New poker movie in 2017 - Molly's Game (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter mummel
- Start date
detroitdad
Royal Flush
Cabernets?
detroitdad
Royal Flush
By grade school they'll be the biggest card sharks, no?
tommythecat
Flush
Way to young for a good Cabernet...
Wife and I saw it last night. It was good but pure poker content is low. I would say it's 50/50 cinema vs rental. Either way is good.
justsomedude
Royal Flush
Just saw it myself, and agree that it's not a "poker movie." Been doing some research on it and saw in an interview with Sorkin where he specifically says it's NOT a poker movie, and that it's supposed to be a personal story about Molly and her personal struggles/relationships... and I'd say he delivered on that.
It's no Rounders, but I'd probably give it another watch when it hits Prime or Netflix.
As I said (on page 3). It's not a poker movie. If you go in expecting one then you will be sorely disappointed. But the acting is great - I'll be getting the Blu-ray when it comes out.
SWEATER
3 of a Kind
Mrs. Sweater liked it more than I did!
justsomedude
Royal Flush
detroitdad
Royal Flush
Five bucks here as well during the Matinee hours and we have full reclining leather chairs to sit in
justsomedude
Royal Flush
Five bucks here as well during the Matinee hours and we have full reclining leather chairs to sit in
I'm a huge fan of the new reclining seats that you can reserve (got to kick some punk out of our seats at Star Wars!)... but the $12 we gotta pay here blows. Maybe that's just downtown pricing. (n) :thumbsdown:
I’ll pay any premium for a reserved recliner to a blockbuster like star wars. I think our tickets were $15 apiece. Totally worth it, as opposed to showing up early and hoping for the best.
$28 for two small popcorns and two small cokes on the other hand . . .
I saw this last night. I might do a longer write-up eventually, but here were some thoughts:
1) It felt like they switched editors about halfway through the movie. The first half I thought was garbage: Almost all the action is narrated. Violates the most basic precept of movie-making: Show, don’t tell. Lots of exposition was drawn out and over-explained. Many of the establishing backstory and other details could have been condensed, yet made more dramatic, with a better script... And I felt Chastain’s somewhat nasally voice was unsuited to so much voiceover work. I was hating it for a while.
2) The last third or so I thought was well done. The annoying voiceovers mostly drop out. They let the action and dialogue carry the film along. And finally we get some emotional payoffs to all the endless exposition from earlier.
3) The movie suffers from trying to be multiple things: A poker movie... A cautionary tale of the mob/gangster underworld... A legal procedural... A psychological exploration of the gambler mentality... A personal memoir / coming of age / father-daughter movie. All of these elements are in the story, but I thought they should have picked one or two main themes to focus on. (Note: Kevin Costner I thought was actually really good—normally I can’t stand him. There were a lot of good character actors as well.)
4) As far as poker goes: They do some good work showing the mindsets of various types of compulsive gamblers, and the shady hoods/moneylenders/backers who swirl like vultures around big games. There is an effort made to explain and dramatize some of the big hands which occur, but nothing particularly novel or insightful. There are some big bluffs, and one ridiculous hand where a whale mucks the nuts (or effective nuts? Not really clear). Overall, one got the sense that the director and his crew are not serious poker players—they knew enough to make the movie, but lots of little details are slightly off. Poker is the engine pushing the movie along, but it just as easily could have been something else.
5) CHIPS. The initial game she runs is a $10K buy-in cash game populated by one big movie star and a bunch of whales. This is where they use dice chips, and it seems lame. Surely someone at the game would have known better and insisted on an upgrade. She was making enough in tips to get a nicer set and have it represent <1% of her monthly profit... As Chastain’s character ratchets up the stakes, you do see some slightly nicer chips come into play—still nothing that special. There is an instance of cheating where she does show a knowledge of using more unique and traceable chips. But c’mon... My small $100 home tourney uses higher-grade chips than anything shown in these games, which at their peak get up to $250,000 just to sit down, not to mention tipping etc.
