Shade (2003) User Reviews

Flawed fun

[snow0r · 6/10 · 27 February 2006]

Shade draws its audience into a world of sharp suits, jazzy tunes and card tricks, which, despite its obvious cool, doesn't really make the grade.

That isn't to say that Shade isn't entertaining. It looks good, it sounds good, and the performances are effective enough (Foxx is particularly...noticeable), but the film just isn't as well done as other con movies such as The Grifters (1990), and is way below the sophistication of bigger heist movies such as Ocean's Eleven (2001).

My biggest problem with Shade was the the final plot twist. It seemed a bit unnecessary. The biggest problem in terms of plot is that it's based on an a grudge from an event that happened before the film starts, that we only learn about through infrequent references. Sure, there's tension between Charlier (Grabriel Byrne) and Vernon (Stuart Townsend), but it's not enough, and it's something that could have been made clearer with a flashback or even a short conversation. After all, they did it enough for Stevens (Stallone), and he's a supporting character at the most.

That being said, Shade is still a decent enough con movie to be worth watching, and while it has a few problems, that doesn't stop it being enjoyable.

And it *did* make me want to play poker.

A shade better than expected.

[gridoon · 7/10 · 5 January 2005]

As movies about card games and/or con artists go, "Shade" is no "House Of Games" or "Nine Queens", but it's better than you might expect for a film that was barely released theatrically. The first two twists caught me completely off-guard (the final twist though....I saw it coming a few seconds before it happened). The poker scenes are highly entertaining (where can I get one of those "juiced" decks?). There are many good performances (Townsend, Foxx, Byrne), and nice turns by veterans (Hal Holbrook, Bo Hopkins). The weak links are Stallone and Melanie Griffith, who look awful in this film. Stallone's performance isn't bad, but they could easily have replaced him with an actor more appropriate for this role; Griffith IS bad, and it's hard to know what she's even doing in the picture. An actor who stands out (in a good way) is Roger G. Smith as Marlo, the mob enforcer with the extremely calm voice. (**1/2)

Watch it for the con, not the cards

[Shattered_Wake · 7/10 · 24 April 2010]

Following the wake of the ultimate poker movie 'Rounders' in 1998 and everyman Chris Moneymaker's World Series of Poker Main Event Win in 2003, the poker community was faced what is now known as "the poker boom." Utilizing the technology and ease of online poker, the game blew up to dizzying popularity. Casinos (both virtual and real world) were packed as every average Joe thought they could successfully transfer the skills from their nickel-and-dime, kitchen-table poker games. This was both a blessing and a curse on the poker world. It brought in plenty of easy money, but also forever changed the way the game was played into something that is now unrecognizable.

Another change arising from this "boom" was in the media. Poker was everywhere: movies, television, books, and magazines. Apart from 'Rounders,' very few poker movies ever reached any kind of success, with films like 'Lucky You' (a mediocre love story starring Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore) only taking in moderate numbers and receiving mixed reviews from critics and players alike.

'Shade' attempted to re-capitalize on the 'Rounders'-style poker film. Like its predecessor, it focused on the characters taking down the "big games" outside of the casinos and, like 'Rounders,' utilized a big-name cast. 'Shade,' however, film just had something missing. One of the most obvious missing elements was the character setup. In 'Rounders,' virtually everyone was likable (or, at least, entertaining), even the scumbags and bad guys. With 'Shade,' however, some of the main characters were barely tolerable. Larry (Jamie Foxx) was probably the worst of them all. He had terrible table etiquette, he showed massive tells on every hand, and he disrespected his backers. As a poker player, I found him despicable. On the counter, I enjoyed Gabriel Byrne's role of Charlie, who played a hustler very well. Also, in some of the later roles, Sly Stallone and the great Hal Holbrook really gave the film the extra spark it needed as it entered the final act (which, to be honest, was really the only great act of the film).

