SPOILER ALERT:
I took Paul 415's advice who billed this flick as a 'fun movie' and went to my video store and rented BOOKIES. I am glad he had fun watching it...I really didn't.
When I re-read Paul's comments...it's seemed like he was plugging the movie instead of writing something about it. Talking about who is in it, what they were in before, who wrote it, what the writer wrote before...just seemed like an over-glorified plug. Then I looked at the credits...is Paul really Paul Greenstone, the producer of the movie? Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Here's an actual review of the movie. I didn't hate it, I didn't like it.
At the end, I was wondering why it was even made. Here's my point by point analysis of all facets of the production, as interpreted by just another movie goer:
Performances: Nick Stahl and Johnny Galecki were standouts.
However, they seemed to look lost a lot of the time, like they were trying to figure out their motivation. Like they had a severe lack of direction. This applies more so to Stahl, as I feel he's a superb actor. But it didn't seem there was anything there to sink his teeth into.
Rachel Leigh Cook was weak here. Way way way miscast for this role. I know she's a name, but c'mon. She did not fit the part. David Proval. I agree with Paul, he was one of the best actors on the Sopranos. But he was totally under utilized here. He was like a one-dimensional cookie cutter mobster. Same thing with his co-hort John Diehl. Here was a chance for director Mark Illsley to shine, instead, he just lets these fine actors waste away. In fact, one could construe that these mobsters were homosexual lovers.
In all their scenes, they are alone. The restaurant scene stands out... no broads, no goomas, no strippers...I was waiting for them to share a kiss! That would have been at least interesting. If you're going to follow a cliché, then do it with some panache. Have fun with it. Instead, these guys are just sitting there, reciting their lines, as if they were waiting for their paycheck from production.
And they weren't even bad guys you love to hate...
Dialogue: Very forced and out of touch. When the basketball player said, "So I'm your n-word now, is that it?" I wanted to puke. The editing and camera was interesting, but it wasn't anything that hasn't been done before. Same camera/editing tricks, different movie.
Plot...a lot that went on on this college campus was not plausible. The money in the books idea was interesting, but not without a huge margin of error.
When I was in college, partying and carrying on in a dorm room like that would never happen, and neither would a functional bookmaking operation...I know you can say, "It's just a movie!" but shouldn't movies try to resemble reality?
Furthermore, the ending was very anti-climactic. When it's revealed that they bet on the other side of the fixed bet, I was staring at the screen thinking, 'That's it? That's the ending? That's the payoff?' I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
Character arc. At the end, do these guys learn anything? No.
Other than 'we made a lot of money, but there was too much risk involved.' They didn't grow...nothing learned, nothing gained.
I think the main problem with this movie was it's direction. From what I know about Mark Illsley, he's a middle aged guy from Northern Cali. Why not bring in someone younger with some edge to direct this film? Why not even let the writer, Michael Bacall, direct? He wrote it, he must know something about the subject, plus he's younger than Illsley...why not? Oh yeah, Illsley stirred up a lot of buzz at Sundance in '99. Well, lightning doesn't strike twice it seems. Illsley's age and hip factor were extremely apparent here...he simply did not know about this world enough to have been given the director's cap.
I did see Manic, it is good, it is well done, and I cannot believe this script was totally the result of Michael Bacall. Maybe earlier drafts of the script were better, and there might have been too much director meddling. The result is a barely mediocre movie.
The only difference between this movie and the made for TV movie "Bigshot" is that these characters say the f-word a lot, and one of them uses drugs. Otherwise, this totally could have been made for TV. But then again, it was done smarter and better already with "Bigshot."
Sad. This really is an interesting topic, and it really could have been made into a great movie. The potential to actually say something was wasted away...ah, such is Hollywood...
I took Paul 415's advice who billed this flick as a 'fun movie' and went to my video store and rented BOOKIES. I am glad he had fun watching it...I really didn't.
When I re-read Paul's comments...it's seemed like he was plugging the movie instead of writing something about it. Talking about who is in it, what they were in before, who wrote it, what the writer wrote before...just seemed like an over-glorified plug. Then I looked at the credits...is Paul really Paul Greenstone, the producer of the movie? Maybe it's just a coincidence.
Here's an actual review of the movie. I didn't hate it, I didn't like it.
At the end, I was wondering why it was even made. Here's my point by point analysis of all facets of the production, as interpreted by just another movie goer:
Performances: Nick Stahl and Johnny Galecki were standouts.
However, they seemed to look lost a lot of the time, like they were trying to figure out their motivation. Like they had a severe lack of direction. This applies more so to Stahl, as I feel he's a superb actor. But it didn't seem there was anything there to sink his teeth into.
Rachel Leigh Cook was weak here. Way way way miscast for this role. I know she's a name, but c'mon. She did not fit the part. David Proval. I agree with Paul, he was one of the best actors on the Sopranos. But he was totally under utilized here. He was like a one-dimensional cookie cutter mobster. Same thing with his co-hort John Diehl. Here was a chance for director Mark Illsley to shine, instead, he just lets these fine actors waste away. In fact, one could construe that these mobsters were homosexual lovers.
In all their scenes, they are alone. The restaurant scene stands out... no broads, no goomas, no strippers...I was waiting for them to share a kiss! That would have been at least interesting. If you're going to follow a cliché, then do it with some panache. Have fun with it. Instead, these guys are just sitting there, reciting their lines, as if they were waiting for their paycheck from production.
And they weren't even bad guys you love to hate...
Dialogue: Very forced and out of touch. When the basketball player said, "So I'm your n-word now, is that it?" I wanted to puke. The editing and camera was interesting, but it wasn't anything that hasn't been done before. Same camera/editing tricks, different movie.
Plot...a lot that went on on this college campus was not plausible. The money in the books idea was interesting, but not without a huge margin of error.
When I was in college, partying and carrying on in a dorm room like that would never happen, and neither would a functional bookmaking operation...I know you can say, "It's just a movie!" but shouldn't movies try to resemble reality?
Furthermore, the ending was very anti-climactic. When it's revealed that they bet on the other side of the fixed bet, I was staring at the screen thinking, 'That's it? That's the ending? That's the payoff?' I WANT MY MONEY BACK!
Character arc. At the end, do these guys learn anything? No.
Other than 'we made a lot of money, but there was too much risk involved.' They didn't grow...nothing learned, nothing gained.
I think the main problem with this movie was it's direction. From what I know about Mark Illsley, he's a middle aged guy from Northern Cali. Why not bring in someone younger with some edge to direct this film? Why not even let the writer, Michael Bacall, direct? He wrote it, he must know something about the subject, plus he's younger than Illsley...why not? Oh yeah, Illsley stirred up a lot of buzz at Sundance in '99. Well, lightning doesn't strike twice it seems. Illsley's age and hip factor were extremely apparent here...he simply did not know about this world enough to have been given the director's cap.
I did see Manic, it is good, it is well done, and I cannot believe this script was totally the result of Michael Bacall. Maybe earlier drafts of the script were better, and there might have been too much director meddling. The result is a barely mediocre movie.
The only difference between this movie and the made for TV movie "Bigshot" is that these characters say the f-word a lot, and one of them uses drugs. Otherwise, this totally could have been made for TV. But then again, it was done smarter and better already with "Bigshot."
Sad. This really is an interesting topic, and it really could have been made into a great movie. The potential to actually say something was wasted away...ah, such is Hollywood...