Shade (2003) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
67 Reviews
Sort by:
Flawed fun
Mike Keating27 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Shade draws its audience into a world of sharp suits, jazzy tunes and card tricks, which, despite its obvious cool, doesn't really make the grade.

That isn't to say that Shade isn't entertaining. It looks good, it sounds good, and the performances are effective enough (Foxx is particularly...noticeable), but the film just isn't as well done as other con movies such as The Grifters (1990), and is way below the sophistication of bigger heist movies such as Ocean's Eleven (2001).

My biggest problem with Shade was the the final plot twist. It seemed a bit unnecessary. The biggest problem in terms of plot is that it's based on an a grudge from an event that happened before the film starts, that we only learn about through infrequent references. Sure, there's tension between Charlier (Grabriel Byrne) and Vernon (Stuart Townsend), but it's not enough, and it's something that could have been made clearer with a flashback or even a short conversation. After all, they did it enough for Stevens (Stallone), and he's a supporting character at the most.

That being said, Shade is still a decent enough con movie to be worth watching, and while it has a few problems, that doesn't stop it being enjoyable.

And it *did* make me want to play poker.
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
does follow real rules of cards
iloveannettebug11 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
My Thoughts
leafsfanatic29 June 2004
I work at Blockbuster so it's fair to say I have seen my fair share of movies and to be honest in the last 3 years...nothing has really caught my eye and made me sit and enjoy watching the same movie over and over again.

One thing I notice to is we get a lot of 'sleepers' or straight to DVD titles and often those are the better of the movies. Shade was one of them, this movie had an excellent story, great acting and was just fun to watch, when I saw it I wanted to own it, although it cost me $30 Canadian it was worth it. Stallone, although not well liked or viewed as a good actor by public opinion, I beg to differ. Rock, Cop Land, Shade were all excellent movies, he was good in the remake of Get Carter as well. Stuart Townsend also is an up and coming actor. It's a shame a well made movie like this didn't go to theaters.

It is movies like Shade and Poolhall Junkies that I can sit down and enjoy watching, forget sitting and watching the Pitch Black's, the Torque's and all those other overhyped movies, give me the sleepers anyday!
35 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A shade better than expected.
gridoon5 January 2005
As movies about card games and/or con artists go, "Shade" is no "House Of Games" or "Nine Queens", but it's better than you might expect for a film that was barely released theatrically. The first two twists caught me completely off-guard (the final twist though....I saw it coming a few seconds before it happened). The poker scenes are highly entertaining (where can I get one of those "juiced" decks?). There are many good performances (Townsend, Foxx, Byrne), and nice turns by veterans (Hal Holbrook, Bo Hopkins). The weak links are Stallone and Melanie Griffith, who look awful in this film. Stallone's performance isn't bad, but they could easily have replaced him with an actor more appropriate for this role; Griffith IS bad, and it's hard to know what she's even doing in the picture. An actor who stands out (in a good way) is Roger G. Smith as Marlo, the mob enforcer with the extremely calm voice. (**1/2)
20 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Totally Unrealistic (possible spoiler}
callnrick14 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A movie that pulls you in and doesn't let go.....
300bowling30 May 2004
Expectations were low to start(no real theatrical release)but it grabbed me from the opening credits and didn't let go 'til the last credits rolled off the screen..