The poker in the movie was mediocre. The players were mostly terrible and completely over-the-top; and, some of the hands were so unbelievably ridiculous that it's mind-blowing that no one realized they were being conned. This was a fault of the writing. These are all supposed to be professional con men & hustlers, so they should have been constantly be on the lookout for setups. Unfortunately, they were all either extremely delusional or completely naïve because no one saw the hits they were taking. This movie was clearly not made to be a "poker movie" like 'Rounders,' where poker was at the forefront and center of every storyline. This is more about the con than the cards.

Overall, if you're a poker fan looking for a movie like that, stick with the classics. However, if you want a plot-driven hustler movie with many twists & turns (regardless of how predictable many of them may be), give a look to 'Shade.'

Final Verdict: 6.5/10

-AP3-

Surprised in a couple ways.

[lissner · 7/10 · 25 July 2004]

Sometimes I look at movies in terms of expectations and judge accordingly. Like 21 Grams, high expectations...and fell short. Shade, a straight to video/DVD with Stallone, mediocre at best expectations. This movie exceeded my expectations and in fact, I'd be more likely to recommend it as a rental then 21 grams. I was certainly entertained and thankfully Stallone, unlike some other straight to DVD releases, is NOT the star.

What was also unusual, was the fact that I didn't pick up on all the plot twists and they were plausible plot twists which made me feel like an actual story had been played out instead of left wondering, "where the hell did that come from"?

Better then average movie and way better then average straight to DVD. Certainly worth renting. Enjoy. If nothing else, the opening and closing credits show the viewer some very impressive slight of hand and how it's done by card sharks.

A great flick

[realgroves · 12 April 2004]

Don't expect to see to many believable, realistic or reliable poker moves.... but all and all this was an extremely entertaining movie. If you live in the Los Angeles area it is fun to pick out some local hot spots and catch that 90% of the movie was filmed within a few blocks of Sunset and Ivar. Gabrielle Brynne is amazing as always... and Sly Stone delivers the goods for the first time in a long time. I didn't care for the fact that there weren't more realistic poker terms and logistics used throughout the flick. Definately in a game that size you would see chem-decks, a spotter checking for cheats, a cut card, table stakes opposed to this "money in my back pocket routine", and atleast one Asian or Armenian guy from the LA area looking for a big game. A great time for two hours... but not going to teach beginners anything about a real high-stakes game.

incredible demonstration of sleight of hand

[hilouanne · 7/10 · 28 April 2005]

If you are a fan a magic or card tricks, you should rent this movie. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit due to the interesting relationship they explore between cheating at cards and tricks employed by traditional magicians. I agree that on plot alone this is not the most exciting movie in the world. However, I especially found the special features on the DVD tremendously entertaining which gave an in-depth look at some of the astounding sleight of hand tricks done by world class magicians. Many of the card tricks are filmed upwards through a glass surface to show the audience how they are done. Anyone will be astounded at the dexterity and skill of the magicians who pull off cards switches invisibly, even after telegraphing their intentions to the audience to let them in on the trick.

Much better than anticipated, but had it's flaws

[dcobbimdb · 6/10 · 15 November 2005]

I liked shade a quite a bit, enough to where I've seen it quite a few times. There were two aspects about it that bug me (and hence why I didn't give it 7 out of 10), but I'm willing to let those things slide as the rest of the movie made up for it and made for one entertaining experience. The most entertaining aspect for me was the card tricks and gambling scenes. The story itself was nothing original and more or less a basic grifter story. However the pace & tempo kept me interested throughout. The music scores were also nice & catchy and added to the film.

This first time director who basically loves this world of gambling, cart tricks & gifting decided to write and direct a movie about card mechanics. Prior to this movie I had no idea what a card mechanic even was, so one of the reasons I liked this movie so much was because it clued me to a magical, exciting and dangerous world of which I new nothing about. For those who do not like gambling or card tricks, this movie won't appeal to you as that's its focal point. You're either into the material or your not. That being said there are aspects about it that were intentional by the director that did tick me off a bit, but not enough to sway my opinion of the movie as a whole.

