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-
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-