The Winner

This film had quite a bit going for it. Interesting premise... Alex Cox directing, Michael Madsen, Rebecca DeMournay, starring, Las Vegas setting..but,alas, it wasn't meant to be. I was bored throughout this film. I kept hoping that it would pick up. It just didn't! Must have looked good on paper, sure didn't on screen.

Rebecca De Mornay - yes! Vincent D'Onofrio - yes! Delroy Lindo - yes! Michael Madsen - yes! What more could you want in a movie.

Put them in Vegas and give us a story about robbery, and you got me. yes, you got me - with a movie that just didn't seem to go anywhere. It just jumped all over the place and had no consistent theme.

Wendy Riss is just not a scriptwriter, yet. Work some more and get it right.

I expected much more from director Alex Cox, especially after the job he did with Rosario Tijeras. I was so disappointed.

Not a winner!

Alex Cox will always be remembered for the astonishing one-two punch of 'Repo Man' and 'Sid and Nancy', yet his finest achievement was the daring, career-destroying 'Walker'. As if being exiled from the studio system wasn't enough, Cox then made the diabolically awful 'Straight To Hell' to seemingly bury any credibility he may have had left. 'The Winner' represents yet another oddity from Cox's years in the indie wilderness, but perhaps has the highest curio factor due to its eyebrow-raising ensemble cast. Yet what makes 'The Winner', ultimately, a loser, is in all fairness not attributed to Cox but rather its unimpressive, derivative, post-Tarantino screenplay (allegedly adapted from a play, presumably off-off-off-off Broadway). Cox and the cast struggle with its uneven tone and, despite Frank Whaley scoring in a hilariously slimy role, the unfunny nature of the script is barely able to justify the film's incessant stylistic zaniness. While it does work in small doses (an effective opening and a memorably odd ending), it simply isn't enjoyable enough to even warrant minor cult status. That said, it is at least a slight cut above the other interminable 'Pulp Fiction' clones that plagued the mid-to-late nineties. But what sort of endorsement is that?

Yes, I agree with people here; this is a "coulda, woulda, shoulda" film. It could have been better and should have been.....but it's horrible, an absolute stinker.

I liked the premise but the story turned out stupid. The comedy was lame and the characters - all of them - were so sleazy and unlikable, how could you like the film?

After watching three years of Vincent D'Onofrio play the soft-spoken, super-intelligent "Det. Robert Goren: on Law and Order: Criminal Intent, I am amazed to look back at this film resume. Prior to that, he played almost nothing but despicable, demented characters. The rest of the cast in here wasn't shocking, either, as they have done similar work. They all can act, though. I'm speaking of fairly big "name" actors in this film: D'Onofrio, Rebecca De Mornay, Billy Bob Thornton, Michael Madsen and Delroy Lindro.

But, it's hard to overcome a very bad script and lame one-liners that were supposed to be funny. Now I am more familiar with these actors than I was a dozen years ago, this might be better or at least interesting. Yet, I can't help but think a script that features nothing but unlikeable and sleazy characters is usually going to fall short

It's too bad, because I like stories centered in Las Vegas and gambling and this cast certainly is interesting.....but the story was anything but that. Maybe it's the director: his hits, "Sid And Nancy" and "Repo Man" also were way too sordid for me.

The Winner's a loser.

Sometimes it's hard to conceive of how anyone could ruin a movie. Totally ruin it that is. How bad would a screenplay have to be? How bad would the directing have to be? The acting? These things have a tendency to correct each other.

Then along comes 'The Winner' and you realise not only how difficult - and how much hard work - it must be to produce a 'good' movie, but how many means one has at one's disposal to completely ruin one.

How about sloppy scene shots where the director forgets to watch he's got photographic continuity, so you end up getting a Francois Truffaut effect - as that's all he's got to work with? If you want to break the 35 degree rule you'd better have a good reason and be consistent. This (sorry) 'jerk' of a team that made this piece of junk have no such ambitions. Artistic integrity? A message to convey? As if they think they're working on art?

Forget it.

Oh - by the way: what is Rebecca doing in this movie? Worst yet, what is she doing producing it? Still have a few things to learn about the industry, Becks old girl?