The cast is great and I dunno why everyone is so skeptical of Stallone, but he did a great job in this movie as far as I'm concerned. And he didn't play a "tough" guy either per say, even though he was intimidating. The other characters including the lead did a fine job. And you could tell they were intrigued and interested in the story itself and helped bring it to life. The other thing that was nice was the trick moves were all genuine, no camera tricks, doubles, or CGI. Just good old fashion fast moving skillful hands at work. About the only characters I didn't like were Melanie Griffith and Malini. I've never found Griffith to be anything more than a cute face with a nice set of boobs. Well as this movie shows, she's well past her prime wearing a cocktail dress of which the seams are about to bust. And Malini, who's supposed to be this big mob boss but who comes off more like a gentleman than anything else…

What bugged me the most in the movie was this whole concept of buying the pot by betting more than anyone else could afford and thereby winning the hand. Obviously with normal betting rules if someone goes all in and they have more money than you, you can still call and are in, granted if you win you only win what you called with, but it's the "accepted" way of betting. However the director chose to have it be that anyone could simply buy the pot and win the hand simply by betting more than you could afford. This absolutely makes no sense to me and I'm sure it would tick off anyone who knows anything about poker as its just plain stupid. The moment you have more money than anyone else (essentially the winner of the first hand), the game is essentially done unless you brought extra cash with you. Even though they didn't exploit this point more than a couple of times, it's still rather stupid when you think about it. In fact the very last hand of the game, Stallone tries to do this as he has 50K more than Stuart, and this after Stuart has already bet a several hundred thousand on the hand. So you mean to tell me that Stuart is simply going to loose the hand if he can't come up with another 50k. That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I can't even imagine underground / illegal gambling doing this as it's just retarded. So basically the person with the most money could simply buy the pot every hand. The one huge mistake on the part of the director. What's even worse is that the director admits to doing this deliberately in the behind the scenes part, but he doesn't say why…

The other part that bugged me as another reviewer already pointed out was in the end when Stallone makes reference to buying the pot for $10 as Stuart and he friends are tapped out. Anyone who had half a brain would realize that Stuart called Stallone's bet, meaning you can't raise again after you've been called. Why the director decided to have Stallone say that line is beyond me as it certainly didn't add much and didn't make any sense whatsoever…

Aside from these two issues the movie was good and I enjoyed it very much, but as I saw reading some other reviewers posts these things killed the movie for them.

Totally Unrealistic (possible spoiler}

[callnrick · 4/10 · 14 January 2006]

As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!

My Thoughts

[leafsfanatic · 9/10 · 29 June 2004]

I work at Blockbuster so it's fair to say I have seen my fair share of movies and to be honest in the last 3 years...nothing has really caught my eye and made me sit and enjoy watching the same movie over and over again.

One thing I notice to is we get a lot of 'sleepers' or straight to DVD titles and often those are the better of the movies. Shade was one of them, this movie had an excellent story, great acting and was just fun to watch, when I saw it I wanted to own it, although it cost me $30 Canadian it was worth it. Stallone, although not well liked or viewed as a good actor by public opinion, I beg to differ. Rock, Cop Land, Shade were all excellent movies, he was good in the remake of Get Carter as well. Stuart Townsend also is an up and coming actor. It's a shame a well made movie like this didn't go to theaters.

It is movies like Shade and Poolhall Junkies that I can sit down and enjoy watching, forget sitting and watching the Pitch Black's, the Torque's and all those other overhyped movies, give me the sleepers anyday!

high stakes poker

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 17 October 2015]

Gabriel Byrne, Thandie Newton, and Stuart Townsend star in "Shade," a 2003 film with an appearance by Sylvester Stallone and Jamie Foxx.

