1965 poker movieRating: 16/20
Plot: The kid's the best five-card stud player in town. He knows it and everybody else knows it. But he can't become The Man until he beats The Man, the venerable Lancey Howard. He gets his chance when The Man rolls into town with his big bankroll. The kid's pal The Shooter, recognized as one of the best and most trustworthy dealers in the business, sets up the game, but breasts, betrayal, and bad beats might stand in the way of him reaching his top.
When the cards are a-flyin', this is a terrific poker movie, probably the best I've seen, with realistic tension, great character acting, and a real understanding of how the game works. The women are beautiful (Tuesday Weld and Ann Margret if you're keeping score) and the men are cool. The smoke-strangled hotel rooms and oily dives serving as the setting for the poker games set a mood and the camera work brings the audience right into the heart of the game. It's good stuff. In fact, there's so much goood poker in this that it might be a turn-off to people who don't know the game. For me, there might be a bit too much going on between hands, but I do like how some of the side plots, namely Shooter's financial struggles and tension with his flirtatious wife, work their way into the picture's central themes. Steve McQueen and Edward G. Robinson are both great in this, complimenting each other well as rivals with enormous respect for one another. Really, the performances in this are great from top to bottom.
5 comments:
A 15, but it didn't really stay with me (maybe because of how the game turned out).
***SPOILERS***
It would have "stayed with you" more if the kid had won? Of at least if he would have been beaten legitimately?
His losing actually makes me like it more. I didn't hate or root against his character or anything, but I thought the ending was just about right.
It just felt very 60's with the anti-hero who loses in the end. He just seemed like a character who would succeed, and so it felt like the movie's ending was manipulative. I guess on the upside, the movie made me care enough to be annoyed. It is very well done and acted.
I see your point. I think that's important for the theme though. He's a guy who does everything right (in the poker game, that is) and still ends up getting screwed in the end.
This feels more like a 70's movie to me for some reason.
Did you know that Peckinpah was originally supposed to direct this? He was fired because of his insistance that naked women were needed in the movie.
There was something a little psychotic about Peckinpah, and I'm not a fan (although I did like "Ride the High Country" and "The Ballad of Cable Hogue"). I think his involvement would have hurt this movie... although naked women are usually a plus.
I should watch "The Wild Bunch" again to see if I like it more than I did the first time.
Post a Comment