story line. It looks like it was adapted from a play by the author and perhaps she needed more help structuring it. The actors try but seem to be directing themselves. Give it a miss.

Alex Cox will always be remembered for the astonishing one-two punch of 'Repo Man' and 'Sid and Nancy', yet his finest achievement was the daring, career-destroying 'Walker'. As if being exiled from the studio system wasn't enough, Cox then made the diabolically awful 'Straight To Hell' to seemingly bury any credibility he may have had left. 'The Winner' represents yet another oddity from Cox's years in the indie wilderness, but perhaps has the highest curio factor due to its eyebrow-raising ensemble cast. Yet what makes 'The Winner', ultimately, a loser, is in all fairness not attributed to Cox but rather its unimpressive, derivative, post-Tarantino screenplay (allegedly adapted from a play, presumably off-off-off-off Broadway). Cox and the cast struggle with its uneven tone and, despite Frank Whaley scoring in a hilariously slimy role, the unfunny nature of the script is barely able to justify the film's incessant stylistic zaniness. While it does work in small doses (an effective opening and a memorably odd ending), it simply isn't enjoyable enough to even warrant minor cult status. That said, it is at least a slight cut above the other interminable 'Pulp Fiction' clones that plagued the mid-to-late nineties. But what sort of endorsement is that?

This film had quite a bit going for it. Interesting premise... Alex Cox directing, Michael Madsen, Rebecca DeMournay, starring, Las Vegas setting..but,alas, it wasn't meant to be. I was bored throughout this film. I kept hoping that it would pick up. It just didn't! Must have looked good on paper, sure didn't on screen.