Byrne plays Miller, a grifter who partners with Tiffany (Newton) in various cons. They arrange to work with a third person, a card shark, Vernon (Townsend) and draft a gambler, Jennings (Foxx) to get into a high-stakes poker game with a buy-in of $25,000. They explain that it's rigged, and he's only to make a big bet when Vernon is the dealer.

Jennings gets carried away and loses over $80,000 when he ignores what they tell him. One problem. It wasn't his money. It belonged to a mobster.

I won't tell you the rest - that basically sets up the story. According to people on this site, if you know anything about poker, you won't enjoy this as much as others.

"Shade" is an entertaining movie with good performances, particularly by Gabriel Byrne. The script is clever -- it's not unlike anything we've seen before, but it is very well done.

Others in the cast include Patrick Bachau, Bo Hopkins, Melanie Griffith, Dina Merrill, and her husband, Ted Hartley, who produced this for their studio, RKO. Stallone, as a famous poker player, is excellent. He was a little distracting to watch because to me he looks so different from the last time I saw him.

Recommended -- it's fun and has a good cast.

does follow real rules of cards

[iloveannettebug · 3/10 · 11 December 2010]

decent movie if you know nothing about cards. if you are a card player, which now a days everyone plays Texas holdem, you will notice that this movie wasn't written well according to how cards are actually played. i haven't seen this movie for like 5 years so i don't remember everything that was wrong but someone should have pulled out a poker rulebook when making this movie. for example 1. they announce they are going to play a game of no limit Texas holdem, but instead are playing some variation of 5 card draw instead.

2. throughout the movie when the guy with the bigger chip stack moves all in and says "o im all in now too and you cant cover my bet so i win", NO. in real life poker if the other player cant cover the larger chip stack the pot will only go up as far as what the small chip stack can cover, in this movie Stallone has a more money than the other guy and is like "you need to come up with more money or i win the pot...doesn't happen like this in poker like i said its been a few years since i saw this movie but next time someone decides to make a movie about poker, please read a rule book and try to make the movie follow the rules of the game (like in rounders) because this movie is so full of goofs when it comes to how poker is played

A movie that pulls you in and doesn't let go.....

[300bowling · 9/10 · 30 May 2004]

Expectations were low to start(no real theatrical release)but it grabbed me from the opening credits and didn't let go 'til the last credits rolled off the screen..

Tight,full of twists with great casting,and really good energy this movie was a hellova lotta fun to experience. We watch a lot of DVDs off Netflix (5 a week) but this was the best experience on a 45inch home screen I've had from a movie with no marketing and no advance hype since Interstate 60. How sad if true that it only made $50,000 in theatrical release. (previous review)... I'd give it 9 out of 10...And Stallone's performance was the cherry on top.

It was nice to see Stallone back in form

[alvaropelayo · 6/10 · 10 May 2005]

"Shade" was pretty much better than I thought it would be. The beginning of the picture was kinda of shocking, but it was good to put you in motion. When yo'll see you'll understand what I am talking about. Sylvester Stallone is always good to me, and in this looks back in form. Gabriel Byrne is always watchable. I didn't know Jamie Foxx till now, it seems okay. Stuart Townsend appears to be right. Melanie Griffith should operate her upper lip back as it was, or did she have a car accident?. How nice it was to watch Bo Hopkins and Dina Merrill back!. It is not on the high Stallone good films level such as Nighthawk or Cliffhanger but it is a fair entertainment. Do not ask for something superb, but is a nice way for letting time go by.

a depressing viewing experience

[dr_foreman · 2/10 · 2 March 2005]

It took me a while to rent "Shade." I looked it over in the video store several times and said to myself, "How could a movie with Stallone, Foxx, Griffith, and Byrne possibly be straight-to-video?" And then I thought - rather foolishly - "how bad can it be?"

The answer to that question is very, very bad. Of course it's remarkable that "Shade" failed to get theatrical distribution when it boasts a fairly impressive roster of stars (albeit has-been ones). But it failed because it deserved to fail...because it really is remarkably bad.

