Cash Out 2: High Rollers

A return to his late 80s/early 90s pre-Pulp Fiction form, that is! This movie is the definition of "Straight to video" B movies that used to exist before the age of internet. Predictable, yet nonsensical script, phone-it-in acting, and entirely undeserving of your attention unless you are actively seeking out this sort of trash. It trudges through cliché after cliché, offering nothing fresh or entertaining. Even John Travolta's once-commanding presence can't salvage this disjointed mess from the bargain bin of cinematic misfires. It's little more than a forgettable footnote in Travolta's filmography, so feel free to skip.

High Rollers falls apart on nearly every level. The plot is incoherent, riddled with logic gaps, and full of characters who behave in ways that make no sense. Dialogue is stiff and unnatural, leaving emotional moments feeling forced or laughable.

Visually, the film is uninspired. The camera work is flat, the pacing drags, and the editing feels clumsy - scenes either overstay their welcome or end abruptly. Add to that a mismatched, overbearing soundtrack and awkward sound design, and the result is a movie that never finds its rhythm.

But perhaps the biggest letdown? John Travolta. I had hoped to remember him for his legendary role in Pulp Fiction, not for this hollow performance in High Rollers. Watching him stumble through this mess is disheartening - like seeing a former champion trip over his shoelaces in the first round.

Honestly, after sitting through this film, I'm pretty sure I'll be having nightmares - not from the plot, but from how excruciatingly bad it all was.

Final verdict: High Rollers is a painful watch. Unless you're a glutton for cinematic punishment, avoid it. Your time - and your memory of John Travolta - deserves better.

I feel like Travolta's peak was Pulp Fiction, after that he just keeps pumping out forgettable movies every year. This is probably the worst, this Part1 to this movie Cash Out was nothing special and this PArt 2 or sequel is laughable, acting was so unwatchable, everything felt like they were just following a script, nothing flowed or made the movie interesting. Travolta could be a good actor that his peers would respect if the right script was given to him, these heist, action type movies that he keeps getting involved as a 75 year old are not for him. At least he stopped wearing wigs and toupees in these movies but he needs to change the types of movies he accepts.

If you want a reason to gouge your eyes out, watch this movie. Horrible plot and corny acting. A horrible soap opera. Literally would rather sit on a plane with a screaming baby puking next to me. I am questioning how someone could make this horrible of a movie. Staring at a wall is more entertaining. I would rather drink toilet water than watch this movie. Waste of time and money. I think a kindergarten musical would be a better use of time. I strongly advise that you avoid watching this movie again all costs. An experience I wish I could forget. How could this movie be so horrible within the decent cast? I don't know.

High Rollers is a film that suffers from numerous technical flaws. First, the screenplay structure is weak and disjointed. As the story progresses, logical errors and inconsistencies become increasingly apparent. The film's framework fails to generate the necessary momentum to captivate the audience. The plot's irregularities and implausible developments distract from the experience, making any attempts at drama feel redundant. In particular, the characters' decision-making processes lack clarity, and their dialogue often feels unnatural.

Visually, the film doesn't offer anything particularly original. The cinematography is unremarkable, relying on standard, unadventurous techniques. Camera angles are static and conventional, with no visual flair or artistic emphasis in action or suspense sequences. There are times when the camera lingers unnecessarily, which contributes to a lack of energy in the scenes. Furthermore, the close-ups of characters' emotional moments fail to convey any depth, which prevents the audience from forming an emotional connection.

The sound design and music are also significant drawbacks. The music chosen for dramatic or tense moments does not align with the atmosphere of the scenes; instead, it feels as though it is directing the audience rather than enhancing the experience. The musical choices are clichéd and at times rather artificial. The sound effects also feel overly pronounced and unnatural, detracting from the sense of immersion in the world of the film. This further weakens the connection to the characters and their surroundings.

The editing, too, leaves much to be desired. The pacing is uneven, with some scenes unnecessarily drawn out, which results in a rather tedious viewing experience. In contrast, other scenes transition abruptly, breaking the flow and continuity of the narrative. A more fluid and coherent editing approach would have helped maintain the film's overall integrity.

Lastly, the performances only serve to highlight the film's technical shortcomings. The acting is flat and unconvincing. The characters' emotions and conflicts are poorly conveyed, and this lack of authenticity makes it difficult to care about the events unfolding on screen. Combined with the film's other technical failings, it becomes clear that High Rollers struggles to engage the viewer on an emotional level.

In conclusion, High Rollers holds some potential but ultimately falters due to weaknesses in direction, screenplay, cinematography, and sound design. These issues prevent the film from leaving a lasting impression on the audience.