Beat: just watched Lucky You (SPOILERS)

[Lurker.]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol worst poker movie ever by far. Guy was the worst 'pro' ever. His strategy: Borrow money, take it all to the cash tables, lose, repeat.

[/ QUOTE ]
ever heard of a guy named Mike Matusow?

[GTBMuckface]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol worst poker movie ever by far. Guy was the worst 'pro' ever. His strategy: Borrow money, take it all to the cash tables, lose, repeat.

[/ QUOTE ]
ever heard of a guy named Mike Matusow?

[/ QUOTE ]

I HEARD MIKE MATUSOW ONCE SHOT A MAN, JUST FOR SNORING

[HokieGreg]

"Poker pro" goes to pawn shop and sells ring for $150 or whatever.

Sits in 1-2 game and starts owning.

Fast-forward seemingly a few hours.

"Poker pro" now sitting in the big game with Greenstein and Company.

As a drama, I give this movie a D-.
As a comedy, I give this movie an A+.

[JMX]

I've been waiting for another 'Rounders'-like movie for years, but I guess I'll have to wait.

[felix83]

[ QUOTE ]
the movie had so many terrible parts

[/ QUOTE ]

Coincidentally I just watched it for the first time yesterday. Everything up until the WSOP was tolerable; I'd rather watch movie poker than whatever else would normally be in a [censored] Drew Barrymore movie. Climax just ruined it. The golf prop was pretty entertaining though.

[JediGrindTricks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is funny i would still see it

[/ QUOTE ]
you waited over three months for this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

i lol'd

[/ QUOTE ]

[Suiteness]

The most lol moment for me was Sam Farha's acting. He had about two lines of dialogue and he was so terrible I was wondering if he was levelling us.

[rbnn]

The movie did a good job capturing the texture of play at the Bellagio and the feel of Las Vegas, especially by comparison with other movies.

The movie did only three things wrong, but those three things ruined it.

First, it cast Eric Bana in the lead as a poker professional. His acting was inept throughout, but his attempts to play poker were especially laughable (e.g. his "poker face" and his "staredowns"). It's not like Bana is a good actor, so it's a mystery to me why he was cast.

Second, the movie contains probably 45 minutes of turgidly sophomoric discussion on how poker is or is not life; on relationships between the main character and his father; and similar inanities. In a good movie like Rounders the themes do not need to be explicitly pounded into the viewers' heads: instead, the characters' actions tell us what we need to know. We should see the main characters' doing things together, not lecturing, pontificating, reminiscing, and mixing metaphors (that's critics' job).

Finally, the ending is ludicrous, making the whole movie seem like a shaggy dog story.

This movie could have been great, with just three changes:
(1) Cast a decent actor in the lead. Mark Ruffalo, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Tobey Maguire, Shia LaBeouf, Johnny Depp - any of these, and probably a hundred others. Once Bana was cast, almost nothing could save the film.

(2) Eliminate the endless philosophizing between the main character and his girlfriend and father. Replace with something happening.

(3) Change the ending.

With these changes: great movie. Without them: hard to watch.

[BarryLyndon]

Bana really has some things to learn getting it in top set v. a double ended straight draw. Dumbfuk.

Barry

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
The movie did only three things wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

Only three??

This movie was awful right to the core, the story itself was dumb. The dialogue and the acting was mostly poor. It was long and uninteresting, even before the stupid ending.

Changing the lead, the ending, and all of the mindless dialogue wouldn't have made this movie great by a long shot because there's really not much substance to it in the first place. The screenplay should have just been thrown away.

[censored] whoever made this film, [censored] them up their stupid asses.