I'm trying to think of something, anything, to commend about this movie. But in tedious fact it's yet another story of small-time crooks trying to make big; I've seen a hundred movies like it, and ninety-eight of those were better. I don't care about the characters, who are thinly developed and uniformly scuzzy, and the endless plot twists and double-triple-quadruple crosses get tiresome fast. The profanity-laden dialog lacks wit and falls utterly flat, and the music and direction attempt glitz but come across as gimmicky. In short, it's a disaster.

"Shade" isn't a good little movie that was wronged by the mean old distributors; it's an awful movie that deserved a quick burial. And that's too bad, because Stallone and company could've used a hit to revitalize their careers. But at least Foxx escaped from the stink of this bomb, right?

Surprisingly Good

[loungeofmusic · 19 February 2003]

Last night I got in to a screening for Shade. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the acting was pretty good and the story definitely held my interest. There were plenty of twists and turns and the ending caught me by surprise. The film looks great and the card tricks were pretty cool, too.

This is a recommend from me.

"Rough enough for ya!"

[the amorphousmachine · 7/10 · 30 January 2005]

(some spoilers) Shade is ultimately one of those "who's playing who" type movies in the same vain as 'Confidence' (2003), 'The Score' (2001) and many others- except this film involves card playing and poker. Part poker film, part con-artist film, and 'Shade' attempts to throw in a bunch of big twists. Sometimes though, the viewer can be amazed how anyone can logically see the bigger picture so early in the game, but hey- 'Shade' is meant to be a relatively light movie.

Gabriel Bryne plays Charlie Miller, a not-so-good card player but an excellent conman. He and his girlfriend, Tiffany (Thandie Newton), recruit a card mechanic in Vernon (Stuart Townsend), who is quick with his hands, and knows every trick in the book. They go after a big game hustler by the name of The Dean (Sylvester Stallone), who has never been outwitted, but to get there they must dodge vengeful gangsters, and make sure their plan is rock solid.

'Shade' is not a bad film, and has a few decent moments. Particularly one involving Jamie Foxx, as he has an intense poker game that may or may not backfire. I was pretty uncomfortable with one scene involving Tiffany tricking some chump into thinking he was getting some BDSM play, but instead leaving him for forced organ donation. I found that scene quite disturbing, rather than amusing. Though, if the filmmakers wanted to get over that Tiffany is a cold-hearted b***h--- it worked! Though, I think the scene was out of place in the context of the rest of the movie, and one would hope organ stealing isn't a popular way for con artists to get money! Yikes! Overall, 'Shade' is worth a look, and even Stallone is tolerable in this movie, partly because he's not in it that much! If you like movies about conning people, marks, poker games, and some twists--- then check this one out. Not as good as others in the same genre, but well made enough, and relatively fun to watch.

***½ out of *****!

I've known a lot of hustlers and mechanics in my time.. I have yet to meet a retired one.

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 3 November 2010]

***SPOILERS*** Overly over-plotted movie about a trio of of card hustlers trying to get a crack at #1 in the card sharp business the legendary Dean himself Dean Stevens, Sylvester Stallone,by being able to get the mechanic of the group Vernon, Stuart Townsend, to get into a private card game with him.

the Dean is considered to be so big and unapproachable in the film that we don't get a chance to see him until the movie is almost half over. In fact were not even sure if he exists or not up until then even though his name and exploits are brought up by everyone in the movie until he finally makes his grand appearance. It's a lot like a previous movie that one of the stars in the film Gabriel Byrnes, as street hustler Charlie Miller, was in "The Usual Suspects" in regards to the never seen on screen, until he decided to be seen, Kiser Soza.

