IMDb RATING
4.2/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
An examination of the malevolent London underworld with its despicable criminal underground. Ray (Mick Rossi) just finished an eight-year prison sentence after getting set up. Now he is back... Read allAn examination of the malevolent London underworld with its despicable criminal underground. Ray (Mick Rossi) just finished an eight-year prison sentence after getting set up. Now he is back on the streets to settle the score.An examination of the malevolent London underworld with its despicable criminal underground. Ray (Mick Rossi) just finished an eight-year prison sentence after getting set up. Now he is back on the streets to settle the score.
- Awards
- 2 wins total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Okay, I got the screener at the video store I work at & thought the cast was interesting enough to give it a try. I've seen enough of these promos (especially from Lionsgate) to not expect much of a film, or more than a minute of each 'name' from the cover, so after reading some reviews here on IMDb I went in with low expectations.
Overall, I'd have to say I pleasantly surprised. Lots of nice little plot twists, several double-crosses, a few scenes of genuine suspense.
The movie centers around and features (newcomer?) Mick Rossi in almost every scene, and his performance only suffers in comparison to the more seasoned actors showing their stuff. He does a decent job as an unlucky little fish caught in a sea of meaner, bigger fish.
And the long list of 'guests' do a stand-out job of fleshing out their characters & keeping the story compelling. Val Kilmer is great as a dopey 'cleaner'; Vinnie Jones is nicely menacing as a crooked cop; Gabriel Byrne, in the few minutes of screen time he has, is perfect as an understated dark angel; Joanne Whalley is strangely enticing as a long-suffering but supportive ex-love interest. Anthony LaPaglia & (the great) Bruno Kirby, unfortunately, add little as tough LA detectives, but arguably they didn't have much to work with.
My only real problem would be the ending. One of those films that just kind of stops, and after so many little twists it would have been nice for something tighter to finish on.
If you're at all interested, and can find it cheap, don't be afraid to give it a try.
Overall, I'd have to say I pleasantly surprised. Lots of nice little plot twists, several double-crosses, a few scenes of genuine suspense.
The movie centers around and features (newcomer?) Mick Rossi in almost every scene, and his performance only suffers in comparison to the more seasoned actors showing their stuff. He does a decent job as an unlucky little fish caught in a sea of meaner, bigger fish.
And the long list of 'guests' do a stand-out job of fleshing out their characters & keeping the story compelling. Val Kilmer is great as a dopey 'cleaner'; Vinnie Jones is nicely menacing as a crooked cop; Gabriel Byrne, in the few minutes of screen time he has, is perfect as an understated dark angel; Joanne Whalley is strangely enticing as a long-suffering but supportive ex-love interest. Anthony LaPaglia & (the great) Bruno Kirby, unfortunately, add little as tough LA detectives, but arguably they didn't have much to work with.
My only real problem would be the ending. One of those films that just kind of stops, and after so many little twists it would have been nice for something tighter to finish on.
If you're at all interested, and can find it cheap, don't be afraid to give it a try.
I'm not sure what I was expecting from this movie, especially since reviews have stated that much of the script was improvised. The film seemed fairly tightly-scripted to me...perhaps this is a tribute to the cast or director.
I also expected to be put-off by the limited screen time of the major names in the movie. To the contrary, I found it refreshing to have good actors in such small, but crucial, roles. This is the only way to avoid making movies into star vehicles that sacrifice story and direction for the sake of glorifying one or more of the lead characters.
On the other hand, the plot left a bit to be desired. There are quite a few loose ends that never get tied up, including the massive loose end right before the final credits roll. There's a difference between being ambiguous and simply stopping the story in the middle of an arc. This is your basic 2.5-act movie.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie and the characters. There's virtually no character development, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is worth watching if you enjoy "small" stories about tragedy and get a kick out of a bunch of well-know actors suppressing their desire to be the center of attention.
