Stu Feiner Hypes Two for the Money

[knowlez]

somebody should skull fuckem

[savage1]

The movie might do well for a week or so because of Al Pacino and the hype surrounding this movie, but once word gets out that it is nothing special, interest will dwindle fast.

[savage1]

The reviews are now pouring in from all over the country, and the BEST review I have seen is mediocre and most a lot worse.
Then again, the gamblers upon which the movie is based, Lane and Feiner, are both mediocre(and that is probably stretching it), and thus it is fitting that this movie is nothing to write home about;see it at your own risk.

[savage1]

Another Lousy Review

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

TWO FOR THE MONEY


Al Pacino may get top billing in Two for the Money, but the veteran scene stealer is trumped by his costar, Matthew McConaughey, in this bland drama that “exposes” the corruptive forces in the world of big-time sports betting. Pacino, sporting a jet-black toupee, glares, snorts and verbally dresses down the entire cast; but there’s little in his performance as Walter Abrams — a bookie so shameless he passes out his card at Gamblers Anonymous meetings — that doesn’t feel cribbed from the actor’s past over-the-top roles. McConaughey is comparatively at ease as Brandon Lang, an ex-quarterback who finds his true calling handicapping football games. The Texas-born actor captures the swagger of an upstart hustler working out of a Las Vegas cubicle; and in the film’s early scenes, he radiates with the energy and charisma that he used to display in films like Dazed and Confused and Lone Star. When the film moves to New York — where Abrams brings Lang to serve as his protégé — Two for the Money goes cold. Dan Gilroy’s script can’t find a thematic thread to make the rags-to-riches-to-rags plot feel relevant and McConaughey doesn’t give the scenes of Lang’s failure the same conviction he brought to the character’s rise. Such dramatic failings are only exacerbated by D.J. Caruso’s direction: He composes every frame as if for television — despite the fact that the film is shot in widescreen — and his visual style is about as cinematic as sports talk radio. (James C. Taylor)

[BIGJOHN]

Not all the numbers add up in betting flick

By STAN HOCHMAN

For the Daily News


You've been betting pro football for years and losing your assets.

So you dial one of those 900 numbers you hear on the radio or see in the newspaper, the one promising to pick winners based on inside information.

The pick is free, usually after they've gotten your phone number and maybe even your credit card number. They give you the winner of the Monday night football game, you bet it, it wins, and you're hooked.

They call themselves "sports service" outfits because tout is a four-letter word in the industry. Tout is one of the few four-letter words that isn't used in "Two for the Money," the new Al Pacino flick that takes a tediously up-close look at the tawdry business.

Hollywood seldom gets gambling right. "The Grifter" was a prime example, botching the way bookmakers handle betting on horse racing.

Even Anjelica Houston couldn't save that one.

Pacino tries here, playing an ex-gambler married to an ex-junkie, running this high-pressure tout service out of the top floor of a lovely brownstone near the Brooklyn Bridge. He lures this handsome ex-quarterback (Matt McConaughey) to New York because the guy seems to have a gift for picking winners. Maybe the movie should be rated ex-ex-ex?

Come to think about it, the plot, thinner than a dime, revolves around picking the winner of Super Bowl XXXX. Huh? Shouldn't that be Super Bowl XL?

That's not the only number they get wrong. Pacino charges his clients a fee and has his salesmen goading the customers into betting big money on a handful of games, with the understanding that if the picks win, the client owes the service 10 percent of his winnings.

That's exorbitant. Gamblers live on the slim edge, needing to win six of 10 bets to show a profit, because they're risking $110 to win $100 no matter which team they pick. Get only five right, you lose $50. Anyone dumb enough to give back 10 percent of his winnings, has to nail seven of 10 to stay ahead of the game.

The boldest touts claim they've picked 75 or 80 percent winners on Monday nights, without telling you they went 4-of-11 on the other games the last two Sundays. There are a couple of monitoring outfits, but even those are suspect.

If a client bets five games and the picks go 1-4, when the guy calls to squawk, they tell him he ought to upgrade from bronze level to silver level because the silver level picks went 6-and-0 last week.

The really devious outfits might give half the callers the Eagles and the other half the Cowboys this week.

There's one scene in the movie where Pacino is fondling stacks of Benjamins. It is a Sunday night and he's screeching about making $2 million that weekend. That means his clients made $20 million betting his picks, and are paying promptly with crisp, new $100 bills.

