|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 9/7/2008 8:25:23 PM PACIFIC |
 Stuey, pokster, 20. Oct 2003 16:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hello All, I have recently read a review of the new Stu Ungar movie but I was wondering if anyone here had actually seen it, and if so what did you think? It looks to have a pretty good cast and the reveiw was good. Has anyone seen it? P | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, gary ford, 20. Oct 2003 18:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 16:05 pokster wrote: > Hello All, > > I have recently read a review of the new Stu Ungar movie but I was wondering if > anyone here had actually seen it, and if so what did you think? It looks to > have a pretty good cast and the reveiw was good. > > Has anyone seen it? > Yes. i saw it here at the LV Film Festival. I thought it was very good , but downbeat. It is not actually a poker movie, more the story of Stiu Ungars life > P | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, backtoanalog, 20. Oct 2003 19:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hello, I saw it at the world premier here in Nashville. My opinion of the film is skewered for three reasons: 1) I am a filmmaker, 2) I am a poker player, and 3) I live in Nashville and the movie was mostly shot here by a local filmmaker. To be brutally honest, the picture sucks. Dude who plays Ungar is good but the script is god awful. Its lit like a soap opera and the sets are cheesy, the music is cheesy....everything just comes off like a soap opera. Again, while the guy who plays Ungar is good, (I guess he's a character in the Sopranos, i've never seen the show so I don't know) the other actors are all basically reciting lines. Everything is completely mistimed in this picture, which could be in the editing but is probably in the performances. The poker action in the movie is next to nil. There is only a very brief glimpse of Ungar's genius; they stick to his personal downfalls instead. But amazingly, there is never a really down and dirty portrayal of his drug abuse and whoring either. The film just sort of floats along, kind of half heartedly telling a story. In the end, its the indoor lighting schemes that really turned my stomach. Its literally like watching a soap opera. Dreadfully awful. Also, its hard for me to buy the fact that certain scenes that are supposed to take place in "Brooklyn 1972" are actually shot at well-known locales in Nashville. Btw, the only good review of the movie i've seen is from Jim Ridley of the Nashville Scene, who has an obvious home town bias and a (imho) dubious record in reviewing films. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, pokster, 20. Oct 2003 22:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The review I saw at http://www.pokerresults.com/PokerArticlesDetail.asp?articleID=51 was good but if that is the case that they don't really go into his genius and concentrate more on his pitfalls, that would make for fairly depressing viewing!! Thanks for your taking the time to write that though - I won't be busting my guts to get hold of the movie! P | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, allinagain, 1. Nov 2003 17:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wow. Really nasty commentary. If I didn't see the movie myself (in Vegas), I'd definitely avoid it on your say-so. First, I thought the movie was great. Maybe not quite enough poker, but I didn't really care -- totally entertained the whole time. The performances were incredible. Next, the website shows a bunch of good reviews, including Film Threat, Card Player, The Tennessean, and lots of others. People might want to check it out before making up their minds (at the site, click "Press" to see the reviews): http://www.stueymovie.com/ Also, it seems you're kind've alone in Nashville -- it won the Audience Award there. Sorry, what film did you say you made, and where can we see it? -- All in, all the time. on 20. Oct 2003 19:28 backtoanalog wrote: > Hello, > > I saw it at the world premier here in Nashville. My opinion of the film is skewered > for three reasons: 1) I am a filmmaker, 2) I am a poker player, and 3) I live in > Nashville and the movie was mostly shot here by a local filmmaker. To be brutally > honest, the picture sucks. Dude who plays Ungar is good but the script is god awful. > Its lit like a soap opera and the sets are cheesy, the music is > cheesy....everything just comes off like a soap opera. Again, while the guy who > plays Ungar is good, (I guess he's a character in the Sopranos, i've never seen the > show so I don't know) the other actors are all basically reciting lines. Everything > is completely mistimed in this picture, which could be in the editing but is probably > in the performances. > > The poker action in the movie is next to nil. There is only a very brief glimpse of > Ungar's genius; they stick to his personal downfalls instead. But amazingly, there > is never a really down and dirty portrayal of his drug abuse and whoring either. The > film just sort of floats along, kind of half heartedly telling a story. > > In the end, its the indoor lighting schemes that really turned my stomach. Its > literally like watching a soap opera. Dreadfully awful. > > Also, its hard for me to buy the fact that certain scenes that are supposed to take > place in "Brooklyn 1972" are actually shot at well-known locales in Nashville. Btw, > the only good review of the movie i've seen is from Jim Ridley of the Nashville > Scene, who has an obvious home town bias and a (imho) dubious record in reviewing > films. