It was okay. I like everyone in the cast, but it just wasn't great.

At least some of the chips were stamped as opposed to generic walmart chips supposedly being used in a high stakes game.

I cringed when some guy in the background said "Too rich for my blood."

Worth watching, I really liked how much of a deign he is.

Not necessarily a "poker movie" more of a gambling deign movie. Plus his GF is hot, so there was that!

How bad could it be, I'll give it a watch

yeah, not sure why I'm getting such hate for recommending a new film where poker/gambling plays a significant role to the story. This is a poker forum after all. There are a lot of total **** poker movies out there, e.g., Luck You, Shade, Deal, Runner Runner, All In, High Roller, GutShot Straight, cold Deck. I found Win It All to be head and shoulders above anything in that category. The category of unintentional comedies.

lol

+1

Yeah, I don't get all the hate either. I watched it over the weekend and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. It wasn't a great movie by any means, but it was a nice little diversion and fairly enjoyable, although I didn't care for the pat ending or the last 15 minutes in general for that matter.

You may want to post about it in the Movies thread in The Lounge. I'm sure you'll get some interesting discourse about it there from people who spend a great deal of time going to and/or just watching movies. Some have full-fledged home theaters and there's even a poster who teaches a course on films.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/63...t-3-a-1303016/

Switched it off after 10 minutes... actually I don't think I even made it through 10 minutes. Seemed like a crappy low budget movie.

IMO, someone (Doug Polk + Joe Ingram) should do a real version of Euro rounders. Even if its just some 10 minute YouTube video. I can almost guarantee they would make some dope YouTube revenue off that.

i thought it was pretty decent, got some laughs and it's pretty short so meh don't get all the hate, i thought the low budget aspect of it actually helped it out a bit in some ways

It was a decent movie. Not much poker action. More about a degenerate gambler. Thought it would have been more appealing to the 2p2 crowd if they included more of the poker action. At least for a few key hands like rounders did. Pretty good indie film overall though. Good cast, characters were believable. If you enjoy the mumblecore genre you'll probably appreciate this film.

Mainly watched it because it was co-written, produced (I think) and stars Jake Johnson. The actor who plays Nick Miller on New Girl. Probably the only show that consistently makes me LOL since Psych went off the air.

Planning on watching Drinking Buddies too. Same actor, writer and director and also has Olivia Wilde.

I wrote a short review on the film for a site I represent, if interested
https://www.betcoin.ag/new-poker-fil...leased-netflix

I'm not seeing those great reviews.

i'm a big fan of joe swanberg, but he makes low key, natural, 'mumblecore' movies that most people won't like. making this thread and labelling this as a 'poker movie' is completely stupid and is just going to lead to lots of disappointed people. .

for the record, it was pretty average and nearly all his other work is better.

Drinking Buddies was better. That was more of a black jack movie than this was a poker movie but I wouldn't call either of them that.

I love Key but otherwise the trailer was boring.

thumbs up or down please, me no understand u fancy rating system

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3155328/...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Is Keegan-Michael Key playing Bill Perkins in this?

What a hot, steaming pile of garbage this movie was!

I appreciate the effort though from the OP and he def. doesn't deserve any 'hate' for trying

P.S. Is it too much to ask for a movie to actually show some poker content? i.e. showing the character's cards and the action on the flop/turn/river? This is what made Rounders so great in my opinion.

Maybe Rounders 2 will come out eventually but I'm not holding my breath (would probably be a disappointment anyway/not live up to the hype given how unreal the original was)

Can't say I'm surprised by the negative reviews. Poker and gambling generally aren't very exciting when translated to film, unless portrayed in a highly glamorized and exaggerated way as in Rounders, 21, or Bond

I'm a surgeon. You know what would make a really interesting movie? A surgery movie where a lot of it goes into the nitty gritty details of whether a patient is ready for surgery, and what surgery that is, and what my plan B and plan C are if plan A doesn't go accordingly....Oh wait, that would probably be a complete bore to everyone else except me. A surgery movie needs to show cutting, blood, and guts.

The reason we aren't shown the preflop action, stack sizes, positions, gameflow, etc... in film is that for 99.999% of the viewing population, it would mean absolutely nothing.

The poker in this movie was just a catalyst for him being able to win or lose large sums of money, and how he dealt with it. I agree that it is not Swanberg's finest (Drinking Buddies is far superior), but it was a nice showcase into the depths of a gambling addict, and a better representation of what happens than a piece of garbage like the recent remake of The Gambler.

I don't recommend this movie, but I also don't get all the hate for it either. It was fine, but nothing special.

Definitely better than The Gambler. It may not be possible to make a worse movie.

I like this movie. I knew the actor portraying the hero from New Girl. He has a sick beard in this. Though I have to admit the guy's bankroll management was giving me anxiety attacks. Which is probably a good thing in a movie.

The reason we aren't shown the preflop action, stack sizes, positions, gameflow, etc... in film is that for 99.999% of the viewing population, it would mean absolutely nothing.


I hear what you're saying but I also think it's possible to show the character's hole cards and still maintain mass appeal. It doesn't have to be endless hand after hand analysis but having a cpl scenes like this would be great. Think about some of the scenes in Rounders (Mikey's A9 suited or the nut straight hand at the end vs KGB.. imagine how much worse these scenes would be if the audience was left in the dark). These are epic scenes. True, the content may not make sense for non-poker players but those ppl likely wouldn't watch the movie anyway. There's still plenty of content in Rounders that appeals to non poker players..

Rounders took in 23 mil on a 12 mil budget. Not exactly setting the world on fire. It got decent but not great reviews overall from the critics (65% on rotten tomatoes). WE consider it a classic and arguably the best gambling movie. MOST PEOPLE would not classify it as such. DUCY?

The majority of the critics who said it wasn't that good felt that there really wasn't any drama or character development throughout. I'll quote a few

'Though it's a good-looking flick with some smart acting and a few flashy runs, it barely breaks even dramatically, and feels, overall, like a good chance wasted.'

'This ode to the allure of clipping suckers and psyching out the competition is richly atmospheric but thin in the character department.'

'According to director John Dahl's Rounders, professional poker players are very, very interesting people -- for about five minutes.'

Obviously WE can appreciate subtleties like Damon flopping the nuts on the last hand and slow playing it like his hero Chan did in the WSOP video he keeps rewatching, but my guess is that is completely lost on the average viewer. They were more interested in story and character arcs, and were disappointed with the lack of that.

I for one love the movie, but aren't I just a wee bit biased?