Rounders (2004, DVD)

The last big poker movie to be released in the United States was Rounders, which some of my friends tell me is a popular topic of conversation among poker players, while other friends don t even mention it. In fact, most people don t even mention it. So I gather that it s not really so popular a topic.

I don t see how you could really hold a long, drawn-out conversation about this film. It is indeed a good movie: You see it, you like it, and then you mostly forget about it, only remembering a few scenes that you particularly liked. Works like that. And what do we call these types of movies, Ed?

Ed: Well Tom, I think we like to call them a Stereotypically Good Movie!

That s right, Ed! It s an SGM! Everybody likes it! Just like 25th Hour and Confidence, its just one of those good movies that you are absolutely required to like.

And rightfully so, if you ask a poor American boy like myself. "Rounders" exhibits talented acting, skillful direction, a humorous script and characters that you like and hate. Combine all of these together, and you have an SGM. Make at least two of those areas great, and you might earn yourself a five-star rating.

But no, if you re stuck with an SGM, you CAN T have a five-star. Just like, If you can t spot the sucker in the first half-hour, you are the sucker. Well, its kind of like that anyway. But not really. Or completely. Its just that way. YOU SEE?!?

Mike McDermott (played, as its usually goes, charmingly by Matt Damon, is one of those gifted poker players who has given up on the game because he lost it all in one hand. He has a girlfriend and a law school career to take care of. He just can t do this anymore. It s a completely respectable position- I ve often found myself, a completely amateur poker player, ready to give up when I lose a dollar every now and then. But Matt loses was it $15,000? So he s out.

But wait, oh no, here comes Lester Worm Murphy (public favorite Edward Norton), Mike s best friend, right out of prison. Because he s a bad poker player (not in the sense that he can t play, but that he cheats, being called a mechanic ), he owes people a lot of money, about let s see ten-thousand dollars? DUN DUN DUN. Some Mike must show amicable integrity and get Lester out of this very deep hole he s dug himself into.

The plot goes on a big like this, but there s this very cool twist that comes in, that s WAY too cool for me to reveal. Its so real and unsurprising its nearly unpredictable, but its only unsurprising in the sense that it could very well happen (in this real, real world). Unless you re an underground poker player, you d probably never see it coming.

I must say, to a degree, this movie annoys the crap out of me, but only just as much as my poker-hungry friends annoy the crap out of me. I despise poker lingo. Its usage and wanna-be-slick style finds itself lower than Ebonics. When people say, I gotta pair out of cowboys, it makes me want to cringe. Oh, and when someone wins the game with "pocket aces", its especially horrible.

Another thing that I found myself very annoyed by at the beginning of the film was the fact that the game is Texas Hold em instead of Five-Card Draw, the original poker. The way I view it, Five-Card is the only real way to play, because the game is best for me when its all about the bluff. But Hold em incorporates a very judgmental technique where you have to look at the cards on the table to see if your hand is better than your opponents. And at the same time, your opponent could very well have the exact same hand as you, which only makes it worse. But, I must say, with some degree of shame, that this movie gained me somewhat of a respect for this game, to where it is now on an even level with Draw for me. And I like liking things, so if I like Hold em that s a good thing. Even though I ll never view it as real poker.

This film, as old as it is (six years), feels startingly modern. Of course, things haven t changed that much since 1998, but Rounders just offers characters that we feel we ve known for years, and that the film's time period has known for years. Go back to this movie, and you ll see Edward Norton when no one knew him. He s still the exact same actor, and he plays an alter-ego of that exact same character you ve seen him as in other movies. If there s one things that annoys about Norton, it s that. Many actors are so good you see their characters as different. I just see Norton as the same guy in every movie, just in a different dimension. I think he s good for the one character that he plays, but he needs a change in style.

Has anyone noticed that Matt Damon always seems to play a kid with some sort of gift? The Talented Mr. Ripley , he s a master Catch Me if You Can type of character who can change his identity with few noticing. Good Will Hunting . Janitor who can solve math problems beyond Einstein s comprehension. And here we have him as Mike, who is probably the world s most gifted poker player, as he beat the world champion (Chan) in one game. Is Damon good as a gifted kid? He s excellent, and thank God he doesn t constantly present himself as an alter-ego. But I think we need a challenged Matt Damon in some movie too. That d be interesting.

As for the rest of this movie? Eh, what can you say? It s good. It reminds me of Confidence, which reminded me of Se7en. It has great style and cinematography, using great shades and hues for its different settings, which is always better, and more interesting, than a dull, droning color. The script makes you laugh and smile, and you know what you re supposed to know when you re supposed to know it. There s few mysteries that remains. Add in some cool performances by John Malkovich (perhaps the most gifted director around today), and a guest performance by Chan, the World Poker Champion, and you have it all.

Pfft just like an SGM.

Rating: B