User reviews

The characters are uninteresting and ridiculous. You do not know, or care, what is happening to whom. The plot is convoluted. If you watch this when you're completely sober, you'll understand about as much as if you watched a normal movie completely drunk. I thought it had a good ending, but not nearly good enough to make up for the time and money I spent to watch it.

Possibly one of the worst films I have ever seen, I was lent it by a friend and could not even finish it- and I am a film lover. The actual poker game was there for like 2 minutes, had nothing to do with the plot and made NO sense. It was boring and terrible to the point of hilarity- but not near enough to save it. Though I may be bias as a huge red hot chili peppers fan, I did think flea was the only redeeming feature of the film as he was the only one who COULD act and DID act as much as this awful film allowed him. I would advise you never to watch this film if you value your sanity, but if you are a flea lover, you won't be disappointed it him.

There wasn't much poker played in this excuse for a movie, so I don't know where the title came from. I bought the DVD at a dollar shop and was still hurt at losing the cost. On the title cover it had, winner of best film and other accolades from the Chicago Film Festival, I'd hate to see the other entrants. A tip for anyone visiting Chicago when they hold a film festival, pay the extra and go to Cannes.

There is nothing good I can say about this movie, it was just awful. The acting, the script, the direction. I didn't watch it till the end, it was too much like slow torture, 45 minutes in seemed like 5 hours. My advice is, even for a dollar, don't bother.

This is an interesting crime film by freshman director Jeff Santo. The narrative is of less importance than the technique, which involves pace-related risk-taking. Expressionism is nicely developed here, with the manner in which time is handled being consistent with the script. The slowness of the scenes might be off-putting to some, but a directorial point of view is established and well-met. The acting, particularly by Heinle, Hunter and Blondell, maintains the author's focus on style. There are some red herrings, but not enough to mar this little-known attempt at creative cinema.