Quote:
Originally Posted by rbenuck4
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?
You re selling Rounders short because you re omitting the fact that it became an underground cult hit in the video rental market in the years following its release.
I saw the movie and loved it long long long before I got involved with poker. Its appeal isn't the depiction of the poker action, but the depiction of characters living an unconventional life in the shadows of polite society. I know that for my late twenties self Rounders belonged to a group of films like Fight Club, Permanent Midnight, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels that left quite an impression.