Another entertaining but vapid film by everyman director Curtis Hanson.
Pros:
1. The film features a great Bob Dylan song over its final credits. Dylan would also write "Things Have Changed" for Hanson's underrated "Wonder Boys".
2. The film sports Drew Barrymore in another likable role.
3. The film is lovingly shot, Hanson crafting a landscape of soft lights and warmly lit casinos.
4. The film has a low-key sincerity, akin to Hollywood character dramas of the 70s, which is always refreshing.
Cons:
1. A slew of far better films - "The Hustler", "The Cincinatti Kid", "Rounders", "House of Games", "The Gambler", "California Split", "The Sting", "Kaleidoscope" etc - all tackle this material in a much more interesting fashion.
2. The film glosses over the gambling addiction of its central character by disingenuously pretending there's no problem at all.
3. The film tosses aside all dark material (it is ignored that our hero pawns his furniture, mother's wedding ring, abuses everyone for a buck, compulsively gambles etc) and instead opts to merge 4 rather rosey film formulas: The Big Game Movie, The Rom-Com, The Poker Movie and The Father-Son Drama.
4. The film's choice of portraying Las Vegas as a romantic wonderland populated by lovable characters is odd, the sleaze, exploitation, addictions and desperations of its citizens cast aside in favour for dreamy cinematography and sentimental button pushing. End result: a film which pays lip service to the dangers of gambling, whilst romanticising Vegas and the art of poker.
7.5/10 – Slick, fun, but slight, cynically calculated to cash in on the recent internet poker fad.
Worth one viewing.
Pros:
1. The film features a great Bob Dylan song over its final credits. Dylan would also write "Things Have Changed" for Hanson's underrated "Wonder Boys".
2. The film sports Drew Barrymore in another likable role.
3. The film is lovingly shot, Hanson crafting a landscape of soft lights and warmly lit casinos.
4. The film has a low-key sincerity, akin to Hollywood character dramas of the 70s, which is always refreshing.
Cons:
1. A slew of far better films - "The Hustler", "The Cincinatti Kid", "Rounders", "House of Games", "The Gambler", "California Split", "The Sting", "Kaleidoscope" etc - all tackle this material in a much more interesting fashion.
2. The film glosses over the gambling addiction of its central character by disingenuously pretending there's no problem at all.
3. The film tosses aside all dark material (it is ignored that our hero pawns his furniture, mother's wedding ring, abuses everyone for a buck, compulsively gambles etc) and instead opts to merge 4 rather rosey film formulas: The Big Game Movie, The Rom-Com, The Poker Movie and The Father-Son Drama.
4. The film's choice of portraying Las Vegas as a romantic wonderland populated by lovable characters is odd, the sleaze, exploitation, addictions and desperations of its citizens cast aside in favour for dreamy cinematography and sentimental button pushing. End result: a film which pays lip service to the dangers of gambling, whilst romanticising Vegas and the art of poker.
7.5/10 – Slick, fun, but slight, cynically calculated to cash in on the recent internet poker fad.
Worth one viewing.