Finally when getting invited to play the Dean at a private room at the L.A Roosevet Hotel the three hustlers Vernon Miller and his on and off girlfriend Tiffany, Thandie Newton, realize that one of the invited guests is Mob Boss Max Maline, Partick Bauchan! The very person who's got a hit out on them for hustling him out of $82,000.00 through one of their greedy and not so bright marks Larry Foxx, Jamie Foxx, at a fake private card game they set Larry up in.

***SPOILERS*** Hot and heavy action at the card table with as much as $2,000,000.00 at stake as Vernon goes head to head with the Dean after all the other players were wiped out in the non-stop card turning twisting and sliding action on the poker table. The Dean in fact had the upper hand on Vernon by being able to see, with his eyes unfocused, his hand due to juiced deck he slipped into the game. Yet for some reason the card that he had covered changed for Vernon from a Seven to a Jack without any explanation in the movie's script! What's even more ridicules is how the Dean was able to pull off the big switch when he could have easily been beaten since he didn't have the highest card in the deck! But still just high enough to beat Vernon's hand! The Dean's success was not because of any kind of luck or card playing skill on his part but that he was in fact a much better cheater in cards then Vernon was!

***MAJOR SPOILER*** You finally get to see what happened in the movie, at the big card game, when it was just about over and when your about to turn your DVD or VCR player off. But by then your left so confused in all the twists and turns as well as back stabbings in this very confusing film that you've lost, in trying to follow the movie's plot, all interest in it!

The acting & production values outweigh the story deficiencies.

[jaybob · 7/10 · 4 August 2009]

RKO one of the premiere Hollywood studios prior to 1960 tries for a comeback with this film produced by Merv Griffith.It has a first rate cast headed by Gabriel Byrne, Stuart Towswend & Thandie Newton & featuring, Jamie Foxx,Melanie Griffith,Hal Holbrook & also starring Sylvester Stallone. It is well directed by Damien Neiman. This was his first attempt at directing, he also wrote the screenplay.I am sure he will improve on the writing.

So why have we not heard more of this 2003 film, that was released in only on theatre in 2004 for about one month, then released to DVD.

This story of Poker Hustlers & con-men has been done too many times by now.It is also not a well written or conceived tale. & it is easy to see why it was not given a decent release.

I do not know if the revived RKO studio released any other films in its comeback effort.That is a pity, They made some of the better films, many noir type, Shade tries but misses.

However, I did enjoy what I saw, the acting was very good,the direction & other production values were good as well.

The story just had too many holes in it. It could have been a case of too many cooks stirring the pot.

For a DVD rental it is worth the effort to see it.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 81 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)

What a mess.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 4/10 · 24 May 2008]

What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.

The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.

Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.

Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.

A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Well acted and directed. Good movie overall. 8/10

[gnosis1 · 8/10 · 4 March 2004]

Shade was well acted, no tour de force performances by any means, but still very well done. The cinematography and locations were excellent, and the entire feel and look of the film was some of the best I have seen in a while. The card tricks were quite interesting and the twists in the plot kept me quite thoroughly entertained. While overall a very good movie, the very calculated pace and flow of the movie was very much like a poker game. In some cases tense, exciting and often unexpected, and in others very slow, as if the movie were building up to a winning hand. All in all, a very well made movie, but not perfect. I give it an 8/10.

Stallone Has Panache

[slightlymad22 · 7/10 · 25 February 2016]

Continuing my plan to watch every Sly Stallone movie in his filmography in order, I come to a supporting role, in his best movie in years, 2003's Shade.

Plot In A Paragraph: Vernon (Stuart Townsend) Miller (Gabriel Byrne) and Tiffany (Thandie Newton) are small time con artists, who cross paths with Jennings (Jamie Foxx) and attempt to con "The Dean" (Sly Stallone) in a high stakes poker game.

In his best movie in six years (since Copland in 1997) Stallone plays it closer to his real age (albeit going from one extreme to the other with the hair dye) giving one of the most effective performances of his career. With his eyes gazing steadily from his strong face reminding us what a splendid actor he is when he is allowed to escape from his stereotyped roles. For his brief time on screen (he doesn't appear till 40 mins in) Stallone brings style to the proceedings.