Unlikely.

There is one tragic-comic scene in the movie where Pacino attends a Gamblers Anonymous meeting, rants about compulsive gamblers preferring to lose because it validates their own worthless self-image.

And then he hands his business card to a couple of guys trying to kick the gambling addiction.

It seems obvious that screenwriter and co-producer Dan Gilroy has an ax to grind here. Too bad he didn't sharpen the ax and swing it more accurately.

[savage1]

This reviewer is very well respected and gives it 1 out of 4.
Read the first and last lines of the review if nothing else.
Here's a bet: `Money' leaves you feeling shortchanged
By James Verniere
Friday, October 7, 2005 - Updated: 02:16 PM EST

Watching the sports-betting-world-set ``Two for the Money,'' I kept asking myself: Why does everyone's hair look bad?

This week's grotesque failure, ``Two for the Money'' features Al Pacino in a role we've seen him play more than once. Like the Mephistophelean figures he's embodied in such films as ``The Recruit'' (2003), ``Any Given Sunday'' (1999) and ``The Devil's Advocate'' (1997), Pacino plays Walter Abrams, a sports-betting impresario and obnoxious blowhard who offers phone-betting whiz Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughey) a chance at the big time. And when I say big, I mean Hollywood big.



Abrams, who has a bum ticker, is the doting father of a little princess, and his stunning salon-owner wife Toni (Rene Russo) is his partner in more ways than one. Walter runs the country's biggest sports-betting operation out of a brick building in New York City. He has Jackie Robinson's tunic framed in his office and a portrait of a catcher's mitt hangs on the wall behind his desk. As they say, greed is good, baby.

Brandon, whose name Walter changes to John Anthony for reasons that do not make much sense, comes from a dysfunctional working-class family. His father was a drunk who left when Brandon was 9. His younger brother longs to go to college. In a scene featuring McConaughey in the silliest-looking hair extensions since ``Alexander,'' Brandon's dream of professional football stardom ends with a broken knee.

Now, Brandon/John is the betting world's newest wonderboy, a whiz capable of maintaining an 80-plus win percentage when he's not batting a straight 1.000 per weekend.

For his part, Walter is a hyperactive motormouth who is never satisfied. He belongs to every ``anonymous'' you can name, although after making a characteristically showboating speech at a meeting of gambling addicts, Walter has the gall to hand out his business cards in case anyone ``falls off the wagon.''

Director D.J. Caruso (``The Salton Sea,'' ``Taking Lives'') appears unaware that his characters run the gamut from the merely unsympathetic to the absolutely loathesome. This includes both Jerry (Jeremy Piven), Brandon's chief betting rival, and an anonymous blond beauty Brandon picks up in a swank restaurant (an unflatteringly maned and unimpressive Jaime King). [continue]
1 | 2 | Next »
Here's a bet: `Money' leaves you feeling shortchanged

[continued from previous page]

Of course, there is a way to make such characters compelling. But screenwriter Dan Gilroy, who obviously admires Oliver Stone and David Mamet and is married to Russo, this film's executive producer, does not know it. In a scene in which Toni, Walter and Brandon walk together down a dark New York City street, the married couple resemble Morticia and Gomez Addams on a midnight stroll in search of some young necks to bite.

The widescreen cinematography by the legendary Conrad W. Hall, however, is spectacular. And Gilroy does know how to write the kind of hopped-up dialogue that appeals to actors' egos.

But I have never seen such a blusteringly vacuous performance from Pacino. His Walter is Rumpelstiltskin on crystal meth. Russo is fine, although the role is as phony as the film. McConaughey comes across, as usual, as hickory-smoked Tom Cruise, right down to the off-camera Penelope Cruz hookup. The great Armand Assante, who deserves much better roles, is wasted in the role of a vengeful gangster.

At the end of ``Two for the Money,'' characters are on the verge of winning or losing millions of dollars, and you sit there thinking: Who cares what happens to these idiots?

(``Two for the Money'' contains violence, profanities and brief nudity.)






]

[savage1]

Hold the phones-Brian Mac gave the movie a ringing endorsement;boy I guess it must be good now and will probably get an academy award. lol
Personally I think I will wait for it to get my local $1.00 store.