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, backtoanalog, 3. Nov 2003 20:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| allinagain, First, I'm glad you liked the film. I have no doubt that you liked it and I'm sure many others will enjoy it as well. I was afraid that my brutally honest thoughts might scare away people from seeing it and that was not my intention. I guess I could have made that clearer in my post. As a fan and lover of the artform of filmmaking, I would never tell someone to actively avoid a movie based on my singular opinion. So I think we agree as far as that goes. I would like to address your comment "Also, it seems you're kind've alone in Nashville--it won the Audience Award there. Sorry, what film did you say you made, and where can we see it?" With all due respect, (and I give the utmost respect to people on the net whom I have not met personally) I think you stepped out of bounds here. As far being "alone in Nashville." Well, I was a volunteer at the Nashville Film Festival to which you are referring. I was there all week. The woman who is in charge of the programming of the festival (she pre-screens the movies and decides which will be accepted) is a very close friend of mine. Now, I'm not sure if you've ever been to a film festival or not, but the audience voting is typically done by ballot. The film is rated on some sort of scale (I think it was 1-5) immediately after you see it. At the Nashville Film Festival, in my opinion the voting is flawed precisely because it favors movies that were made locally. You see, most of the films shown throughout the week have fairly small audiences without the hoopla and hype that Stuey, the local favorite had. All screenings of Stuey were sold out because all of the people involved in the production, and all of their family and all of their friends get first dibs on the tickets. Now what kind of reliable/unbiased audience is that to vote on the film? While I was disapointed that Stuey won the audience award, frankly I wasn't surprised because of the hype. And I think that the fact that movie is representing the Nashville Film Festival and the Nashville filmmaking scene is embarrasing. I wish you could have seen some of the absolutely fantastic pictures that Stuey beat out. And I've heard other filmmakers in Nashville voice similar comlaints and similar opinions on Stuey. As far as the local press goes, its pretty darn hard for a local film reviewer to give an honest opinion on a film made locally by a local filmmaker. Why? Because we all want to see more films made in Nashville, and we want to see more major motion pictures made by local filmmakers. I would point out here that the of the "bunch of good reviews on the website" you refer to, 6 of the 15 are from Nashville publications. Pretty reliable. 3 more are from Las Vegas publications that obviously have an interested readership, and a few more a from Card Player magazine, hardly an expert or reliable source on filmmaking review. A few other warm reviews from online critics i've never heard of don't hold much ground with me. Let's wait until we hear from the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, and others before we call this a critical success. Also, do honestly think that the movie's website is an accurate barometer of its critical reaction? Do you expect them to put up any bad reviews? Come on. As far as the low-blow you took at me about not having a nationally distributed film, its unfortunate you believe in that argument. My first reaction is to say "just wait, pal." But seriously, film reviewers have a long and intimate love-hate history with filmmakers. Most budding filmmakers read film reviews by Pauline Kael, Vincent Canby, Judith Crist and others religiously. The filmmaker Wes Anderson (Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums) has said that Pauline Kael's film criticism had as much effect on him as any filmmaker. And Pauline Kael never stood behind a camera. Jean-Luc Godard was a reviewer who gave out viscious criticism left and right until someone said "why don't you make a film, then?" So he did and he became the most influential director of all time. So to say that because you've never made a successful film, you're opinion holds no merit is just plain wrong. At this point I wish I could give a proper deconstruction of the film to improve on my embarassingly poorly written, haphazard review above. I was in a hurry and just jotting down my quick thoughts. Plus I usually have poker on my mind when surfing here, not film criticism. But now its been something like six weeks since i've seen it and I can't put together something academically acceptable. I simply remember thinking that Imperioli was good as Ungar, but the supporting cast was totally off, the lighting was not even second rate but third rate, and the editing was mistimed. But let's get back to poker. And don't worry allinagain, I will still value your opinions on the game even though you've never made it to the final table at the WSOP. peace. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Stuey, allinagain, 3. Nov 2003 22:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| backtoanalog, Actually, your condescension notwithstanding, I've been to a bunch of film festivals (including CineVegas, where I saw STUEY with an appreciative crowd of about 300 at the third sold-out screening), and am a filmmaker myself. So when I ask where I could see a film of YOURS, I mean it with the utmost sincerity: have you made a film that has run any gauntlet at all: film festival, theater, or wherever? Even a short that's on ifilm or any public venue? (I have: it's VERY difficult, and makes me appreciate STUEY all the more.) Because you hold yourself up as a filmmaker, and then your criticism would hold more water for me. And as a filmmaker, you should also know that only DISTRIBUTED films get reviewed by the New York Times, LA Times, etc. Indies depend on Film Threat, The Movie Chicks, and others that cover the places the films play, like Nashville and Vegas. But if you want to blow off 15 positive reviews on STUEY for whatever reason, go ahead, but don't publish "the only good review I've seen is from Jim Ridley..." Plain old wrong, and unfair to the filmmakers. As for the hype at the Nashville Festival, I believe that was far and away taken by "Charlie's War," (read the Festival Report on the Stuey site, or the Tennessean Fest wrapup on the site, or search the film on the web) another local film that apparently had a red carpet gala and Oprah's Dad in it. So, not quite correct again. And what about the Best Director Award at the San Diego Film Fest: also family and friends? Finally, the program director's name at the Nashville Fest is Brian Gordon, a guy (I know this from my film fest submissions: I've talked to him): don't know who your female friend is. So feel free to state your opinion: I certainly would fight for that right. But don't support it with half-truths and misinformation. In my opinion, you should be very proud of STUEY. And it seems like STUEY got a lot of good press in your town: maybe your film, if and when you make it, will too. And hopefully fellow filmmakers will support you there. But based on your attitude, I wouldn't count on it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|