Two for the Money (2005)

Not perhaps the worst film of all time but possibly the most bland and uninteresting. Characters you can't care about suffering first world problems that you can't get excited about. Waste of 2 hours. I am not sure it is possible to fill the required ten lines of text for this review, because the is so little of interest to say about this film. I really can't believe somebody didn't just say no. I can't believe Al Pacino is in such a weak film. I think a film about the trials and tribulations of Al Pacino going to the supermarket and cooking lunch would have been more interesting, perhaps his newspaper could be slightly damaged as a major plot twist. That would be one up on this film.

You know what's more Boring than Watching a Boring Football Game on TV? Watching Men Sitting Around Watching a Football Game on TV...in a Movie. You get a lot of that here along with Interspersed Scenes of Matthew McConaughey Flexing His Pecs and Al Pacino Flexing all of His Performances into Another Familiar Slick but Kinda-Sick Character.There are Many Problems with this One Including Intense People "on the phone". Now that makes for a Riveting Movie. Or how about the Speeches about Addictive Personalities that are as Muddled as they are Pop Psychology Pedantic.This is By the Numbers Filmmaking all about Numbers. Another Film Grabber, Numbers are about as Sexy as Telemarketers. You get a lot of Both in this Uninspiring Movie. It isn't as Bad as Watching an Infomercial, but it is a Movie that's Central Setting is an Infomercial. So go for it if You must, just don't Expect Anything Very Suspenseful, like the Middle Part where a Billionaire gets Peeved at Losing some of His Millions. That, like the rest of this, goes Nowhere.

I know that Pacino is a big fan of Shakespeare, so I thought I'd paraphrase old Will there to encapsulate how I felt about this warmed-over assembly of things that any alert audience has seen Al do before.He's one of my favourite actors, but it's hard not to say that some of his choices of late have been extremely lazy. I thought Walter Abrams was exactly like Walter Burke in The Recruit, except - ironically for a movie linked to gambling - the stakes weren't as high by the time he came around to doing it all again in Two for the Money. Unlike many people, I also enjoy the frequent 'shouty' aspects of his method - but come on, just because you're good at being loud doesn't mean you have to play a demagogue over and over again. Vincent Hanna in "Heat" was often loud, for instance, but he wasn't an overtly controlling, manipulative master of his universe like we see in "The Devil's Advocate"; "Any Given Sunday"; "The Recruit", or indeed here...Not to mention that this movie doesn't even do a very good job of showing an infrequent gambler like myself how the true expert "has to lose it all just to feel like they're alive". I don't buy this kind of talk that the movie peddles, at all. It feels too much like conventional wisdom that's been perverted and inverted, to me. I've heard of gamblers being in it for the 'highs and lows', but never for the 'lows and lows'. If that psychology were true, then a punter who loses a ton of money and soon finds themselves living in a cardboard box and eating from a dumpster still wouldn't have a problem. Why?! Because they'd be happy! Yet I've heard tales of lots of gamblers who are desperately unhappy with their lot, find it a miserable experience to lose an amount they can't afford, and would like desperately to rid themselves of this destructive compulsion. If I like something, then I don't want to give it up. It's impossible to feel elated by something and yet want to get rid of it. Contradictory. People who are tempted to take the leap are enslaved by the lure of a big win, which certainly does feel good, but the catch is that something like that comes around all too rarely to have any hope of exerting a positive influence in the long run.That's my logic anyway, and if I'm wrong then the movie doesn't explain its glib philosophies adequately enough to teach me otherwise. All this product trades on is a hypothetical synthetic adrenaline rush delivered by two stars on autopilot, with not a scrap of substance to be found beneath its shiny surface. In short, "Two for the Money" heralds a payoff that's not worth laying down cold hard cash for.

We all know the sales pitches: some guy with a 900 number tells you he's hitting 82 percent on the year, and you can have his picks for this weekend for one "low" price (compared to what you win!). He'll even give you a free game to get you started, and if that game doesn't win, he'll call the guy he gave the other side to and sign him up instead.Two For The Money sanitized the sports **touting** industry (what this film is really about), and it glorified, by portraying as successful, what is at best a guy who had a winning year or two, something bound to happen when your phone banks have fifty guys.This film is based on a very true story, with the names and backstories only slightly changed. The "quarterback" Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughy) is based on someone certainly never known much as one, but who may have played the game. Not that this matters, as your tout customers don't care about your life story, only if you can win for them, and Lang delivers through his Vegas-based 900 number.New York tout king Walter Abrams, played in deliciously over-the-top fashion by Al Pacino, brings the over-the-top nature of the industry to life, not only the touts who make misleading claims (13-2 the last 15 means nothing and they don't tell you about the 2-13), but also the customers who demand the moon of guaranteed riches for a small fee. Renee Russo (Toni) gives her usually lame performance, like a double-digit NFL favorite mailing in a last-minute field goal to win.As a "public handicapper" (I do horses and I make no guarantees), I quickly found the film engaging, particularly its correct focus on how Lang handles the pressure of risking other people's money through his picks. Scam artist or not, any tout always wants his clients to win, because they will gladly pay him well and he'll know he's earned it. It's when the bad times come that the tout's world becomes a living hell, knowing he just sent his followers into the poorhouse, even though that's because they were risking too much to begin with.The other theme in the film is how Walter Abrams is always looking ahead to next Sunday as if he were just dropped out of the womb and nothing bad had ever happened to him. He knows that even the guys who curse him out will send him money again, and he will win again, sometimes, someday, hopefully, and at 1;00 every Sunday in the fall, the circus will start anew with him front and center, his business acumen saving him from his darker and more expensive urges. Sure, he's living on the edge, but he wouldn't have it any other way, because more than anything else, Walter Abrams was addicted to the thrills, while Brandon Lang was just looking for a job. The contrast is phenomenal and striking.