Tight,full of twists with great casting,and really good energy this movie was a hellova lotta fun to experience. We watch a lot of DVDs off Netflix (5 a week) but this was the best experience on a 45inch home screen I've had from a movie with no marketing and no advance hype since Interstate 60. How sad if true that it only made $50,000 in theatrical release. (previous review)... I'd give it 9 out of 10...And Stallone's performance was the cherry on top.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great flick
realgroves12 April 2004
Don't expect to see to many believable, realistic or reliable poker moves.... but all and all this was an extremely entertaining movie. If you live in the Los Angeles area it is fun to pick out some local hot spots and catch that 90% of the movie was filmed within a few blocks of Sunset and Ivar. Gabrielle Brynne is amazing as always... and Sly Stone delivers the goods for the first time in a long time. I didn't care for the fact that there weren't more realistic poker terms and logistics used throughout the flick. Definately in a game that size you would see chem-decks, a spotter checking for cheats, a cut card, table stakes opposed to this "money in my back pocket routine", and atleast one Asian or Armenian guy from the LA area looking for a big game. A great time for two hours... but not going to teach beginners anything about a real high-stakes game.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poker and story
Anno_136625 March 2004
Well this movie really impressed me with its mix of poker hustling and mystery suspense. Although it was obvious that there was twists to be seen after just 30mins when the 1st one is realised it isn't a movie you can predict and to its credit it isn't a movie that you want to predict it has it all sexy ladies, handsome men, suspense and mystery (with a few suprises thrown in for good measure) Stallone is maybe a little "boring" in his role but he still brings a certain amount of screen presance with his introduction. What is really strange is that the 2 main names in the movie don't even enter it till about 1 hour in a very bold move by the director which works very well. All in all i loved this movie Watch it and enjoy it!
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Return to form for Sly!!
With the long line of recent movies revolving around grifting and gambling and generally being super hip, this film is kind of the Independent and unheard of cousin of films like Oceans Eleven, Confidence and The Cooler (which was independent but not quite as much as this.). Now all its competitors are good, highly rated films. Now one would assume that because this is starring Sly Stallone and that it was not given a proper release, because no-one could stump up the money for it that it would essentially suck. Well it doesn't suck. This is a very good, and assured ensemble piece and very well shot and hip debut from writer/director Damien Niemen.

The film perhaps couldn't raise finance because it wasn't bankable. There is no big lead. Stallone would be the headlining name but he has a supporting role and of course with a lot of similarly themed films of equal to higher standard then it's a difficult one to find a market for. I watched this when it was released straight to video in the UK, a shame in many ways because this is a good film. Now what makes this good. Firstly the script is good. It's not original by any means but it's sharp and has good dialogue and interesting characters. Secondly the cast is excellent. When you think straight to video you think of Eric Roberts, Gary Busey, Dolph Lundgren, Jean Claude Van Damme, headlining and perhaps one or two other recognisable faces. This has a great cast, with Stuart Townsend, Gabriel Byrne, Thandie Newton, Jamie Foxx, Melanie Griffith and of course Sly Stallone. Townsend is excellent as the mechanic, basically the guy who can manipulate a deck of cards to his advantage, he is the key to the group of grifters consisting of him, Newton, and Byrne. They have a big score in mind, to take down master cards-man and king of all mechanics, the Dean played by Stallone. Now Byrne and Newton are both excellent but this is a great role for Stallone. Sly gives a great performance in this and it's a role that requires an inner depth and a subtlety and Stallone delivers.

Overall this is a very good movie. The score from Chris Young is good, nicely funky and understated and it's well shot. The film is also very well edited and stylish. It's not quite as good as Oceans Eleven because that was far more elaborate and with an even more impressive cast and similarly hip and stylish. At the end of the day Sly fans will be happy. It's not a big box office film but while he tries to re-launch himself as a money maker by doing sequels to Rocky and Rambo he should keep doing independent movies to give him testing roles. ****
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprisingly Good
loungeofmusic19 February 2003
Last night I got in to a screening for Shade. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I thought the acting was pretty good and the story definitely held my interest. There were plenty of twists and turns and the ending caught me by surprise. The film looks great and the card tricks were pretty cool, too.

This is a recommend from me.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well acted and directed. Good movie overall. 8/10
gnosis14 March 2004
Shade was well acted, no tour de force performances by any means, but still very well done. The cinematography and locations were excellent, and the entire feel and look of the film was some of the best I have seen in a while. The card tricks were quite interesting and the twists in the plot kept me quite thoroughly entertained. While overall a very good movie, the very calculated pace and flow of the movie was very much like a poker game. In some cases tense, exciting and often unexpected, and in others very slow, as if the movie were building up to a winning hand. All in all, a very well made movie, but not perfect. I give it an 8/10.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than anticipated, but had it's flaws…
dcobbimdb15 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I liked shade a quite a bit, enough to where I've seen it quite a few times. There were two aspects about it that bug me (and hence why I didn't give it 7 out of 10), but I'm willing to let those things slide as the rest of the movie made up for it and made for one entertaining experience. The most entertaining aspect for me was the card tricks and gambling scenes. The story itself was nothing original and more or less a basic grifter story. However the pace & tempo kept me interested throughout. The music scores were also nice & catchy and added to the film.

