Shade (2003)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Just what I expected

Good movie but grossly overrated

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

decent movie if you know nothing about cards. if you are a card player, which now a days everyone plays Texas holdem, you will notice that this movie wasn't written well according to how cards are actually played. i haven't seen this movie for like 5 years so i don't remember everything that was wrong but someone should have pulled out a poker rulebook when making this movie. for example 1. they announce they are going to play a game of no limit Texas holdem, but instead are playing some variation of 5 card draw instead.2. throughout the movie when the guy with the bigger chip stack moves all in and says "o im all in now too and you cant cover my bet so i win", NO. in real life poker if the other player cant cover the larger chip stack the pot will only go up as far as what the small chip stack can cover, in this movie Stallone has a more money than the other guy and is like "you need to come up with more money or i win the pot...doesn't happen like this in poker like i said its been a few years since i saw this movie but next time someone decides to make a movie about poker, please read a rule book and try to make the movie follow the rules of the game (like in rounders) because this movie is so full of goofs when it comes to how poker is played

Following the wake of the ultimate poker movie 'Rounders' in 1998 and everyman Chris Moneymaker's World Series of Poker Main Event Win in 2003, the poker community was faced what is now known as "the poker boom." Utilizing the technology and ease of online poker, the game blew up to dizzying popularity. Casinos (both virtual and real world) were packed as every average Joe thought they could successfully transfer the skills from their nickel-and-dime, kitchen-table poker games. This was both a blessing and a curse on the poker world. It brought in plenty of easy money, but also forever changed the way the game was played into something that is now unrecognizable.Another change arising from this "boom" was in the media. Poker was everywhere: movies, television, books, and magazines. Apart from 'Rounders,' very few poker movies ever reached any kind of success, with films like 'Lucky You' (a mediocre love story starring Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore) only taking in moderate numbers and receiving mixed reviews from critics and players alike.'Shade' attempted to re-capitalize on the 'Rounders'-style poker film. Like its predecessor, it focused on the characters taking down the "big games" outside of the casinos and, like 'Rounders,' utilized a big-name cast. 'Shade,' however, film just had something missing. One of the most obvious missing elements was the character setup. In 'Rounders,' virtually everyone was likable (or, at least, entertaining), even the scumbags and bad guys. With 'Shade,' however, some of the main characters were barely tolerable. Larry (Jamie Foxx) was probably the worst of them all. He had terrible table etiquette, he showed massive tells on every hand, and he disrespected his backers. As a poker player, I found him despicable. On the counter, I enjoyed Gabriel Byrne's role of Charlie, who played a hustler very well. Also, in some of the later roles, Sly Stallone and the great Hal Holbrook really gave the film the extra spark it needed as it entered the final act (which, to be honest, was really the only great act of the film).The poker in the movie was mediocre. The players were mostly terrible and completely over-the-top; and, some of the hands were so unbelievably ridiculous that it's mind-blowing that no one realized they were being conned. This was a fault of the writing. These are all supposed to be professional con men & hustlers, so they should have been constantly be on the lookout for setups. Unfortunately, they were all either extremely delusional or completely naïve because no one saw the hits they were taking. This movie was clearly not made to be a "poker movie" like 'Rounders,' where poker was at the forefront and center of every storyline. This is more about the con than the cards.Overall, if you're a poker fan looking for a movie like that, stick with the classics. However, if you want a plot-driven hustler movie with many twists & turns (regardless of how predictable many of them may be), give a look to 'Shade.' Final Verdict: 6.5/10 -AP3-

"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.

I won't lie, I thought it was a pretty good movie. But I have seen two distinct versions of it! I purchased and watched the DVD version of this movie, and then acquired (for backup purposes), watched, and deleted an .avi version of this movie, only to find that it was quite different. Most of the music was different, the story had a few significant changes as well, and the "chapter" headlines that appear in the DVD version were not on the other version. I would say that the non-DVD version or this film was superior. Does anyone know of a second cut that legitimately exists, and if not, what happened to it? I would like to get my hands on the non-DVD version, and the movie would have gotten an 8 from me if that was the only version out there.