[savage1]

Riddle of the day(I think it is original but am not sure): What is the motto of hookers/callgirls and would make a great title for a movie made about them?
Answer-Screw for the Money.

[letsdoit]

That was to fu%kin funny Savage I am still

laughing!! this guy is a clown!!

[savage1]

Talk about arrogance, get a load of this written by Mr. Arrogance, Brandon Lane or is Lang or is it Loser?
Northern Illinois over Miami/Ohio 27.95
Wow, where do I begin?



It was quite the emotional weekend. For me, my family, my friends and even my clients. Balancing the emotions of the movie coming out, trying to win games; quite frankly, I am drained.



The movie didn't do the numbers we had hoped because we were shorted 400 theatres across the country. Nothing you could do about that.



Football wise, it really could have been a monster weekend. From the bankroll swing of Colorado State on Saturday, to the abortion of Arizona and Denver on Sunday, I will walk away from this weekend telling myself how close we were to an incredible money-making weekend.



I mean, I can't help the crazy stuff that happens these games. From Denver allowing Washington to pull another miracle cover, to Arizona coming away with no points on a 1st and goal situation from the 3 yard line after a horrific interception in the end zone on another brilliant play call from one of many bozo offensive coordinators in the NFL.



However, with all that said, I am feeling confident today and for good reason. Tonight's game between Pittsburgh/San Diego is my #1 Best Bet of the entire weekend

He makes excuses for everything including the movie;maybe it was shorted in 400 theaters because some theater operators didn't want this meaningless, superficial piece of drek.
What it all comes down to is that Mr. Lane gets the same good and bad breaks in his games as everyone else, and when all is said and done, he is quite mediocre.
Seriously, how many of YOU folks had ever heard of him until the movie talk?

[savage1]

Here is another example of "brilliant" analysis by Mr. Mediocrity, Brandon Lane:

New York (+120) at ANAHEIM
By Brandon Lane, Featured Handicapper

I now understand one thing right now. Colon can't beat the Yankees. They just can't.

They lit him up to the tune of 4 runs in 7 innings and they will light him up again tonight.

You look at Colon and his last 4 starts against the Yankees and you will see 20 runs in 23 innings. Not exactly confidence building numbers.

The Yankees are a fastball hitting team and Colon and his ego makes him think he can challenge these hitters. He can't. That is why he gets beat.

Mussina was fantastic in game one and you look at his last 3 starts at LA and you will see just 2 runs in 20 innings. I think its safe to say Mussina loves LA.

In the land of mickey mouse and donald duck, my dollar says its the Yankees tonight.
YANKEES


He is right about one thing-Colon didn't beat the Yankees;Doesn't Brandon realize there are other people who can beat the Yankees including Mr. Choke, ARod? Duh..

[savage1]

Just curious-did any of you see the movie? If so, tell us what you think. If you liked it, great, tell us why and if you did not, also tell us why not.
I will probably break down and see it one of these days, and if so, I will give my feelings irrespective of what others have said(even though my feelings for the real Lane and expecially the real Feiner will NEVER change).
To be honest and balanced, Roger Ebert liked it, and I do respect his opinion. See attached review:

Two for the Money


BY ROGER EBERT / October 7, 2005

Cast & CreditsWalter: Al Pacino
Brandon: Matthew McConaughey
Toni: Rene Russo
Novian: Armand Assante
Jerry: Jeremy Piven
Alexandria: Jaime King
Southie: Kevin Chapman
Reggie: Ralph Garman


Universal Pictures presents a film directed by D.J. Caruso. Written by Dan Gilroy. Running time: 124 minutes. Rated R (for pervasive language, a scene of sexuality and a violent act).

movie trailerTwo for the Money (Quicktime)»
Trailers provided by
Apple Movie Trailers



Printer-friendly »
E-mail this to a friend »


In D.J. Caruso's "Two for the Money," you can see Al Pacino doing something he's done a lot lately: Having a terrific time being an actor. At 65, he's on a hot streak in one well-written role after another. In "Insomnia," "People I Know," "Angels in America" and "The Merchant of Venice," he has given performances vibrating with tension and need, and now here he comes again. George C. Scott used to say when a good actor was in the right role, you could sense the joy of performance. Pacino has moments here when he doesn't quite click his heels.