This first time director who basically loves this world of gambling, cart tricks & gifting decided to write and direct a movie about card mechanics. Prior to this movie I had no idea what a card mechanic even was, so one of the reasons I liked this movie so much was because it clued me to a magical, exciting and dangerous world of which I new nothing about. For those who do not like gambling or card tricks, this movie won't appeal to you as that's its focal point. You're either into the material or your not. That being said there are aspects about it that were intentional by the director that did tick me off a bit, but not enough to sway my opinion of the movie as a whole.

The cast is great and I dunno why everyone is so skeptical of Stallone, but he did a great job in this movie as far as I'm concerned. And he didn't play a "tough" guy either per say, even though he was intimidating. The other characters including the lead did a fine job. And you could tell they were intrigued and interested in the story itself and helped bring it to life. The other thing that was nice was the trick moves were all genuine, no camera tricks, doubles, or CGI. Just good old fashion fast moving skillful hands at work. About the only characters I didn't like were Melanie Griffith and Malini. I've never found Griffith to be anything more than a cute face with a nice set of boobs. Well as this movie shows, she's well past her prime wearing a cocktail dress of which the seams are about to bust. And Malini, who's supposed to be this big mob boss but who comes off more like a gentleman than anything else…

What bugged me the most in the movie was this whole concept of buying the pot by betting more than anyone else could afford and thereby winning the hand. Obviously with normal betting rules if someone goes all in and they have more money than you, you can still call and are in, granted if you win you only win what you called with, but it's the "accepted" way of betting. However the director chose to have it be that anyone could simply buy the pot and win the hand simply by betting more than you could afford. This absolutely makes no sense to me and I'm sure it would tick off anyone who knows anything about poker as its just plain stupid. The moment you have more money than anyone else (essentially the winner of the first hand), the game is essentially done unless you brought extra cash with you. Even though they didn't exploit this point more than a couple of times, it's still rather stupid when you think about it. In fact the very last hand of the game, Stallone tries to do this as he has 50K more than Stuart, and this after Stuart has already bet a several hundred thousand on the hand. So you mean to tell me that Stuart is simply going to loose the hand if he can't come up with another 50k. That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I can't even imagine underground / illegal gambling doing this as it's just retarded. So basically the person with the most money could simply buy the pot every hand. The one huge mistake on the part of the director. What's even worse is that the director admits to doing this deliberately in the behind the scenes part, but he doesn't say why…

The other part that bugged me as another reviewer already pointed out was in the end when Stallone makes reference to buying the pot for $10 as Stuart and he friends are tapped out. Anyone who had half a brain would realize that Stuart called Stallone's bet, meaning you can't raise again after you've been called. Why the director decided to have Stallone say that line is beyond me as it certainly didn't add much and didn't make any sense whatsoever…

Aside from these two issues the movie was good and I enjoyed it very much, but as I saw reading some other reviewers posts these things killed the movie for them.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It was nice to see Stallone back in form
alvaropelayo10 May 2005
"Shade" was pretty much better than I thought it would be. The beginning of the picture was kinda of shocking, but it was good to put you in motion. When yo'll see you'll understand what I am talking about. Sylvester Stallone is always good to me, and in this looks back in form. Gabriel Byrne is always watchable. I didn't know Jamie Foxx till now, it seems okay. Stuart Townsend appears to be right. Melanie Griffith should operate her upper lip back as it was, or did she have a car accident?. How nice it was to watch Bo Hopkins and Dina Merrill back!. It is not on the high Stallone good films level such as Nighthawk or Cliffhanger but it is a fair entertainment. Do not ask for something superb, but is a nice way for letting time go by.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
incredible demonstration of sleight of hand
hilouanne28 April 2005
If you are a fan a magic or card tricks, you should rent this movie. I enjoyed this movie quite a bit due to the interesting relationship they explore between cheating at cards and tricks employed by traditional magicians. I agree that on plot alone this is not the most exciting movie in the world. However, I especially found the special features on the DVD tremendously entertaining which gave an in-depth look at some of the astounding sleight of hand tricks done by world class magicians. Many of the card tricks are filmed upwards through a glass surface to show the audience how they are done. Anyone will be astounded at the dexterity and skill of the magicians who pull off cards switches invisibly, even after telegraphing their intentions to the audience to let them in on the trick.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Modern Day Maverick
jrfranklin018 July 2004
Think of the movie Maverick with Mel Gibson cast as a modern day tale and you get this movie (although not as good as Maverick). Basically a bunch of hustlers who have card-playing as one of their schemes decide to try to make it big against a old-school pro in a high stakes game. And other than learning about card con artists and seeing some impressive playing tricks, the movie really doesn't develop much beyond that. We have a whiz-kid at stacking decks, known as a Mechanic, played by Stuart Townsend (Vernon), whose potential I believe is restrained in this movie. He represents the prodigal son gone wrong due to the bad influence of his cohorts Charlie (Gabriel Byrne) and Tiffany (Thandy Newton). The dying-flame appearance of Sylvester Stallone (Stevens) known as "The Dean" takes a worn-out Rocky and puts him at a card table instead of in a boxing ring. The constant battle he faces to defend himself as the ultimate card shark is like some famous gunfighter who always challenged.

