Two for the Money


Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 29
  2. Negative: 3 out of 29

Where To Watch

Buy On
Buy On

Critic Reviews

  1. 88
    In D.J. Caruso's Two for the Money, you can see Al Pacino doing something he's done a lot lately: Having a terrific time being an actor.
  2. Too long by about 20 minutes, and takes itself too seriously near the end. But if you're looking for a movie for a boys' night out, it's a winner.
  3. Big, loud, glossy and entertaining.
  4. 70
    For all its swaggering bravado, Pacino's turn in Two For The Money is the reverse image of his "Devil's Advocate" character: Instead of the omniscient, all-powerful operator he presents himself as, he's a gambler grasping at a lifestyle that's always just beyond his means.
  5. While it's focused on the people -- on men who never had mentors struggling to mentor themselves and each other -- the movie works as a smart B film.
  6. It's a compelling drama, if only a little hollow. For my money, Pacino's bark is ultimately better than Two For the Money's bite.
  7. It says in the beginning of the film that Two for the Money is "inspired by a true story." Problem is, it's just not that inspired.
  8. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    McConaughey will never be an actor who lets you into his soul, but he's credible as a good ole boy.
  9. 63
    A sloppy and ridiculous movie that Pacino makes oddly entertaining.
  10. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    Over the years, Pacino's Method has become his madness, and now, whether he's playing Shylock or Satan, he doesn't become the part so much as the part becomes him.
  11. 63
    Marginally worth seeing if you're a Pacino fan but, even then, waiting for the DVD is the smart bet.
User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 91 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 18
  2. Negative: 12 out of 18
  1. MikeD.
    Mar 17, 2006
    Ridiculous script. Pacino is always interesting to watch but he is over the top most of the time in this movie.
  2. RichR.
    Feb 3, 2006
    This is a foul movie. Why doesn't this has-been branch out a little bit instead of playing the same old dispeptic psycho in every movie, This is a foul movie. Why doesn't this has-been branch out a little bit instead of playing the same old dispeptic psycho in every movie, again and again, time after time... And Matthew Mc-whatever-it-is? Don't get me started! What a log! This guy's the Patrick Swayze of his generation: dull, non-threatening, over-exercised and dumb. I guess I should say "What a dog!" No wonder women like guys like these; they make them feel superior. Full Review »
  3. BJS.
    Jan 22, 2006
    Definetely not as bad as these negative reviews. I personally I found it entertaining but I was not expecting a great movie.