The Trifecta

Since Chris Moneymaker won the World Series of Poker Main Event in 2003, we’ve been living in what is commonly termed, “The Poker Boom.” It seemed a game that was ready to explode, and the amateurs win in 2003 only expedited that fact. Poker has risen from a place of relative obscurity into a game that now occupies a significant chunk of airtime on various TV networks. In response to the heightened interest in the game, as well as the success and popularity of the poker movie Rounders, movie studios have made a grave error in greenlighting a variety of poker movies.

In the recent years there have been many poker movies: Lucky You, The Grand, All In, the TV mini-series “Tilt”, the upcoming Deal, etc. It is a sad point of fact that each and every one of these productions sucks balls. They all make the same mistake, in that they treat poker like a sport. Poker is a game, one with a steep and expensive learning curve, yet many producers think that they can make an inspirational uplifting poker movie in the vein of great sports movies like Rudy and Rocky. The big dream is to win a large tournament, thereby accomplishing whatever financial goal and gaining some bullshit emotional closure. These movies fail to entertain; they have no hope of it.

Poker does well on television because it is watched by poker players. It is almost akin to watching a game show in that you can critique the on-screen players moves, and think about how you would have acted in a similar situation. People watching the game on TV are hoping to glean a little edge for future use, and though they may have players they like or dislike more than others, in no way does the average viewer care about the poker player’s personal life.

These movies just aren’t interesting because they present players living the high life and making lots of money very quickly, yet expect audiences to feel bad for them. No body felt bad for Michael Douglas in Wall Street, he’s just a very successful asshole. His life is better than mine, so why does he deserve the pity? That is precisely why these poker movies will fail, since they attempt to take the game at that angle, when that is the opposite way to go about it.

Rounders got it right. Really it did. As a poker player and a movie buff, I’d say that it’s damn near perfect in it’s portrayal of the game. Rounders is really a neo-noir crime movie under the guise of a poker movie. All of the main characters are flawed as hell. It’s fantastic. It shows poker for what it really is for a pro, a way to earn a very good living while wallowing amongst the scumbags. A pro always goes where a profit is easiest, and most often the people with the most money they can afford to lose are dangerous. Sure, in Atlantic City or Vegas there are rich people with money to lose, but that brings in the sharks, an unnecessary risk for some players. So these players live in the underground games, grinding out a living. It isn’t always glamorous, but it’s a job – an unstable one. Rounders shows us flawed, human characters, and so it is easy to feel for them. And until studios realize this, poker movies will continue to be failures both artistically and financially.

- Meller