6) Legalities. The legal details which get thrown around were interesting; hard to tell how accurate it all was. The movie suggests that as long as Bloom was only getting paid via tips, that she was out of any legal jeopardy... And that her problems began when she started taking a rake so as to be better able to float credit to players. I kind of doubt that one could get away long-term with a game that big by getting “tipped” $1K-$20K per game, as opposed to taking a rake. A good lawyer would treat that as a distinction without a difference. Any thoughts?
7) The Cheese Factor. Maybe it is an accurate characterization of this high-stakes world, but I was struck by how corny/cheesy it comes across. It’s like some stylist accidentally picked up a copy of the Robb Report and tried to use it as a basis for portraying a high-stakes game. Every dealer and waitress has to be “hot” in a way that would appeal to a 14-year-old boy just starting to check out babes. There are lots of quick-edited sequences of crystal highball glasses full of whiskey, fat cigars being lit, slow motion shots of chips being tossed into the pot, all overlayered with bad hard rock. Again, maybe this is the ambiance which appeals to bigshot whales—but it is not my fantasy of what a big game should be!
1) It felt like they switched editors about halfway through the movie. The first half I thought was garbage: Almost all the action is narrated. Violates the most basic precept of movie-making: Show, don’t tell. Lots of exposition was drawn out and over-explained. Many of the establishing backstory and other details could have been condensed, yet made more dramatic, with a better script... And I felt Chastain’s somewhat nasally voice was unsuited to so much voiceover work. I was hating it for a while.
2) The last third or so I thought was well done. The annoying voiceovers mostly drop out. They let the action and dialogue carry the film along. And finally we get some emotional payoffs to all the endless exposition from earlier.
3) The movie suffers from trying to be multiple things: A poker movie... A cautionary tale of the mob/gangster underworld... A legal procedural... A psychological exploration of the gambler mentality... A personal memoir / coming of age / father-daughter movie. All of these elements are in the story, but I thought they should have picked one or two main themes to focus on. (Note: Kevin Costner I thought was actually really good—normally I can’t stand him. There were a lot of good character actors as well.)
4) As far as poker goes: They do some good work showing the mindsets of various types of compulsive gamblers, and the shady hoods/moneylenders/backers who swirl like vultures around big games. There is an effort made to explain and dramatize some of the big hands which occur, but nothing particularly novel or insightful. There are some big bluffs, and one ridiculous hand where a whale mucks the nuts (or effective nuts? Not really clear). Overall, one got the sense that the director and his crew are not serious poker players—they knew enough to make the movie, but lots of little details are slightly off. Poker is the engine pushing the movie along, but it just as easily could have been something else.
5) CHIPS. The initial game she runs is a $10K buy-in cash game populated by one big movie star and a bunch of whales. This is where they use dice chips, and it seems lame. Surely someone at the game would have known better and insisted on an upgrade. She was making enough in tips to get a nicer set and have it represent <1% of her monthly profit... As Chastain’s character ratchets up the stakes, you do see some slightly nicer chips come into play—still nothing that special. There is an instance of cheating where she does show a knowledge of using more unique and traceable chips. But c’mon... My small $100 home tourney uses higher-grade chips than anything shown in these games, which at their peak get up to $250,000 just to sit down, not to mention tipping etc.
6) Legalities. The legal details which get thrown around were interesting; hard to tell how accurate it all was. The movie suggests that as long as Bloom was only getting paid via tips, that she was out of any legal jeopardy... And that her problems began when she started taking a rake so as to be better able to float credit to players. I kind of doubt that one could get away long-term with a game that big by getting “tipped” $1K-$20K per game, as opposed to taking a rake. A good lawyer would treat that as a distinction without a difference. Any thoughts?