I also expected to be put-off by the limited screen time of the major names in the movie. To the contrary, I found it refreshing to have good actors in such small, but crucial, roles. This is the only way to avoid making movies into star vehicles that sacrifice story and direction for the sake of glorifying one or more of the lead characters.
On the other hand, the plot left a bit to be desired. There are quite a few loose ends that never get tied up, including the massive loose end right before the final credits roll. There's a difference between being ambiguous and simply stopping the story in the middle of an arc. This is your basic 2.5-act movie.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie and the characters. There's virtually no character development, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. This is worth watching if you enjoy "small" stories about tragedy and get a kick out of a bunch of well-know actors suppressing their desire to be the center of attention.
As others have said, do not be mislead by the name cast. nearly all the major name actors have very little screen time.
It is the first major role for Mick Rossi (he also did the screenplay)
This film had a small budget & it shows.
The production values are nil.
The acting is only so-so.
The script is chock full of the F word & variations of same plus other choice vulgarisms.
I cant say I hated this film, Its just not good just mediocre.
Ratings ** (out of 4) 52 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_
It is the first major role for Mick Rossi (he also did the screenplay)
This film had a small budget & it shows.
The production values are nil.
The acting is only so-so.
The script is chock full of the F word & variations of same plus other choice vulgarisms.
I cant say I hated this film, Its just not good just mediocre.
Ratings ** (out of 4) 52 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_
"Played" was a decent crime thriller despite it's budget shortcomings.
The plot: Ray (Rossi) is a small-time thief who is framed for a crime he didn't commit. When he gets out of jail, he falls back into the same life.
The budget for this movie was $338,000, so I understand why it was shot on video instead of film. I was worried about that because the usual Lionsgate (shot on video) output is usually terrible ("Green River killer", "Heebie Jeebies"). It actually looks good in most scenes.
Mick Rossi does a fine job as Ray. But the big name stars are only in this for maybe five minutes each. Kilmer does his usual professional work. His dialogue was improvised and it shows. ("You're not gonna Taco, Ray.") Jones plays a good bad guy. Byrne appears stiff and looks like he wants to be anywhere else. I also noticed that almost all the actors are on the phone. It's pretty cheap just to shoot actors talking on a phone.
Overall, "Played" was a satisfactory crime flick, that's a good second or third choice at the video store.
For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
The plot: Ray (Rossi) is a small-time thief who is framed for a crime he didn't commit. When he gets out of jail, he falls back into the same life.
The budget for this movie was $338,000, so I understand why it was shot on video instead of film. I was worried about that because the usual Lionsgate (shot on video) output is usually terrible ("Green River killer", "Heebie Jeebies"). It actually looks good in most scenes.
Mick Rossi does a fine job as Ray. But the big name stars are only in this for maybe five minutes each. Kilmer does his usual professional work. His dialogue was improvised and it shows. ("You're not gonna Taco, Ray.") Jones plays a good bad guy. Byrne appears stiff and looks like he wants to be anywhere else. I also noticed that almost all the actors are on the phone. It's pretty cheap just to shoot actors talking on a phone.
Overall, "Played" was a satisfactory crime flick, that's a good second or third choice at the video store.
For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
If you like 87 minutes of British actors dropping f-bombs over and over this is the film for you. Otherwise it's a pretty boring, pointless crime drama.
Did you know
- TriviaVal Kilmer talks to his mother on a cell phone while remaining in character when she accidentally called him during the filming of a scene in a car. The director liked Kilmer's improvisation so much the scene was kept.
- GoofsWhen Ray goes to meet Riley at a hotel or condo to pick up the CCTV tape Charlie has been brought to LA for, the room door has no knob: only a UK-style door pull, so this scene was probably shot in the UK.
- Crazy creditsChris the Maggot played by Nigel Mead
- ConnectionsReferences Batman (1966)
- How long is Played?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Jugando sucio
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $2,500,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 27m(87 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content