The card scamming "team" is introduced with some comic book-like announcement schtick, where just as the villain enters the scene, their title flashes across the screen under their face (e.g.: Tiffany as "The Turn"). It was nice though to see Hal Halbrook as "The Professor" still doing films. He does a good job of lending an old world charm and decency to the film.

Jamie Foxx (Larry Jennings) is gutted so quick it almost seems like he made a cameo appearance in this film. Gabriel Byrne and Thandie Newton are as crooked as they come, although Newton makes Byrne look like an altar boy by comparison. Townsend's character is a little subdued in the beginning until the focus shifts past his card tricks and develops him as the quasi-deep character of the film or otherwise protagonist. There is a ridiculous reunion/old flame air with Stalone and Meg Ryan, although it is intended to add weight to the Dean's character to balance that of Townsend's. I guess you could really say the movie about these two. Everything else is just decoration in the movie's attempt to try and involve more conflict and character developments.

Now that I have gabbed on and on, the movie in a nutshell is the classic tale of the talented rookie wanting to beat the master, and thus take his title. The movie gives you an unexpected ending that leaves you feeling like the one of the "snowed" victims it portrays. And the build-up to the final game falls to the floor at once with the game's simple "evening social" portrayal. Aside from this, I did like seeing what can be done with a deck of cards and just how far some con artists really go.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Wat Is Shade?
pacieterra-113 November 2006
This is an exceptionally stylish movie, loaded with well-known talent. Some, like Sly Stallone, Hal Holbrook, Stuart Townsend, Gabriel Byrne, and Thandie Newton (outstanding!), keep all the grifters in high-stakes poker games entertaining and watchable. Jamie Fox has a smaller role, but does his best with what he's given. The weak link is Melanie Griffith. Although she has done better cinema, and won raves on Broadway for "Chicago," she has little to work with here and is difficult to watch. The various plot twists and interrelationships among the various stars and supporting characters never reveal the final, surprise ending. The range of card tricks and poker maneuvers would never play in Vegas, but they are clever and well-executed. A bonus feature on the DVD illustrates and explains how the actors learned the dynamics of slight-of-hand at the Magic Castle for magicians in Los Angeles.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better Than You Think!
jim62638 July 2005
"Shade" is actually a pretty good film -- but esp. for those who like any card game/s and/or films about "the con," such as Mamet's "House of Games," "The Griters," et al. The drama & dialogue aren't Mamet calibre, but hey: That's why Mamet is Mamet, eh!? Granted Griffin is the weakest of the ensemble, but hers is not so large a role that it should distract... exc. those who dislike her anyway. The credits are truly amazing and I stress: These are NOT camera or editing tricks or CGI; they are real hands in real time doing real manipulations... truly remarkable!! Tyro director Nieman, also its scripter, obviously (well, my guess, anyway!) drew upon the mood & style of varied "con" films, as well as "The Usual Suspects" et al. -- i.e., it's a non-linear unfolding of the story and a lot of intentionally vague relationships that leaves the viewer to fill in the blanks. Personally, I like obtuse films, but it may annoy those who insist on everything being spelled out, and in order. Not a great film, but a fine debut for Nieman and very interesting to view. Also excellent acting by most of the cast, with no real scenery chewing (exc. Jamie Foxx, who was a bit over the top; but hey, there ARE people who are like that, so...!?).
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Surprised in a couple ways.
lissner25 July 2004
Sometimes I look at movies in terms of expectations and judge accordingly. Like 21 Grams, high expectations...and fell short. Shade, a straight to video/DVD with Stallone, mediocre at best expectations. This movie exceeded my expectations and in fact, I'd be more likely to recommend it as a rental then 21 grams. I was certainly entertained and thankfully Stallone, unlike some other straight to DVD releases, is NOT the star.