7) The Cheese Factor. Maybe it is an accurate characterization of this high-stakes world, but I was struck by how corny/cheesy it comes across. It’s like some stylist accidentally picked up a copy of the Robb Report and tried to use it as a basis for portraying a high-stakes game. Every dealer and waitress has to be “hot” in a way that would appeal to a 14-year-old boy just starting to check out babes. There are lots of quick-edited sequences of crystal highball glasses full of whiskey, fat cigars being lit, slow motion shots of chips being tossed into the pot, all overlayered with bad hard rock. Again, maybe this is the ambiance which appeals to bigshot whales—but it is not my fantasy of what a big game should be!
Last edited:
If you read the book, I believe that the Cheese Factor was really there. She made it a point to make sure that each player had their favorite food and drinks available. She also hand picked the waitresses because they were hot and also because they had some brains to go along with the looks.
I enjoyed the movie for what it was, entertainment. The book never seemed to get too in depth with the legal proceedings, which all seemed to occur after publication. So I found that part interesting and wonder how close to reality it was.
I enjoyed the movie for what it was, entertainment. The book never seemed to get too in depth with the legal proceedings, which all seemed to occur after publication. So I found that part interesting and wonder how close to reality it was.
You mean this is not long enough?
Apparently gaucho helped them write one scene, and it came out pretty good, but the reality is unless you are making a true poker movie or the complete accuracy of every poker scene is essential to the movie, most scenes will be embellished and or changed to the dislike of true poker enthusiasts.
Even now, most of these games use chips that most members of this community would not touch. Plastic, dice, Nexgen, whatever you want to call them. I haven't been able to track down the exact chips she used in her game, but have seen the chips used in a very similar game that was managed by one of her rivals in NY and they are just
. I know several people who used to play in her game or similarly big games and not a single one of them even seen a single one of them knows what or what Paulsons are or who this Mr. Paulson is. This has truly been baffling to me ever since I started buying some chips. I do know that some have semi-custom sets. There is a plastic chip set with the initial ET on it for example, but not much beyond that. I have yet to hear anyone talking about truly custom sets, some eye-opening chips, or even a high-end grail set.
If it were only tips, she could get away with it, especially if she was declaring them and paying taxes, even though she probably wasn't reporting her entire income. Her problem obviously started with the rake. The rake is almost a necessary beast in these games as someone needs to guarantee or help with the collection of debts. Either you have to physically to people and collect checks and cash or have them wire money through various services (or a combination of two). The reason she was able to collect such high rake was because she was basically guaranteeing the game/payments. This is a highly risky and proportionally rewarding task. And to this day, it continues.
The cheese factor as you call it is very real. these people love to be catered to and after a while will even demand lots of things, including attractive massage girls, certain types of dealers, sometimes multiple dealer changes based on player preferences, not to mention particular food, drinks, etc. For some, it's about gambling, for others it's about the weekly social gathering and being away from home and their daily work routine, but for very few of these people it's about 'poker'. Don't get me wrong, they do enjoy the game, but not as much as you and I do.
I’d say Rounders got things right for all but the biggest purists. But I can't really think of another, unless maybe if one went way back to some classic movies I haven't seen in a long time...
Baffling indeed. On the one hand, I don’t really expect them to nail it; on the other hand, Hollywood does have the budget to nail this type of detail. And directors today know that if they mess up, the internet is gonna notice. It may not hurt their bottom line, but I’d say for most other genres they are more careful. Say if you made a gritty cop movie, and really basic particulars are wrong (say, about the way a station house is run), you’d get slammed.
Agreed. But in her situation, running a game for whales with nearly unlimited bankrolls, I wonder why she offered credit at all. They could afford to bring the money they were prepared to lose to the game, or make a very large initial deposit when joining the game, which they would have to top off if it fell below a certain level.No doubt that could be a little awkward, but then she’d never or almost never have any money “on the street.” However, I suppose then if she were acting as a sort of bank, it would trigger other regulations.
