Universal Pictures | Release Date: October 7, 2005
2.2
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 99 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
16
Mixed:
12
Negative:
71
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
1
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, again and again, time after time... And Matthew Mc-whatever-it-is? Don't get me started! What 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
10
charlieOct 10, 2005
I loved this movie the story was gd the acting was great. pacino at his best.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnstonOct 8, 2005
Lelt me preface remarks by stating I love to gamble. After watching two hours of this garbage, you finally realize this movie is so inept. It is about scamdicappers and nothing else. It is just dumb and puts you to sleep. There is no plot, Lelt me preface remarks by stating I love to gamble. After watching two hours of this garbage, you finally realize this movie is so inept. It is about scamdicappers and nothing else. It is just dumb and puts you to sleep. There is no plot, and is without purpose unless you count the actors ripping the public off by accepting a paycheck? To see the great Al Pacino acting at this level of incompetency is very sad. Avoid this disaster at all costs as it's simply too bad to be believed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LuckyOct 11, 2005
What a disappointing effort. Forgotten as soon as you leave the theater. There is nothing to like. Just a waste of time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaneOct 9, 2005
My boyfriend dragged me to see this. It was so awful that he apologized. Enough said.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
dickOct 12, 2005
If you liked this I want to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
punits.Oct 12, 2005
Good acting by the actors, but in a lost cause. This movie is absolutely retarded. No plot, no point, nothing. Not even a slight bit of realism, goes from one extreme to another. This type of movie needs a explanation at the end of movie Good acting by the actors, but in a lost cause. This movie is absolutely retarded. No plot, no point, nothing. Not even a slight bit of realism, goes from one extreme to another. This type of movie needs a explanation at the end of movie stating what the director and producer had in mind when they made you waste more than two hours of your time. We sat in the movie theater and watched people leave, entertained by the comments other people were making. Which actually made the whole experience bearable. I feel bad for the actors who put forth a very good effort. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
spongeeeOct 12, 2005
Good thing I was high cause this movie was horrible to the T. Rene Russo (who happens to be one of the Exc Producers) cheats with a younger man...what young man in his right mind would touch Russo with a 10 ft stick. At times I thought Good thing I was high cause this movie was horrible to the T. Rene Russo (who happens to be one of the Exc Producers) cheats with a younger man...what young man in his right mind would touch Russo with a 10 ft stick. At times I thought Paccino and Matt were going to kiss and other parts reminded of bad porn writing. Al is so over rated...Taxi Driver was good...but is he really that consistant...Hollywood really sucks...come on man! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LarryOct 13, 2005
Oh My God this was bad.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
edw.Oct 26, 2005
Hey, relax. It is a good time, not perfect but Pacino is a lot of fun to watch in this role.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RachelC.Oct 7, 2005
Awesome movie! I suggest you decide for yourself. I personally am not a sheep that lets the critics choose everything for me. [Ed: hmmm....]
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
WackoOct 11, 2005
There anen't any words in the American Dictionary to desribe how truly awful this flick was. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarkB.Nov 10, 2005
There are entire decades that didn't produce as many sports-themed or -related movies as 2005 has released--and the year isn't even over yet! In addition to films about the usual suspects: baseball, football, basketball, soccer, There are entire decades that didn't produce as many sports-themed or -related movies as 2005 has released--and the year isn't even over yet! In addition to films about the usual suspects: baseball, football, basketball, soccer, boxing, golf and horse racing, we've gotten (or will soon get) fictional or factual screen treatments of such off-the-beaten-track athletic and competitive endeavors as high school ice skating, junior high competitive ballroom dancing, wheelchair rugby and the Special Olympics! So what's next? Well, how about BETTING on sports? Two for the Money (terrible, genetic title, by the way: it could just as easily have been attached to a 1935 Busby Berkeley musical or a 1949 Dead End Kids comedy) is the latest variation on the venerable, all-purpose seasoned-expert-teaches-green-but-eager-kid-the-ropes subgenre, in which injured, woulda-been pro footballer Matthew McConaughey learns all about becoming a guru of gridiron gambling from tycoon Al Pacino...and before the movie's over, you just know that both guys will learn as much or more about themselves as well. This joins A Sound of Thunder and Waiting...as one of 2005's prime guilty pleasures: very few points for originality, but plenty for sheer chutzpah: it's hard not to respond to the absurd but weirdly entertaining sequences in which Pacino and McConaughey crash a Gamblers Anonymous meeting hoping to, uh, cause a relapse; or where a disgruntled mobster (Armand Assante) finds an especially pungent way to express his displeasure at McConaughey's less than 100% dependable advice, or the operatic cross-cutting finale that both incorporates Big Game cliches and rejects them. It's bombastic and way over the top, but let's be honest: isn't that what you WANT more than half the time from an Al Pacino movie? He can be a wonderfully subtle, understated actor, but the Godfather trilogy notwithstanding, don't most of us go to Scent of a Woman or ...And Justice for all or Devil's Advocate to hear loud, grandstanding speechifying, which Pacino provides here in abundance? (I mean, you don't see a whole generation and culture sporting T-shirts depicting his characters in Donnie Brasco and The Merchant of Venice, do you?) The likable McConaughey manages the daunting task of keeping up with Pacino most of the time, but even better (and a smashing counterpoint) is Rene Russo, who as Pacino's conflicted wife repeats what she did so well in the Pierce Brosnan remake of The Thomas Crown Affair: strikes a blow for fortysomething actresses as incredibly attractive, alluring, sexual beings in an industry that too often pushes actresses that reach a certain point of no return into unflattering supporting roles, repeatedly unsuccessful TV sitcoms and, eventually (gasp!) infomercials while Harrison Ford and Sean Connery will continue to get romantic leads until they can no longer move their walkers. Then again, since Russo apparently had to executive produce this movie in order to guarantee herself this role, I guess it's not as much a cause for celebration as I originally thought! Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SusanMOct 14, 2005
Borrrrring!! I fell asleep for a little while in the middle...I was thinking Matthew should do exercise videos...he's nothing short of awe-inspiring with his shirt off. Other than that, the movie was a real sleeper.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadS.Nov 5, 2005
"Two for the Money" lost me when the film seems to forget that Walter(Al Pacino) turns on Brandon(Matthew McConaughey) at an office party. That flash of anger would seem to suggest a violent side, not a fatalistic one. We never see that "Two for the Money" lost me when the film seems to forget that Walter(Al Pacino) turns on Brandon(Matthew McConaughey) at an office party. That flash of anger would seem to suggest a violent side, not a fatalistic one. We never see that malevolent side again. A seasoned pro like Walter would probably never allow his personal feelings to hijack his business sense. Since Brandon is never allowed to go, say 8-8; he's either super-hot or super-cold, it's hard to imagine how this sports-advising group could stay in business after two weeks of brutal forecasting. The early scenes in "Two for the Money" raises our expectations because we think the film is going to be knowledgable about the world of sports handicapping. What we get instead is a variation of the sports movie finale, an annoying gaming metaphor to describe Walter's relationship with Toni(Rene Russo), and some amusing affirmations of how we think these pigskin gasbags arrive at their picks. This last item is the best reason to see "Two for the Money". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LindseyOct 25, 2005
My boyfriend dragged me to this trash. AWFUL is an understatement.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful