Search - Bookies on DVD

Pleasantly diverting

aurileo | New York, NY | 10/23/2004

(3 out of 5 stars)

""Bookies" is a pretty cool movie in a lot of ways. The subject matter - three college students decide to become bookies to take advantage of their classmates' sports-betting joneses - is intriguing, and even though I don't know much about sports betting, the plot seemed mostly plausible to me, with maybe a few details that stretched credulity a little. The involvement of the Mafia seemed really far-fetched to me though - it's obviously been put into the story to create suspense and a sense of danger, but the ultimate resolution of the bad situation that develops is handled by Mark Illsley, the director, in a surprisingly low-key way that seems very anticlimactic after everything leading up to it. Overall the direction is good though, with lots of imaginative camera work and fast editing - the best sequence rapidly cuts back and forth between two simultaneous story events: a high-intensity foosball game being played by Nick Stahl and Rachael Leigh Cook, and Johnny Galecki's revenge-motivated break-in to an off-campus apartment and his subsequent escape while being chased by the three occupants. The music score is great, weaving seamlessly in and out of songs and textures which notch up the jittery, increasingly-on-edge feel of the story. The dialogue, for the most part, ranges from serviceable to good. The performances are a mixed bag. Johnny Galecki is great - if you only know him as sweet, mopey "David" from "Roseanne", you may be surprised at his reckless, short-tempered, foul-mouthed, coke-snorting character here, but he pulls it off with great aplomb. Nick Stahl is fine as the ostensible lead, but a bit bland - and his voice-overs are deadly and would have been better left out - they're completely unnecessary, since they only tell us stuff that we're seeing anyway. Lukas Haas and Rachael Leigh Cook are kind of nowhere - they don't do anything particularly interesting with their characters; and David Proval and John Diehl are just AWFUL as the Mafia goombas, employing every bad-actor-playing-a-mob-guy cliche in the book. Perhaps they were directed that way by Illsley; whatever the reason, their scenes are excruciating and almost stop the movie dead (and the "ominous" music underneath just makes their characterizations even more laughable).
"Bookies" is a pleasant enough film to see once, but it's not one that I have a desire to see again - it's diverting and technically well-done for the most part, but it didn't leave me with any particular message or feeling when it was over, and I can't honestly say that I really LIKED any of the characters. I'd say rent, don't buy."

ALRIGHT

chicoer2003 | Fresno, CA United States | 11/23/2004

(2 out of 5 stars)

"A good, young cast wears thin after a while. Not really worth seeing unless you're a sports fan."

Bookies

Brian | Phoenix, AZ USA | 10/02/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"I picked this up from a local video store merely because I couldnt find anything else that I havent seen thats out recently and I saw two or three other people grab it while I was in there. So, I decided to give it a try.

The movie does a good job of showing the highs and lows of sports gambling in some respects. However, it does not provide an accurate portayal of many aspects that it brings about.

First off, the REAL bookies that are in the mob are highly underskilled at what they do. If you have ever gotten heavy into sports gambling, on either side, you will notice that the one thing bookies have going for them is that they always know what every other bookie and better is doing. The bookies in the movie really has no idea what anyone else is doing, nor do they think things through.

Second, the drug issues that arise are very inaccurate. If you look at the amount of drugs that the one student does and then follow his sleep patterns, it just doesnt match up. You dont do that much, get the adrenaline rush he does, and then come back home and fall asleep right away.

Third, in the rigged game where the players are being paid off, they would never have covered the spread. In the movie, the one star player covers the spread by scoring all of the points himself, or giving it up to other players who were not involved. In real life, if you had $10,000 on the line, you would never have given the ball to anyone who would score. Money is too big of a deal in modern society to do so.

There are a lot of other little issues that you wont pick out the first time you see it most likely, but overall, the acting is fairly good to some extent and the splot is pretty well developed and teaches a good lesson.

I also do not agree with the 5 star rating, but also feel that 10 stars is pretty weak as well, so I will give it 83 of 100 stars, heh. So its 83% good.

Its definitly worth the watch even if you arent very interested in the subject or having any contact with it. Well developed movie outside of some small inaccuracies."

A complete waste of time on every level. It's awful.

Linda Linguvic | New York City | 11/22/2006

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I don't know why I sat through this boring and predicable 2003 film. I guess I just kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't.
The plot is about three college students who decide to become bookies. At first they succeed. Then the mob comes in.

Don't bother with the stupid film. It's a complete waste of time on every level. Stay away from this loser. It's awful.
"