Saw the movie tonight. I honestly thought it was pretty darn good. The character development was fantastic. I don't really understand why it got murdered on Rotten Tomato like it did.

Anyone else see it?

I was expecting better. Thought it was sloppy.

I saw it and thought it was not good. John Goodman was the only bright spot.

quote:

---

I saw it and thought it was not good. John Goodman was the only bright spot.

---

Yep

What was wrong with it? I normally am really hard on movies but thought this was good.

I felt like I didn't know enough about the characters to understand their actions. And I think it could have been edited better. The whole thing left me with more questions than answers, and not in a good way.

Worst idea for a remake ever.

Add in no Kenny Rogers and I don't know what to say

I thought it was good and am surprised critics didn't like it. Seems like the type of movie with a good critic score but poor user score.

You don't really need a lot of background on anything...you can piece it all together and it's mainly about the personality of compulsive gamblers. Kind of a different role for Wahlberg...wouldn't have pictured him for that role if I had read the screenplay but he performed really well. Larson was ok...not much to really develop with her character. Goodman was great. Omar (I will forever just call him Omar) was solid.

All in all, I give it a B minus. Worth seeing but I probably could have waited for redbox.

My buddy from HS is a basketball player in that movie. I hope he helped Marky Mark win a bunch of money.

After one viewing, I really liked it.

I thought Walberg did great portraying the calm on the outside, scared ****less on the inside thing the whole film. The gangsters were intriguing and cool, especially Goodman. The **** you scene was nails. I liked how all the non-diegetic music became diegetic. But I think mostly I liked how I felt the same feeling I feel when I put down $200 (a lot to me) on red (always red) when he was putting down the big bet at the end. I honestly felt like it could of gone either way, felt like I was at the table.

I didn't care much for the love story or the basketball player and the gambling wasn't very realistic. You would expect Marky Mark to have a better system than trying to double up on blackjack 6 times in a row.

Worth 4 bucks in College Station!

yeah, I liked the music too

quote:

---

After one viewing, I really liked it.

I thought Walberg did great portraying the calm on the outside, scared ****less on the inside thing the whole film. The gangsters were intriguing and cool, especially Goodman. The **** you scene was nails. I liked how all the non-diegetic music became diegetic. But I think mostly I liked how I felt the same feeling I feel when I put down $200 (a lot to me) on red (always red) when he was putting down the big bet at the end. I honestly felt like it could of gone either way, felt like I was at the table.

I didn't care much for the love story or the basketball player and the gambling wasn't very realistic. You would expect Marky Mark to have a better system than trying to double up on blackjack 6 times in a row.

Worth 4 bucks in College Station!

---

IMO, he's not supposed to show fear and he wasn't afraid. I think that was one of the best ways he played the compulsive gambler role; he showed very little emotion, win or lose.

And he doesn't have a system...that's the point. Compulsive gamblers aren't trying to get out of the casino up a couple hundred and call it a good night. It's all or nothing.

quote:

---

And he doesn't have a system...that's the point. Compulsive gamblers aren't trying to get out of the casino up a couple hundred and call it a good night. It's all or nothing.

---

They made this obvious in the film, Walberg said he wanted nothing short of total victory. I just can't see even the most addicted big-time gambler going for the big score in the way that he did. He had less than 2% chance of "total victory" in the opening scene.

I don't like *****ing about realism, but I know his character would know of better ways to achieve his goal.

The scene served its purpose in the film and established Walberg's character's desire to go for it all though, and I get that.

Big steaming pile of diarrhea turd.

Did not develop love story. Did not develop the basketball player. Did not need to see goodman shirtless. I hate self distruct movies. Didnt know a thing about the movie going in. Hadnt seen any trailers or commercials. Nobody, not even the most compulsive degenerate gambler lets it ride five times in a row. I want my money back, and more importantly, i want my time back.

Damn. Was supposed to be thumbs down.

It blew.

quote:

---

yeah, I liked the music too

---

Yeah, but did you like how it went from non-diegetic to diegetic?

Worst movie I've seen in a long time. About a third of the theater left 35 mins in.

Was not a huge fan.







***SPOILER ALERT***


The thing plaguing me is trying to figure out how much money he laid on the table at the end.

He got $260K from Frank
He owed $200K to the Korean guy...then asked to be spotted $150K to make him his $$$ back.
Sent 260K(?) to Vegas w Dexter and then offered him 50K of the winnings for helping but Dexter doesn't take it...so that's what? 400K or 310K?
Paid black guy his 60K back after game.
Gave Lamar $150K before game so that wasn't w money gone to Vegas w Dexter.

So be owes Korean dude 350K. Owes Frank at least $260K and Frank drives up saying there was some extra. So he had to have placed $400K on the table for his winnings to be equally split btwn Frank and the Korean. Where did it all come from? Help me I'm female.

I tried doing the math as well and couldn't get it to add up

In response to the question about the math at the end:

******Spoilers********




The way I figured it, is if he sent the $260K to Vegas and won, he would have $520K then.

The $150K he got from the Casino owner, he gave to Lamar, so that's a wash.

If he takes $60K off the top of the winnings, he is left with $460K.

Places the bet with $460K and wins $920K.

Splits the winnings between the casino owner and Frank: $460K each. Which pays off both of them, and Frank offers the additional over the principal and the vig back to him.

Frank's loan was the shortest term of all of them (I am including the additional $150K from the casino owner as part of the larger amount owed), and therefore would have had less interest owed on top of the loan.

At least, that is the way I figured it.

The worst part of a bad overall movie was the over-the-top ridiculous and flat-out stupid approach to the basketball game scene.

It was terrible. The best way to get investigated for point shaving (or being in someone's pocket) is to be playing "balls to the wall", ie, trying to score as fast as possible while AHEAD in the closing seconds of a basketball game. There was nothing even close to reality in those scenes, and I felt dumber for watching them.

Unrealistic in most parts, but I still really enjoyed it.

Also noticed the transition from non diegetic to diegetic, and we even got a song from Rodriguez!