Movie Review "Shade"

[whiskeytown]

this video/DVD is now available in your local video store.

It involves hustlers and card mechanics in the underworld poker scene...it involves a fair degree of BS (like getting bet out of a pot instead of just getting an all-in) - but otherwise, it's one of those movies that's entertaining for a poker player to watch.

The killer part of this movie is the card tricks - it's common knowledge that a card mechanic and magician use many of the same tricks - in this movie, they do a number of tricks that are shot by the actors who were taught the finer points of manuipulating a deck...

I'm not gonna spoil the ending...but suffice it to say, I'll never play in a home game again....jesus...

good movie - you need to go rent it -

pax
RB

[wm r the rake]

in the extra's they talked about how they wanted to add the entertainment value of when you call an all-in that you have to match it....i would give it a 2.5 stars out of 4....the card tricks were the entertainment value!!!!!

[BigBiceps]

Sorry, but this movie sucked. I give it 1 out of 4 stars. It was boring and did not have much poker action.

HE: 99 vs KK, all-in on 9xx flop turn K, river 9 ... oooh what drama.

Draw: four tens vs. four jacks in a rigged deck ... aaaah

5-stud with marked cards ... eeeeeh

However the movie wasn't really about poker, it was about cheating and it wasn't interesting. I felt like I wasted $0.99 renting it.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
However the movie wasn't really about poker, it was about cheating and it wasn't interesting. I felt like I wasted $0.99 renting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, that's what I've always said about "Rounders".

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, that's what I've always said about "Rounders".

[/ QUOTE ]

why is that funny, they're 2 different movies.

[Syntax]

In the extra features, the guys talk about this movie being an "homage" to the Cincinatti Kid and Big Hand For the Little Lady.... Its more like a complete RIP OFF of those two movies!

Also in the features, they admit that poker players gripe about the portrayal of the game, but they wanted to make a dramatic movie that the "general" public would enjoy. Well it sucked and the general public thinks it sucks and it went directly to DVD and instead of being able to draw a good cult following of poker players, its gonna suck in this market too.

Too bad, I had some hope when I heard about this movie. I still like Stallone though. I hope Stuey or High Roller, or whatever theyre calling it these days comes out soon.

The Big Blind is supposed to be out this week, and it looks promising.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Also in the features, they admit that poker players gripe about the portrayal of the game, but they wanted to make a dramatic movie that the "general" public would enjoy. Well it sucked and the general public thinks it sucks and it went directly to DVD and instead of being able to draw a good cult following of poker players, its gonna suck in this market too.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I couldn't watch it all the way through. If they knew they were doing the poker wrong, they should have known enough to do it right and still make it understandable to the general public. Rounders got the poker close enough for all audiences; this one could have too. After it bombed as a general release, you would think that they could have re-edited it for its new target audience.

[MEbenhoe]

This movie was terrible. I heard a great analogy made about this movie on RGP. Shade is to Poker what Any Given Sunday was to the NFL. Sad that Jamie Foxx was in both these movies. The Poker play in this movie was terrible and made me sick. For being big time pros they sure did a lot of string raising (the good ole I'll see your $1000 *pause* and i'll raise you $10,000), didn't play table stakes. Another flagrant error someone pointed out was that at one point in the dealers choice game they're playing Jamie Foxx calls Hold em straight up (as if anyone ever plays it with wild cards) and then after calling that they proceed to draw in the same hand. HUH!?!? Take my advice don't waste your time with this movie. Remember there's gotta be a reason it went basically straight to video, now I know why.

[eggzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I felt like I wasted $0.99 renting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where the heck can you rent a movie for ninety nine cents??

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[cianosheehan]

Its funny seeing this post now because only a few hours ago I saw the first trailer I had ever seen of Shade or even heard of the movie. (Here in Ireland things get released waaaay later than in the states etc.) Even from the trailer I could see that this was a movie that relyed on the hyping up of "gambling" and risk taking rather than a true portrayal of the world of poker. Its a pity that movies and other mainstream media products get so polished up they lose their charm and they rely on the dramatisation of their source of content, rather than trying to portray that sense of drama that is genuinely there, as is certainly true with the world of poker. Books like The Biggest Game In Town for example have really nice accounts of what the world of poker is actually like. I mean, I understand that any major production such as a big movie is engineered with the primary intent of making as much profit as possible, but the amount of "productions" that are engineered with that purpose cause their type to be one blurred mass rather than a source of outstanding and stimulating creations. And it is the creations that do, that have some kind of impact, and provoke a genuinely interested and excited reaction, and will remain so for a long time. Ah well, heres to life and its reflections /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I felt like I wasted $0.99 renting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you didnt waste $4 renting it. Stupid Blockbuster.

[iceblink]

[ QUOTE ]

The Big Blind is supposed to be out this week, and it looks promising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone know what this Big Blind movie is about? This is the first I've heard of it, and imdb.com doesn't have much info on it.

[Syntax]

The Big Blind (http://www.thebigblind.com)

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
The Big Blind

[/ QUOTE ]

The Trailer links didn't work for me, a local problem or..?

ToT

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
However the movie wasn't really about poker, it was about cheating and it wasn't interesting. I felt like I wasted $0.99 renting it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Funny, that's what I've always said about "Rounders".



[/ QUOTE ]

This is true of virtually every film/popularisation of poker. It's always about cheating and scamming.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true of virtually every film/popularisation of poker. It's always about cheating and scamming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you mention it, that is true--I never thought about that before.

I wonder if Russ Georgiev has connections in Hollywood and is responsible for this? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[andyfox]

Otherwise, it'd be pretty dull.

Although not always. While there was some cheating involved in The Cincinnati Kid, it wasn't about cheating and scamming. The great poker scene in Cool Hand Luke involved bluffing, not cheating. Rounders wasn't about cheating and scamming either. Nor was the great California Split.

And arguably the two most famous scams in movie poker (A Big Hand for the Little Lady and the poker scene in The Sting) were kind of toungue-in-cheek/comedic in tone.