bandw You would have thought that this biographical film about Stu Unger (one of the greatest card players ever) had great dramatic potential, but this movie turns out to be a most undramatic undertaking. The plot device is to have Unger sit on a bed in some fleabag motel room and tell his story to a "mysterious stranger." The story is told in linear flashbacks inter-cut with *much* talk in the motel room. I always get suspicious when a screenwriter has a character talk about himself rather than being able to formulate a scene to more effectively make the point, or at least have the character talking within the context of a scene rather than talking about a scene.This is a movie about a person and his profession. We get a lot of stuff about the person - teased kid, difficult father, marriage, child, divorce, drugs - but not much about the profession. As presented this is the life's arc of a not atypical contemporary American and it is not all that interesting. The focus should not be on why this guy was ordinary but rather why he was extraordinary. This is like offering a biography of Einstein but never drawing us in with an understanding of his professional accomplishments and his genius. Many opportunities are missed to provide some excitement, tension, and interest. At least some intense build-up should have been given to Unger's winning his first World Series of Poker, climaxed with his going head-to-head with poker legend Doyle Brunson. That scene was disappointingly uninspired. My god, how could they flub that so badly?A political party will play to its base and why this movie failed so miserably to play to its base of poker players is a mystery. Maybe it did not want to glorify gambling, and it does not, but using Unger as a poster boy for the evils of gambling is misguided - he was such an unusual person that drawing any general conclusions is questionable. In any case most drug addicts will not fare well at the tables and the fact that Unger could come back to win the WSOP in 1997 is an amazing feat. It has always puzzled me why passionate professional gamblers are considered addicts and cast in a negative light, but those who pursue other professions to the exclusion of most all else are accorded esteem.Some have honored this film for not sugarcoating Ungar's slide toward addiction and death. But from reading about Ungar's life it sounds like his womanizing, surly behavior, and drug use were much worse than portrayed. In fact I got more from reading the wikipedia entry on Ungar than I did from this film, so go there if you want to save yourself some time.Never having seen "The Sopranos" I had never seen any of these actors before and my reaction was, "not bad, but not great."If you want to see a much more perceptive character study of a gambler, see Philip Seymore Hoffman in the under-appreciated "Owning Mahoney."

jtdeible-1 Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book "one of a Kind" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!

Johnny Del Bravo Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.

jwgmm 20 people rated this a 10! That ballot box was stuffed better than a Christmas turkey! Speaking of turkey's, here's a traditional story hoping to piggy-back on the current poker craze - without success. Told entirely in linear flashback, and when I say "told" I mean TALKED TO DEATH, this film never let's a picture suffice when words can be used to exposit.Stu Unger's childhood fascination with cards and his associations with hoodlums might sound like interesting movie material, but the director manages to suck the life out of them. At no point did I feel the least bit of sympathy for Unger, a genius at cards who threw it all away on other forms of gambling at which he was not so proficient. Of course, this leads, as we wade through THREE musical montages, to the inevitable downward spiral of drugs, loss of family, and finally his redemption (sort of). Big yawn!