There are some good individual performances, but the main cast lack any real chemistry with each other Stuart Townsend looked destined for big things (but it never quite happened) Gabriel Byrne does what Gabriel Byrne does, whilst Jamie Foxx is effective too, and poor Thandie Newton looks great, but she isn't a good actress, and is often embarrassing against the stronger actors. In his one scene, Hal Holbrook (who I always like to see) goes through the motions of performing in a part that's has no lines worth speaking and Tony Burton (Duke in the Rocky movies) has two small scenes, unfortunately none of them are with Stallone.

I add the spoiler comment, just to be safe rather than sorry

[jay_hovah703 · 2/10 · 25 April 2012]

I think that's a line from the movie. It doesn't matter if this catchphrase is or isn't, because nothing, not even a line up of sunsetting incredible actors could save this movie.

Man this movie is bad. I originally was going to give this 10 stars and trash Steven Soderbergh for copying the plot line, locations and the idea of twist after twist after twist. I thought this movie preceded Oceans 11, but when I came to IMDb I found this was released AFTER Ocean's 11. AFTER. I have plenty to say about how much I loathe Soderbergh, but one thing you can never take from him is Ocean's 11. It is one of the few perfect films of our generation.

The Ocean's movie (the first, 12 and 13 are horrific) set the bar on grifting movies incredibly high that one shouldn't even consider penning another one until you can match it, top it, or heck, just come close to its genius without copying it.

This movie could only copy the good ideas from Oceans 11 and get wrong everything else. Gabriel Byrne is too old to end every sentence with "baby" when speaking to his nominal love interest. Sylvester Stallone is watchable because he's an oaf. I will never believe him to be of any intelligence level that would allow for him to be the best card shark for say, 30 years. And Stuart Townsends smirk is lovable, but he really can't compete with Brad Pitt's. (For the record I think Brad Pitt is fine to look at and one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood. His acting abilities are such that when he plays a character, you can always tell that its Brad Pitt, thinking he's acting how his character should act. Its quite sad.)

This movie should been titled, Ocean's 14, the drama in real life. This was a made for TV movie version of what really happened to the crew. They all ended up washed up, selling each other out and the two aging but beautiful stars from Oceans 11 (George Clooney and Julia Roberts) end up with collagen implants and wrinkles, ala Sly and Melanie Griffith.

Return to form for Sly!!

[supertom-3 · 9/10 · 27 July 2004]

With the long line of recent movies revolving around grifting and gambling and generally being super hip, this film is kind of the Independent and unheard of cousin of films like Oceans Eleven, Confidence and The Cooler (which was independent but not quite as much as this.). Now all its competitors are good, highly rated films. Now one would assume that because this is starring Sly Stallone and that it was not given a proper release, because no-one could stump up the money for it that it would essentially suck. Well it doesn't suck. This is a very good, and assured ensemble piece and very well shot and hip debut from writer/director Damien Niemen.

The film perhaps couldn't raise finance because it wasn't bankable. There is no big lead. Stallone would be the headlining name but he has a supporting role and of course with a lot of similarly themed films of equal to higher standard then it's a difficult one to find a market for. I watched this when it was released straight to video in the UK, a shame in many ways because this is a good film. Now what makes this good. Firstly the script is good. It's not original by any means but it's sharp and has good dialogue and interesting characters. Secondly the cast is excellent. When you think straight to video you think of Eric Roberts, Gary Busey, Dolph Lundgren, Jean Claude Van Damme, headlining and perhaps one or two other recognisable faces. This has a great cast, with Stuart Townsend, Gabriel Byrne, Thandie Newton, Jamie Foxx, Melanie Griffith and of course Sly Stallone. Townsend is excellent as the mechanic, basically the guy who can manipulate a deck of cards to his advantage, he is the key to the group of grifters consisting of him, Newton, and Byrne. They have a big score in mind, to take down master cards-man and king of all mechanics, the Dean played by Stallone. Now Byrne and Newton are both excellent but this is a great role for Stallone. Sly gives a great performance in this and it's a role that requires an inner depth and a subtlety and Stallone delivers.

