Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

viewsonfilm.com Two for the Money is a 2005 release that dives head first into the volatile world of sports gambling. Our tour guides: Walter Abrams (played by Al Pacino, who chews a lot of scenery here) as an owner of a sports consulting operation and Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughey), a former college football star turned sports handicapper, who acts as Walter's innocent protégé. What starts off as a high energy romp turns dark and restless. Granted, this is not your ordinary sports flick. Its non-linear storytelling works because of the performances (Rene Russo is also effective in a supporting role as Pacino's character's wife). If you revel in the idea of Pacino playing himself, this is a must see. D. J. Caruso (The Salton Sea) directs. Dan Gilroy (Freejack) penned the script.

JKlivin88 There are two types of very good movies: The masterpieces, the ones that going to claim for the academy awards, and the others, that do not deserve major honors, but they are extremely entertaining. This film, belongs to the second category.First of all, Al Pacino gives a commanding performance. Some people say that he "saves the lot" for this movie, and although I don't agree with them cause i really enjoyed the film, one way or another, Pacino's acting is spectacular. McConaughey, on the other hand, follοws up closely being, to me, better than ever in this movie. He really fits in the role, is very confident and shows excellent chemistry with Pacino, who is his on-screen mentor. The dialogues between them are entertaining as hell, they share the same passion, the same winning spirit. Furthermore, Rene Russo does not go off the scene, having a soundless but very important backstage-role, influencing a lot Walther (Pacino) in his decisions, and being the only person who tries to keep up with the normal reality.The script is good and inspired in part by a true story, the directing also did not have serious matters. Definitely there are some questionable parts in the movie, such as the meaningless ending and the non-sense concluding conversation between Rene Russo and Al Pacino, but in the end of the day, you will not regret watching this movie.In my opinion 7,5 out of 10 would be the case for this one.

leplatypus Al is a great actor so it's very annoying to see movies where he's a bad guy. It's like a dear friend turning into an enemy! You know all his capacities but sadly he uses them in a bad way! There, he plays a cynic and Machiavellian boss of a sports counseling firm. His motto is to turn his collaborators into money vacuum by all means. In a great scene of collective therapy, you understand that he is really ill.Beyond Al, the cast isn't really interesting (McConaughey is a masculine Playmate, never missing an occasion to show his body, Russo not much convincing) and the story a bit obscure: if sports bets are illegal, how can they advise freely? Why do they say it is tax-free?

Howlin Wolf 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.