Metascore
54

Mixed or average reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 32
  2. Negative: 3 out of 32
  1. 75
    For a grimmer and more realistic look at this world, no modern movie has surpassed Karel Reisz's "The Gambler'' (1974), starring James Caan in a screenplay by self-described degenerate gambler James Toback.
  2. Reviewed by: Edvins Beitkis
    75
    In spite of how hard everything is to believe, you believe what Damon is doing.
  3. 75
    Most novel is Rounders' message that the real sin isn't giving into vice but denying your God-given talents and not risking it all.
  4. 75
    Although the storyline is predictable, the intelligent dialogue and top-drawer acting more than make up for the possible deficiency.
  5. Though it's a good-looking flick with some smart acting and a few flashy runs, it barely breaks even dramatically, and feels, overall, like a good chance wasted.
  6. The acting is solid, but the story builds less drama and suspense than its high-stakes subject might lead you to expect.
  7. It should have been the poker equivalent of "The Hustler." But it suffers from iron-poor blood. No energy. It just lies there.
  8. 60
    Richly atmospheric but a little thin in the character department: It feels oddly truncated, despite nicely textured performances.
  9. Reviewed by: Ron Wells
    60
    It's too bad with all of the poker action there wasn't enough time to establish the relationships between characters.
  10. That is the heart of what's missing here: the buzz that unites these games and players, the seductive lure that excites as it also placates. The dramatic throughline is murky as well...Undeniably good are the performances, however.
  11. Damon is a magical actor. His mind, as sharp and focused as a laser, beams out of the face of a vivacious choirboy, and, in nearly every scene, he invites you to share the jet-propelled pleasure of his precocious agility.
  12. Reviewed by: Bruce Diones
    90
    Screenwriters Brian Koppelman and David Levien have given some crackerjack card-shark dialogue to two hot young actors—Matt Damon and Edward Norton—and together with John Dahl's atmospheric direction they've all made a dream of a poker movie.
  13. 80
    Rounders is such a smart, tough little film that its strengths override its fairly serious weaknesses.
  14. Mischievously entertaining...Dahl's film has character in oversupply even if its actual characters are sometimes thin. Poker fever makes up for whatever the story lacks in everyday emotions.
  15. This isn't a movie where story matters that much: It's a movie of character and milieu, both of which it evokes brilliantly.
  16. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    70
    Because I'm a sucker--I was entertained...The script is good at making you think that it has better cards than it really does. And the actors constitute a royal flush--OK, OK, enough with the poker metaphors.
  17. 60
    Stylish entertainment and smartass fun when director John Dahl ("The Last Seduction") plays his strong suit (a gifted cast) instead of his weakest (a derivative plot).
  18. Reviewed by: Sean Means
    60
    Alas, when Rounders lays out its cards, the results aren't as much as you'd been led to believe. But the movie's style and authenticity run a good bluff.
  19. 50
    Though the movie looks gorgeous, glittering with the monochromatic beauty of noir transposed into the key of yellow, it chugs along like an overly responsible documentary, more the working out of an idea about the gambler's true nature than a story.
  20. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Intermittently engaging but dramatically slack, this tale...is more interesting around the edges than it is at its core, thanks to the dull nature of the lead character played by Matt Damon.
  21. 50
    Damon looks like a kid lost in the wrong neighborhood, and his acting manners underscore that impression--everything is a bit too fine, too neat...An intermittently interesting, intermittently foolish film.
  22. 40
    Neither Dahl nor most of his actors ever quite convince us that there's a good reason to sit in front of a movie screen watching them for more than two hours.
  23. Like Malkovich's out of control Russian accent, Rounders ends up reaching a place too hard to understand and even harder to believe in.
  24. 40
    And while it's intermittently engaging, the drama's flatter than a sucker's wallet.
  25. 30
    An unappealing, conventional, and somnolent piece of work in which, as glumly directed from David Levien and Brian Koppelman's corny script, every scene feels like it's being played for the second time.
  26. A tiresome 1998 rip-off of The Hustler, with poker (in a New York Russian Mafia milieu) taking the place of pool, Matt Damon taking over for Paul Newman, and John Malkovich's scenery chewing supplanting Jackie Gleason's self-effacement.
  27. 63
    Lazy, predictable and even dumb about what happens away from the tables. [11 Sept 1998]
  28. Oughtta be much bettor.
  29. Reviewed by: Robert Horton
    40
    Edward Norton, who created a buzz of excitement in his first year in movies, stubs his toe with Worm... It's the same guy we've seen in countless mean streets pictures, but Norton doesn't find anything new to do with him. He's Ratso Rizzo defanged.
  30. Reviewed by: Tom Keogh
    40
    Rounders is more involved with the insulated, arcane world of a gambler than it is with the things that actually make a movie work, such as characters and relationships and a script that connects all its dots.
  31. Reviewed by: John Hartl
    40
    It's "The Hustler with poker and without soul...For all its flash and occasional sizzle, "Rounders" is a disappointment.
  32. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    30
    Everything in Rounders is right there on the surface. Watching it is about as exciting as playing poker with all the cards face up. [14 Sept 1998]
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 38 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 12
  2. Negative: 1 out of 12
  1. Aug 17, 2013
    7
    Blessed with good acting, the cliche of the storyline and the constant jargon are the main pitfalls of the film and the reasons it falters in the end. However, I still liked this one. Full Review »
  2. Apr 13, 2012
    9
    done really well for its story line. I really liked the acting and the cast. thanks Full Review »
  3. Dec 16, 2010
    5
    Good movie but flawed here and there. Matt Damon is solid but not top shelf here. John M lol ... terrible accent yet i still loved his performance. Edward N is so so. Best thing about this movie.... Nice to see a card movie again.

    Average score
    Full Review »