Overall this is a very good movie. The score from Chris Young is good, nicely funky and understated and it's well shot. The film is also very well edited and stylish. It's not quite as good as Oceans Eleven because that was far more elaborate and with an even more impressive cast and similarly hip and stylish. At the end of the day Sly fans will be happy. It's not a big box office film but while he tries to re-launch himself as a money maker by doing sequels to Rocky and Rambo he should keep doing independent movies to give him testing roles. ****

cons. tricks. games.

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 28 August 2021]

When a group of guys pull a con on a playa in LA, they have a gangster coming after them. Jamie Foxx is Jennings. Melanie Griffith is Eve. Stallone in a more serious role. Both Carl Mazzocone junior and senior are in here. Hal Holbrook. Patrick Bauchau (View to a Kill). One of the guys says he likes kinky sex, but it gets too wacky, even for him. The "Dean"... an expert at cards. And games. Is he as good as he says? The side plots are all pretty much filler... it's all about the card tricks and poker games. Jennings thinks HE is the pro, and will be fooling the others, but he seems to be getting played. Plot twists, a gun fight, about halfway through. Written and directed by Damian Nieman. The one film he's directed. He's a member of the Magic Castle, so clearly he knows his stuff. And some scenes were actually filmed at the Castle! It's pretty good. Showing on roku channel. Pretty good stuff.

A Modern Day Maverick

[jrfranklin01 · 5/10 · 8 July 2004]

Think of the movie Maverick with Mel Gibson cast as a modern day tale and you get this movie (although not as good as Maverick). Basically a bunch of hustlers who have card-playing as one of their schemes decide to try to make it big against a old-school pro in a high stakes game. And other than learning about card con artists and seeing some impressive playing tricks, the movie really doesn't develop much beyond that. We have a whiz-kid at stacking decks, known as a Mechanic, played by Stuart Townsend (Vernon), whose potential I believe is restrained in this movie. He represents the prodigal son gone wrong due to the bad influence of his cohorts Charlie (Gabriel Byrne) and Tiffany (Thandy Newton). The dying-flame appearance of Sylvester Stallone (Stevens) known as "The Dean" takes a worn-out Rocky and puts him at a card table instead of in a boxing ring. The constant battle he faces to defend himself as the ultimate card shark is like some famous gunfighter who always challenged.

The card scamming "team" is introduced with some comic book-like announcement schtick, where just as the villain enters the scene, their title flashes across the screen under their face (e.g.: Tiffany as "The Turn"). It was nice though to see Hal Halbrook as "The Professor" still doing films. He does a good job of lending an old world charm and decency to the film.

Jamie Foxx (Larry Jennings) is gutted so quick it almost seems like he made a cameo appearance in this film. Gabriel Byrne and Thandie Newton are as crooked as they come, although Newton makes Byrne look like an altar boy by comparison. Townsend's character is a little subdued in the beginning until the focus shifts past his card tricks and develops him as the quasi-deep character of the film or otherwise protagonist. There is a ridiculous reunion/old flame air with Stalone and Meg Ryan, although it is intended to add weight to the Dean's character to balance that of Townsend's. I guess you could really say the movie about these two. Everything else is just decoration in the movie's attempt to try and involve more conflict and character developments.

Now that I have gabbed on and on, the movie in a nutshell is the classic tale of the talented rookie wanting to beat the master, and thus take his title. The movie gives you an unexpected ending that leaves you feeling like the one of the "snowed" victims it portrays. And the build-up to the final game falls to the floor at once with the game's simple "evening social" portrayal. Aside from this, I did like seeing what can be done with a deck of cards and just how far some con artists really go.