My Own Rounders Review

9/11 - First Impression

I saw Rounders tonight.

This film is a treat for us Matt fans. He's in virtually every scene, and it's full of closeups. I like it a lot. But I am not sure that this is a film that appeals to the filmgoing public. It's a very unusal film. To me, it is a character study film: it's all about Matt's character, Mike McDermott, and how he interacts with others who are drawn to the game of poker. There is no true love scenes. In fact, the seduction scene of Femke Jenssen could easily have been missed by me, had I not been told about it ahead of time. It is truly a guy film in the sense that there is no emotional development or character development to speak of. The story is told as a guy would tell it to another guy: just the fact, mad'm. And it is solemn in tone, dead serious, in fact. There is very little that you could laugh at, although the whole story is amusing in a subtle way. It is certainly not the kind of film that appeals to the MTV crowd, so I am a little nonplused by the way the film was promoted. I will just say that I am a little concerned about the box-office power of the movie. Case in point: at the show I went to, the house was only half-full (it was a slow night all around, judging from the crowd at the theater). However, mine is a small town. I expect the film to draw better at large cities.

But Matt literally shines in the film. I see now why he is so blond in it. Everything else is dark: the surroundings, the atmosphere, the shady characters, including Ed Norton. I would not say that Norton stole any scene from Matt; I actually think Matt outplayed Ed, and I am saying this objectively. Matt has a much harder role, and because the subject is poker, he could not rely on his expressive eyes in most of the scenes, and yet he is immensely watchable. All Matt could rely on, in this film, really is his facial expression, as there are few long shots and very little action, and his adroit delivery of the dialogue.

It is definitely a film that is nowhere as satisfying as GWH. I simply can't identify with the characters. They are interesting, but do I care to know more about any? Not really, not even Matt's character. He is simply too one-dimensional: poker, poker, poker. In the end, when Mike drives off, I didn't look longingly at the screen as I did when Will Hunting speeds down the highway in the closing scene of GWH.

Oh, but is Matt gorgeous in most of the scenes! Definitely one to go back to a couple more times. Unlike with GWH, I can't think of a really favorite scene. I like the one when Matt shows up in a mock court late and unprepared - he is dressed up in a modish way and looks smashing to me. Matt looks good in all the closeup shots, and there are many, many.

As someone wrote me said: John Dahl's films are subtle. Perhaps after another viewing I will like it better. For now, I can only say that to me Matt IS the reason to see Rounders.

9/13 -- Second Viewing

Saw Rounders for the second time today. And, it is true: you need to see it again to appreciate this film better. What I did was to look up some of the terms used in the film, and the one crucial term is "CHECK", meaning "to stay in the game without betting". This usually signals that one does not have a strong hand. I also figured out how the Texas hold'em game is played - it's really quite simple: you get two cards faced down, so presumably you and nobody else know what they are - then everything else is dealt face-up, and everyone is entitled to make the best hand they could using the community cards; it's that simple. You do have to know basic poker, which I do, but so much of the dialogue and action did elude me the first time. This time around, I was able to understand what was going on and to appreciate the atmosphere carefully put together by John Dahl, the director, and Yves Escoffier, the cinematographer. I like the movie a lot better this time around, truly.

And Matt is good in this, I can now honestly say. He is easy to look at, never over-acting, and carries the film. Best scenes, looks-wise: When he returns from his late-shift delivery work and flirts with Gretchen Mol while sitting on the bed of their apartment (buff and handsome), when he talks to Martin Landau in the bar (pensive and handsome), when he appears in the mock trial (poised and handsome), and in the final gambling scene. Oh, who am I kidding, Matt was a treat throughout the film. Go see it if you can.

BTW for a Sunday matinee the attendance was not bad.

Followup, 9/16

Even with a small film like Rounders, Matt got some praises that his peers would die for. I added one review in my collection where this reviewer even said something about how Matt's expressive eyes and his smile made that one scene in SPR believable (it is true, the dialogue is hokey), and that the audience will have to do the same with Rounders (which I don't agree).

I am strong in my belief now that people who panned the flick jsut don't understand it all. It's actually a very sophisticated and intelligent film - full of subtleties that the viewer has to recognize on his own, since Dahl doesn't pander with cues. Also, the film is kind of asexual - Matt is in bulky clothings (though sharp-looking) almost through it all except for one scene with Gretch Mol - and there's no lovemaking. In an article about Rounders' boxoffice draw it was said that in prescreening of Rounders it was found that the film appeals most to young females. I think that's why Miramax promoted it on MTV and VH1 so heavily. I now think that's kind of a mistake. The teenagers are not going to like this film too much: it's too much talking and too little sex appeal. It's the college-age guys who really like this kind of film. I see in today's L.A. Times the Rounders ad now only have two quotes and they only refer to the film and to Dahl, not mentioning Matt directly, and they added a banner that says "America's #1 Hit Film", same thing that "Blade" did.