Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

    Al Pacino is perhaps the greatest and most gifted, living talent in the movies. And he is great in this movie about the sports betting industry.

    The problem is that we've seen this Pacino storyline all before. In The Devil's Advocate, The Recruit, and even somewhat in Any Given Sunday. Pacino playing the "coach", the wise "mentor" who sinfully draws the rookie into a business using the unsuspecting rook to promote the mentor's own dastardly deeds. In this case, the rookie is Matthew McConaughey who looks like a geekish greaser when he slicks back his hair to show everyone that he's in the sports betting business. Brandon (McConaughey) tells Walter (Pacino) that he hit 12 out of 12 football games. So, the gig is on...

    Although, Ebert and Roeper gave the movie Two Thumbs Up based on Pacino's performance, many other critics weren't as kind...

    17% rating from Rottentomatoes...

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/two_for_the_money/

    And Two For The Money came in fourth at this week box office with an $8.4M take.

    If you like Pacino, go see this movie for his performance. Otherwise. wait for the video or skip it.

  • #2
    Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

    That's why I hesitated seeing this. Pacino is great but most of his roles seem one note now. Almost like he's doing an impression of himself.

    Give me Godfather I and II and Serpico.
    "I ask every producer I meet if they need TV specs they say yeah. They all want a 40 inch display that's 1080p and 120Hz. So, I quit my job at the West Hollywood Best Buy."
    - Screenwriting Friend

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

      It's always been the same "Hoooo Haaaaaa" role. He's always done this, you people are finally noticing it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

        If Authorized hated it (I'm sure he didn't even see it, but still commented on how it's not a winner), then I'm sure I'll like it. Seeing it today.

        This isn't the Howard Johnson's.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

          Sorry, but what part of this trailer or logline made you think it WOULD be a winner?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

            I love Pacino in these roles. Who cares that it's frequently one note, he's endlessly entertaining.
            It's a celebration, bitches.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

              pacino, deniro, hoffman...the golden triumvirate of overrated 70's acting talent

              Hoo waa! You talkin' to me? Hoo waa! I'm walkin' here! Hoo waa!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

                Wall Street of the sports betting world.


                Young talented gambler (trader) hustles in low ranking job until he is plucked from obscurity by powerful demigod (Gordon Gecko) and groomed to be his right hand man. Demigod mentors young naive protégé and teaches him all the tricks of the trade until the protégé is so disillusioned that he turns against his mentor and uses what he learned to destroy his mentor and his own career as a gambler (trader) but by doing so manages to save his soul.

                Pachino can play the charming and corrupting mentor in his sleep, in fact I think that's how he prefers to play it.
                Fortune favors the bold - Virgil

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

                  This will be a winner. From Boxofficeprophets.com:

                  "Fourth goes to our next opener, Two for the Money, the Al Pacino/Mathew McConaughey sports betting film (if In Her Shoes was a chick flick, this is its opposite). Two for the Money carried some ugly reviews heading into its debut, leading it to an opening weekend figure of $8.4 million. This one opened at 2,391 venues (a figure that tells me distributor Universal didn't like it so much), and carried a venue average of $3,504. The good news here is that Two for the Money was made on the cheap. Universal and partners spent only $20 million on this one, which in the end will make this one a great gamble.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.


                    Al Pacino is perhaps the greatest and most gifted, living talent in the movies. And he is great in this movie about the sports betting industry.

                    The problem is that we've seen this Pacino storyline all before. In The Devil's Advocate, The Recruit, and even somewhat in Any Given Sunday.
                    It is precisely this Pacino playing the same recurring role over and over ad nauseum that makes him NOT by any stretch the most gifted actor in the movies, IMO. F'n A, man. Get a new act.

                    As for Ebert and Roper. Fuggetabowdem. I don't know whose sensibilities they represent, but it's certainly not mine, and apparently not most of the rest of the world (critics or audiences).
                    Just one more reason to get hammered tonight.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

                      The guy at Boxofficeprophets must be a complete moron.

                      a) 8.4 million is NOT a good opening, no matter WHAT the movie cost to make.

                      b) Unless it's a major tentpole, 2400 screens is a pretty good opening.

                      c) Pacino himself is almost a $20 bill on your movie. This film cost 35 mill to make, and based on how hard they've pimped this on TV, possibly another 35 mill in advertising.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's the worst movie I've seen in the theaters all year.

                        I saw this and wanted my money back. Not only was the picture fuzzy - I complained to the projectionist, but maybe it was just the print, but the whole damn movie was off. It was more like a premise than a movie.

                        SPOILERS (not much to spoil)


                        Mathew Mcwhatever is a college QB that gets hurt in the big game, thus ending his career in football. He finds himself working a low-end job at a place that picks football games for gamblers, and he's so good, he's recruited by the king of the industry Al Pacino. Pacino should get an academy award for over-acting here. And spouting nonsensical philosophy like, "you push and you push until you get pushed back. Then you push some more." Or, "I want to know everything you know when you know it, and everything you don't know."

                        Mathew plays himself, something he's done for about a dozen films now. He can't get the idea that he's supposed to be a character, not a pretty boy mugging for the camera. He's constantly trying to dazzle us with his smile or his body, not his performance. The guy is a clown.

                        All this could be forgivable if the story went somewhere. He gets recruited, taken under his wing by Pacino, goes on a hot streak, then a cold streak, and that's about it. The story doesn't turn. It's not a thriller, and the drama is really weak. Is Pacino gambling again? Will Mathew change his name back to what it was originally, or will he keep the new moniker Pacino gave him? These are the questions that get asked. And I couldn't care less. I wanted the movie to turn into something, but it never did. It is laughably bad.

                        A pox on this movie. It was the worst movie I've seen in the theaters this year. I should have went and seen In her Shoes instead, but chick flicks like that take a lot of needling for me to go see in the theaters.

                        Don't waste your time or money on this **** bomb.
                        Last edited by razerfish; 10-10-2005, 11:40 PM. Reason: message was cut off

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Two For The Money. Isn't A Winner.

                          It's really bad. Don't bother. It's boring. It's a total bore, even with Pacino's overacting. I like Al, I think he's a great actor. But it's the same old thing for him.
                          This film has a great idea but the execution is really poor and leaves the viewer bored stiff. I wanted to leave and go see Waiting.........
                          Hollywood never gets sport's related films right.

                          This isn't the Howard Johnson's.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X