Oh I know poker is huge now. I just think the tone and depressing aspects of the movie are what would keep it at around the same box office draw. I've noticed Rounders has a rental following, so it could do better because of who knows it, but I don't think it would do dramatically better because poker is big. Its just me, but I think this movie wasn't about poker per se, it was about Norton's obsessed character. So the question should be if there is more interest in that type of character.

Its like Hoop Dreams. On the surface I would say Hoop Dreams would make alot of money now because of basketball, but its more a character study of two inner city youths. So its primary pull is still going to be people who are into documentaries that explore youth and the urban landscape...not basketball. Basketball fans (of which their are many) did not, and still won't flock to this type of movie just because it has basketball in it. Same thing for Rounders.

The Matt Damon draw is interesting though. He's been big since Good Will Hunting of course, but somehow he's not a blockbuster. For people that follow movies very closely, we love him because he's like Redford. You know if they even chose to pick up the role, that the movie is probably decent. They have good taste. But I've never heard people flock to a movie because its a Damon vehicle the way they used to for say, Affleck movies.

@Lecter. L.A. confidential would make much more today. Mostly because people were deterred from it due to "violence" and in the last few years that type of movie has opened up so much that Confidential seems tame compared to movies like Sin City. Though I do think it actually helped that the stars weren't as big then. I think we liked the unknowns in the roles rather than a huge "star-studded" cast.