What was also unusual, was the fact that I didn't pick up on all the plot twists and they were plausible plot twists which made me feel like an actual story had been played out instead of left wondering, "where the hell did that come from"?

Better then average movie and way better then average straight to DVD. Certainly worth renting. Enjoy. If nothing else, the opening and closing credits show the viewer some very impressive slight of hand and how it's done by card sharks.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth the rent 7/10
MyOpinionIsFact21 June 2004
I liked this movie despite its flaws. I liked Larry Jennings played by Jamie Foxx. Before I saw it, I didn't like that Jamie Foxx was in this movie but now that I think about it, I don't know why. I guess he reminds me too much of the Wayne's brothers, who I can't stand. Rambo did a great job as the Dean. So did Stewart Townsend as Vernon. I didn't like Tiffany played by Thandie Newton. She wasn't sexy nor did she have much charisma and the screenwriters gave her a really bad scene which shouldn't have made it into the movie. Gabriel Byrne as Charlie Miller did an okay job.

As for the poker, there's a few corny moments (but watch the special features because they explain why they did some things).

I guess the best part of the movie is the card mechanics but the story was okay too.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Excellent film! Go see it!
liznegroni18 April 2004
Everyone must go see and support this film. If you like Tarantino, which I do, this film is perfect for you. With lots of twist and turns, Shade keeps you at the edge of your seat until the very last minute. It is a must see. Stallone is a classic, Melanie Griffith is smooth, Thandie Newton is sexy and cunning, Gabriel Byrne is brilliant as usual and of course, Stuart Townsend steals with a swift move every single scene with his superb talent. Damian Neiman did an excellent job writing and directing this movie and I am sure many more great films will be in his hands soon. I was fortunate enough to attend the Philadelphia and Atlantic City screenings for this film and to meet Damian, Shawn, Joe Nicolo, Carl, Michelle, Sara and last but not least, Stuart Townsend. They were all very gracious and showed me a lovely time in both cities. I also met many wonderful people from this group, who I hope to keep as long time friends. I had an amazing time and hope to do it all over again when they come down to Miami, Florida. Again, thank you for everything Damian, Shawn, Sara, Joe, Carl, Michelle and Stuart, you really are the best. Best of luck to you and to Shade. In my book, two thumbs up and if I had three thumbs, I would give it three. :-D Everyone, GO SEE SHADE! You won't regret it.

5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Support this film no matter what, it is excellent!
liznegroni14 April 2004
If you like the style of Quentin Tarantino, you will love the style of Damian Neiman. As a Tarantino fan myself, I was pleasantly surprised at Damian's film-making and wonderful scriptwriting. I had the privilege to attend the screening of the movie at the Philadelphia Film Festival and meet the actors and producers behind it all, plus I met many other wonderful people whom I hope to continue a friendship with in the years to come. Damian, Shawn, Joe, Carl, Michelle, Sara, and of course, Stuart Townsend, were all very gracious and wonderful people and even though I had just met them all, I felt as if I've known them for years. We had a wonderful time in Philadelphia and Atlantic City and hope to do it all over again in Miami. Back to the movie, lots of twists and turns, once you think you have it figured out, it takes you for a wild ride of unexpected plot turns and it keeps you on your toes. It has everything, suspense, romance, action, comedy, drama. Sylvester Stallone is a classic, Melanie Griffith was very smooth, Gabriel Byrne delivers a flooring performance (as usual), Jamie Foxx is absolutely hilarious and witty, Thandie Newton couldn't have been lovelier and cunning, and of course, Stuart Townsend,as usual again, delivers a flawless performance, perfect in every sense, from the smoothness of his character to the card tricks he did learn to do for the film. If you get the chance to watch this movie, head out and do so, you will not be disappointed. I give it two thumbs up, and if I had three thumbs, I would give it three. :-) Liz
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Movie
judgrecs8 March 2003
Hey, what a good little movie this is. Good plot, nice twists, and a good performance out of Stallone.I don't think the critics could complain there. I didn't see the ending coming. Jamie Fox was just great. Gabriel Byrne was good, as you would expect. I even liked Melenie Griffith. I hope this movie gets picked up. It deserves a shot at the box office.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a depressing viewing experience
dr_foreman2 March 2005
It took me a while to rent "Shade." I looked it over in the video store several times and said to myself, "How could a movie with Stallone, Foxx, Griffith, and Byrne possibly be straight-to-video?" And then I thought - rather foolishly - "how bad can it be?"

