Two for the Money
Rated R, 123 minutes

What can I say about Two for the Money?

Well, to simply put it, it was *that* close to being one of the best films of the year. If not the best. If done properly, I seriously think it could've had potential to be a Best Picture frontrunner. Key words: If done properly. If one thing is constant throughout the film, its that they simply couldn't get their stuff together. They had a massive pile of potential on their hands, and they ended up with a massive pile of wasted potential. The plot and characters were there. They just completley couldn't pull it off, and it stands in a couple of most distunguishable ways:

1. Matthew McCaugheney wasn't the right man to take the lead role of Brandon. Not even close. The character they built up, with the John Anthony status, it could've been one of the highlights of the year. But when he gets up there and becomes John, where he's supposed to be selling his betting skills, he just doesn't convince us. We're supposed to want to call in, but we are turned off. I can't help feel that if they got someone with actual energy and charisma for the role, to work with Al Pacino, it would've helped.

2. Al Pacino. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job, but they simply didn't give him anything to work with. I mean, throughout the movie his character was set-up to be a mad-ass hard hitting businessman, and we expect him to full-out turn into this about halfway through it, right? He never does. Hes the friendly guy throughout the entire picture. He is always right on Brandon's side, going with him and defending him for whatever he does. He wasn't mean, at all. This was supposed to be one of the highlights of the film, and it was 100% absent. He didn't yell, he didn't get aggravated, there was nothing menacing in him whatsoever. When Brandon starts losing, hes there the entire time telling him that'll he'll come back and do better and to stop feeling so bad for himself. In fact, it boils down to the fact that in his last scene of the movie, he ends it as a grown man crying on the floor. Blah...

3. This was the biggest problem of all, in my mind: The entire movie was slow-paced, and dragged on too long. There were way too many unneeded scenes, and each one was spread to the maximum. What they ended up with, was that because every scene was dragged on and paced down to fit the 123 minutes running time, there was no real excitement. You couldn't get excited about what was happening in the story, because all your anticipation is waned down over the lengthy scenes as much as could be. The movie should've been about 85 minutes. There was not as much detail in this as in most movies, yet its 123 minutes long. There was so much useless blabber and wasted time. It just made the movie seem uninspired, and slightly ugly. If they included all the events needed, all the important stuff, 85 minutes still would've seemed too long.

So in closing, the movie should've easily been one of the best of year. I just feel that they were so uninspired with what they had to work with, they couldn't realize it. They grabbed a weak lead in Matthew McCaugheny, made Al Pacino's character a softie baby, and made the movie dragged out in every scene to fit 123 minutes, to the point of eliminating excitement. Nice going Hollywood.

Final Grade: C

...

Tis' my second review ever, so be patient with me. :smile:

The movie surprised me in a good way, and the key is Al Pacino. His charisma is so out there and makes each scene shine that I just love seeing him walk and hearing him talk. I was very much engaged until the story weakened in the final 30 minutes.

B+

Al Pacino is his usual awesome-self, but overall, the film hardly kept me interested after the first half an hour.

C+

C+


This is just an average movie. It is not bad by any means, but there is little about it that is truly great. Actually only one thing and that is Al Pacino. Even though he sometimes overacts in this one, overall he still delivers a finely-tuned and lively performance. He is actually even better in the scenes in which he is not screaming and cursing at everyone and everything and he is pretty much the only reason why this movie is not below average.

The story is really simple and while I found the whole concept of guessing and betting rather interesting, the storyline of the rise nd the fall of a mentor and his protegé is something that we have seen many many times before and better. Rene Russo is wasted and McConaughey is decent, but is completely overshadowed by Pacino of course.

C

I saw this a long time ago at an advance screening. It wasn't bad but it wasn't anything good either. The story didn't really capture you and seize your interest. I felt McConaughey was a little but miscast. He did okay, but he was far from spectacular. Pacino, of course, was just fantastic. The movie would have been far worse if it weren't for him. I loved his character and the way he played him. If it wasn't for him, the movie would have been much worse.

This one's under-rated and deserving of a viewing...

Lame story, terrible overacting by Pacino, typical low acting quality by McConaughey. C-

B+, saw this half a year ago. An otherwise excellent movie with some flaws that drag it out of the A level, but doesn't make it an overall mediocre movie at all.

Two for the Money

Pretty good. It feels like one of the last films where Pacino was Pacino. McConaughey is his cool self but ultimately doesn't stretch himself passed his comfort zone of being the confident know-all. Russo was just there, not adding much. I'd have preferred a prettier female co-star, but I suppose she was believable as an old man's wife.

I didn't feel that Brandon went off the rails enough (or at all) to warrant his game being affected so much. There should probably have been many scenes of him partying it up, screwing chicks, and doing coke or something, because without it there was no plausible reason for him just one day getting "1 for 8" when previously he was getting everything right. Also, the set up where Pacino didn't actually go to Vegas in order for him to catch Russo and McConaughey wasn't really earned. It may have been better also if they made more of a sour relationship between the two leads. McConaughey doesn't get his rightful commission, and the story could develop from there, but it goes nowhere. Pacino perfectly turns in that scene, then in the next scene he is apologising. This was disappointing.

Two for the Money is two thirds of a good film that could have done with a few more rewrites to reach the level of The Wolf of Wall Street. It is, however, very enjoyable to observe sports gambling and watch two actors of Pacino and McConaughey's level share the screen.

B

I remember being very excited to see this when it came out. I went on opening night.

It is glossily produced and capably acted, but bland at the core. There are so many superior gambling and rise-and-fall-of-a-high-roller films.

It's weak with every cliche in the book. This is a perfect example of hating Matt for the first part of his career.

C-

Eh, he did worse. Fool's Gold, for example. I would argue Two for the Money is more of a modest, unimpressive prediction of his recent "renaissance" as a dramatic actor.

I do think it played to his strenghts but I do consider him a script actor. It's not like he is amazing now, he has a much better agent now

I downloaded Fools Gold earlier. I thought it might be fun like Sahara. I also got Failure to Launch.