Not especially good.


This is just a yawner. Saying the plot is "thin" is too generous. I think the director was going for too much here. It's altogether campy, superficial, stereotypical and silly. It's not even interesting in a "car wreck" kind of way. And whether or not the director had his cut or not, I don't honestly think that cutting could have saved this. DeNofrio was in a fog the whole movie, DeMorney was wooden, and most others were weak shadows of characters they have played in the past (i.e. Madsen). It's tough to cut around that much bad acting.


It always looks good on paper.

reply

Now I bought this movie because of Vincent D'onofrio. And wow I have never been more disappointed. There has never been a movie with Vincent in it that I have been more disappointed in……… but he did have nice hair!!

The centre wants him alive ~Sydney
Preferable ~Miss Parker

reply

Yeah, this movie sucks. I didn't even bother to see all of it. It's so boring and poorly done. I mainly started watching it, 'cause I'm a huge fan of Michael Madsen, but I was very disppointed.

Amos McElhone

reply

[deleted]

IF Rebecca DeM were any more wooden in this movie, she'd be a tree.

Also [SPOILER!] IF you think Frank Whaley could take Michael Madsen in a fight, I've some swampland (or a bridge) I could sell you cheaply.

reply

I think Alex Cox is an 'acquired taste', much like John Waters. Granted, Cox can be a lot more cryptic and sublime, be it Repo Man to Walker et al. But for what I've seen of The Winner, I think the key word to define the film is 'sleazy'. These are characters that are meant to be two dimensional, overly arrogant, greedy and stupid. You know - sleazy. DeNofrio is great as the lucky innocent. Too simple for Vegas, yet epitomizes the Las Vegas dream. Billy Bob and Rebeca et al I thought played brilliantly. Characters you'd expect to see in Vegas, but wouldn't want to get near. And like Waters, it's campy fun with a little more sinister undertone. One could surmise it's a retelling of the bible in a warped way ('His name is Phillip...? Why couldn't it be Jesus, or Moses...?') Or, another could say it's the flip side to Fear & Loathing. Instead of everyone being frightened of Hunter and Oscar and their excesses in the land of failure, there is hope and opportunity via complexity among simplicity? Yeah, maybe I'm reading too much into it - or maybe not enough? But that's the beauty of Cox I find. The unintentional has purpose, yet the purpose seems so unintentional. Ironically Cox goes deeper than Waters, but the pool toys can look just the same.

reply