Matthew McConaughey and Rene Russo are wonderful, too, in a movie with three well-written and fully functional roles, but their characters are by nature more contained than Pacino's. He plays Walter, who runs a sports betting hotline. McConaughey plays Brandon, the Vegas oddsmaker he imports to New York, renames and turns into a star. Walter is a mesmerizer who assaults him with confidence and exuberance. Russo is Toni, his wife, who loves him and despairs of him. He dazzles Brandon and he worries Toni, a recovering junkie. He's recovering from everything: "If it says 'anonymous' at the end, he goes," she tells Brandon.

The nature of Walter's operation is a little hard to grasp, maybe even to Walter. It appears that his offices and home are in the same building, all paneled Prairie-style in dark woods and window partitions. On the ground floor, he has guys manning hot lines where you pay $25 and get the early line for your weekend bets. On the second floor, it's bigger business: For the best advice, gamblers are expected to pay a percentage of what they win from their bookies. That way Walter is technically not breaking the law: He's not taking bets, he's taking a percentage at arm's length.

"Two for the Money" is not about the mechanics of this business, but about its emotions. Walter is a promoter who at one point admits his operation is made of smoke and mirrors. He imports Brandon after the kid startles Vegas with the accuracy of his predictions. He gives him a haircut, a wardrobe, a sports car and a new name, and puts him on TV, and Brandon obliges one weekend by correctly calling 12 games out of 12.

That's all the plot you need from me. The rest will be observation. Look at the monologue Pacino delivers at a Gamblers' Anonymous meeting. It's got the passion, if not quite the language, of his soliloquies in "The Merchant of Venice." He tells his fellow degenerate gamblers that their problem isn't gambling, it's themselves: "We're all lemons. We need to lose." When they lose everything -- the job, the house, the family -- they are most fully alive, he says. When they win, they keep gambling until they lose again.

Walter knows this so well he hasn't gambled in years. Brandon has never gambled. Toni has gambled: She gambled when she married Walter. They have a young daughter. The way Walter grabs for the nitroglycerin pills when his angina hits, he shouldn't be in a business that depends on point spreads. But Walter is an optimist: "It was only a small one," he says after one attack.

I won't tell you what happens involving these three people in this movie, but I want you to watch for the way all three change. The screenplay by Dan Gilroy isn't one of those deals where one guy acts out and everybody else watches him. It's about three people who are transformed in relation to one another, as a situation develops that is equally dangerous all the way around. It takes us a while to understand what Brandon is doing, and then we realize that Walter knows what he's doing -- and is seeing him, and raising him. There are moments here, including one moment before a live TV broadcast, where Walter is pushing his whole stake into the pot, and the game isn't poker, it's life.

Is the movie a realistic portrait of these kinds of people in this kind of business? I'm not an expert, but I doubt it. What I don't understand is how Walter finds out how much his clients bet, so he can collect his percentage. Bookies aren't real good at sharing information, especially for the benefit of an operation devoted to out-handicapping them. And besides, there are a lot of bookies. Why can't I get the tips from Walter's company, bet a grand with a bookie he knows about, and 10 grand with some guy he doesn't know about?

This is a problem, but it is not a problem that bothers me. It's a classic MacGuffin. The point is that something happens on the second floor that means Walter and Brandon and the telephone guys make a pile of money when Brandon correctly predicts the weekend games, and they do it without placing bets or taking bets. That's what we need to know.

Everything else is dialogue, direction, acting and energy. I've been watching Pacino a long time. I saw him at the beginning, in 1971, in "Panic in Needle Park." Already a great actor. His next movie was "The Godfather." I could mention "Dog Day Afternoon," "Glengarry Glen Ross," "Scarface," "Carlito's Way," "Heat," "Donnie Brasco." I could keep going.

But good as he already was, I think something rotated inside and clicked as he was directing his documentary "Looking for Richard" (1996), which was about how Shakespeare should be acted, and how an actor should play Richard III. Here was an actor in his mid-50s, asking undergraduate questions, reinventing how he approaches a role, asking what acting is. He chose "Richard III," a character who looks in a mirror and asks himself how he should play himself. In his movies since then, Pacino seems to have found something in the mirror.

[screwtape]

For those interested; Tom Osborne will be on ESPNs' Quite Frankly with Steven Jackson(or whatever his name is) to talk about this movie and gambling in college athletics. Should be a riot. I think it's wednesday night.