The answer to that question is very, very bad. Of course it's remarkable that "Shade" failed to get theatrical distribution when it boasts a fairly impressive roster of stars (albeit has-been ones). But it failed because it deserved to fail...because it really is remarkably bad.

I'm trying to think of something, anything, to commend about this movie. But in tedious fact it's yet another story of small-time crooks trying to make big; I've seen a hundred movies like it, and ninety-eight of those were better. I don't care about the characters, who are thinly developed and uniformly scuzzy, and the endless plot twists and double-triple-quadruple crosses get tiresome fast. The profanity-laden dialog lacks wit and falls utterly flat, and the music and direction attempt glitz but come across as gimmicky. In short, it's a disaster.

"Shade" isn't a good little movie that was wronged by the mean old distributors; it's an awful movie that deserved a quick burial. And that's too bad, because Stallone and company could've used a hit to revitalize their careers. But at least Foxx escaped from the stink of this bomb, right?
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I add the spoiler comment, just to be safe rather than sorry
jay_hovah70325 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think that's a line from the movie. It doesn't matter if this catchphrase is or isn't, because nothing, not even a line up of sunsetting incredible actors could save this movie.

Man this movie is bad. I originally was going to give this 10 stars and trash Steven Soderbergh for copying the plot line, locations and the idea of twist after twist after twist. I thought this movie preceded Oceans 11, but when I came to IMDb I found this was released AFTER Ocean's 11. AFTER. I have plenty to say about how much I loathe Soderbergh, but one thing you can never take from him is Ocean's 11. It is one of the few perfect films of our generation.

The Ocean's movie (the first, 12 and 13 are horrific) set the bar on grifting movies incredibly high that one shouldn't even consider penning another one until you can match it, top it, or heck, just come close to its genius without copying it.

This movie could only copy the good ideas from Oceans 11 and get wrong everything else. Gabriel Byrne is too old to end every sentence with "baby" when speaking to his nominal love interest. Sylvester Stallone is watchable because he's an oaf. I will never believe him to be of any intelligence level that would allow for him to be the best card shark for say, 30 years. And Stuart Townsends smirk is lovable, but he really can't compete with Brad Pitt's. (For the record I think Brad Pitt is fine to look at and one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood. His acting abilities are such that when he plays a character, you can always tell that its Brad Pitt, thinking he's acting how his character should act. Its quite sad.)

This movie should been titled, Ocean's 14, the drama in real life. This was a made for TV movie version of what really happened to the crew. They all ended up washed up, selling each other out and the two aging but beautiful stars from Oceans 11 (George Clooney and Julia Roberts) end up with collagen implants and wrinkles, ala Sly and Melanie Griffith.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cincinati kid's worst remake
Shahman11 January 2006
Please watch the original "Cincinati kid" if you have any respect for either poker or a good movie, even the quotes stolen directly from the original movie couldn't save the awful performance, quotes like" you were good kid, but as long as I am around you will always be the second best".

Amazingly enough Sylvester Stallone gives his best performance after "Rocky I" but everyone including himself knows that his best is nothing even close to the brilliancy of Edward G. Robinson or Steve McQueen.

please save yourself a headache about why all the known rules of poker are broken and ignored in this movie or why the background annoying "music" never stops throughout the whole movie and instead enjoy the original masterpiece, "Cincinati kid".

Unfortunately I had to watch this worthless piece of junk last night only because there wasn't anything else on TV and I was too tired to getup and go to my PC for some serious web surfing, wrong choice..
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews