According to this film, a "rounder" is a person who makes his living playing cards (or something like that). A "bounder," on the other hand, is British slang for a cad, or a person of low moral standards. Each term seems to apply equally to at least one of the leading men in this movie... and possibly both.
Vicki and I had put Rounders on our Tivo Wishlist a year or more ago, because it kept getting mentioned on many of the Poker programs that she loves to watch. I don't log nearly the number of hours following poker that she does, but I've seen enough to at least understand the popular No-Limit Texas Hold'Em and appreciate some of its subtleties. Interestingly, one of the earliest scenes in the movie involved Matt Damon's poker savant betting all of a considerable pile of savings - going "all in" for those who know the game - on a hand where it appeared that he was all-but-certain to win. Since I enjoy that aspect of cards - thinking about the combinations - I hit Pause and offered up my observations on the situation, deferring to my poker-savvy wife in terms of validating my assumptions. After a minute or two of discussion, my initial view, which was that there was only one possible scenario where Damon would lose, was confirmed by Vicki and we proceeded to watch it all play out. And wouldn't you know: that one hand was exactly what the other character had! I'm quite confident that, had we viewed Rounders when it first came out in 1998, neither of us could've so quickly sussed out how Damon was going to lose his stash.
And that was about the best part of the movie, as far as I was concerned. The rest of the plot was serviceable enough, involving the obsession of Damon's character with proving that he could play with the Poker Gods, as well as his dubious best friend (played by Edward Norton) who was more interested in cheating his way from rags to riches. None of the supporting characters, including fetchin' Gretchen Mol as Damon's girlfriend, John Turturro as a Turkish bath operator and John Malkovich sporting an over-the-top and sometimes incomprehensible Russian accent, really lent much weight to the proceedings, as it was Damon and Norton's show to carry or drop. And I suspect each viewer's response to Rounders is probably dependent on how much he or she cared about the outcome of the boys' struggles. Me, I wasn't terribly invested in any of it. I was at least gratified that Mol had the good sense to leave Damon long before most movie girlfriends would've!
What little poker they actually showed, was well done. But as had been the case in Good Will Hunting, Damon's superhuman abilities here pushed beyond incredible and into unbelievable territory. The scene where he correctly identifies the two cards held by each of a foursome of judges, after only casually observing them for a minute or two, may play for those who don't know that much about poker. The reality is that correctly calling what your opponent is holding is the sort of thing that's impressive if it's demonstrated once in a hand during a tournament featuring some of the greatest poker stars of the day, so how are we to accept that someone could pull it off that many times, with that degree of precision, in a matter of minutes? That, and some of the gonzo acting by Malkovich and Norton, took me out of the story a few too many times.
Not a bad film, especially if you like poker, but also not a great one.
Rating: ** 1/2
2 comments:
i agree, not a particularly good or memorable film ... you should see some of the superhuman things damon is up to in bourne ultimatum! at least his rounders character can't make cars fly (not really, but almost)
I like Poker and yet I agree....very hard to like anyone except Damon in this and the story just doesn't quite carry it.
Post a Comment