About an hour from me in New York State, there is a club—not high stakes, but very active—which is incorporated explicitly as a poker club. It operates as a membership organization, out in the open. They have been doing this for about 12-15 years. I’ve seen the incorporation papers, and there is no attempt to hide what it is about. The State approved them, and they have a tax-exempt determination. How this happened and continues, I don’t know, but apparently the authorities are cool with it. Just surprised no one has duplicated their model. (Ms. Bloom might have done this, and just opened a very expensive private club.)
Interesting. Frankly I’d rather play on a resin table with dice chips in a Polish-American social hall than go in for such trappings. At least it would feel authentic. But there surely is a middle ground, and to each their own.
Meddler2
Full House
Moviepass. $6.99/mo for any movie any theatre any time. Only restrictions limit to one movie per day.
My wife and I both have a membership and see about 2-3 movies per week. It's awesome.
Molly was so-so but fantastic for basically free.
Almost every game I know, players go on the sheet. period. No one brings money to the game or deposits money in advance. Very few games exist where the entire sheet gets settled at the end of the night, but most of the very big games, the sheet gets settled the next day with wire transfers, exchange of checks, etc.
I understand that it is not generally done; still to me it would be smarter. And per my suggestion above, if you insist on a large deposit at the start, and top-offs as you go, then the host is never chasing money. But I can see how that would diminish the possibility of a whale really overspending on a given night.
Or! Use Bitcoin. Transfer the funds essentially instantly.
Or! Use Bitcoin. Transfer the funds essentially instantly.
Either way, running a game based on faith that everyone will always make good seems absolutely destined to run aground eventually. I would want at minimum for each new player to have a guarantor.
Anyone inviting a new player to the game is the de facto guarantor for that player for the first game. After that player has been 'accepted' by the group/host, then the group/host takes the risk (obviously the host if he/she is raking the game)
OK, so... By allowing a new player to attend a second time, that constitutes the newbie being accepted? Or does it have to be more explicit than that? (I assume there must be times when a host says, “You can bring that guy again, but he’s your responsibility...)
Basically, it just seems like a miracle for any high stakes underground game to last more than a few years without some kind of major problem arising. Seems like Bloom handled things about as well as anyone could, and it still went off the rails.
Presumably there are people who have this down, or just have so much in the bank that floating/lending doesn’t become an issue. But it’s not the kind of thing one is likely to hear about.
In my experience, just managing the personalities in a tiny home game can be challenging. And I have a pretty tight-knit group whose core has stuck together for 7-8 years now.
Presumably there are people who have this down, or just have so much in the bank that floating/lending doesn’t become an issue. But it’s not the kind of thing one is likely to hear about.
In my experience, just managing the personalities in a tiny home game can be challenging. And I have a pretty tight-knit group whose core has stuck together for 7-8 years now.
Depends on the game and whether its raked or not. Typically, in a heavily-raked game, the host takes the responsibility after the player has been accepted by the group. In other games (some non-raked games), it might take a few games before the responsibility is passed to the group. Again, rules might vary slightly, but this is usually not talked about in the open nor needs to be explicit. Being a very small community that play these stakes, many either know each other or have a few common friends/associates. At the very least, everyone has been vetted to a very small degree by the host and even other players. It is very common for players to ask who will be playing at an upcoming game and if they hear a name they don't recognize, they will inquire further and discuss it with the host and other players, not just for credit worthiness, but game/skill report, and other issues as well.
That is basically true. Few games last more than a few years in their original form with the same cast of characters.
gopherblue
Straight Flush
I’ve played in a number of the underground NYC clubs over the years and most used some sort of distinctive chips, at the low end hotstamped dice chips and at the high end custom ceramics or other customized chips. But no Paulsons and no ASM/CPCs.
Even at the higher end private games, there was only one instance of someone using Paulsons, but they were his personal Noir set.
Even at the higher end private games, there was only one instance of someone using Paulsons, but they were his personal Noir set.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
