MovieChat Forums > All In (2006) Discussion > soft core porn...

soft core porn...

posted 17 years ago by jsndrs210
19 replies | jump to latest

This movie would've been decent if it showed more nudity and sex scenes. The acting, storyline, and title were already in place for a cinemax movie. Or...no nudity or cussing and it could be on Lifetime at best.

reply

[–] texaswolf 17 years ago

Movie was horrible. It is probably the worst poker movie I have ever seen and is just a horrible movie in general as well. The hands they show in the movie are unlikely as well. No decent player would chase down an open ended straight draw for bets that high. The QQ vs 56 hand is the one I am referring too. Then the AA vs JJ vs 10-10 vs Q-10. Get out of here.

reply

[–] mikesanti3 17 years ago

Terrible movie...I could barely watch it

reply

[–] jsndrs210 17 years ago

and I guess the "all in" tournament was winner take all????? They act like second place didn't make anything. If the buy in was 10,000 and first place got five million the whole final table would make some nice cash. This movie blew on so many levels.

reply

[–] packbear 17 years ago

This was the first poker movie I've seen that wasn't so damn serious or dull and predictable. Hold em's a game. Sure it can be stressful when your all in but its supposed to be fun and this movie was.

reply

[–] healthfreek 17 years ago

Ahem... Rounders??

Poker is a lot of drama. You must never play. Sure you can be happy and funny with it. Again, Rounders. Watch the movie. This garbage makes poker look like a kiddie game.

reply

[–] Adept34501 16 years ago

Its like they were trying to transfer home style playing to tournament style playing. If you play like you do at home you won't last 5 big blinds ina tournament.

R.I.P Agent Pendrell

reply

[–] gwen25 17 years ago

Sounds like you've got some personal grudge. If you want to only watch cards, watch ESPN. If you only want to see some nudity, watch porn. But if you want some STORY that's what movies are for. I saw "Lucky You" and was really dissapointed, but I loved "All In". It held my interest the entire time and moved quickly instead of focusing ONLY on what cards the players held. Madsen and the actress who played Ace's mom were terrific and I really cared about the characters.

reply

[–] jsndrs210 17 years ago

Maybe it should've been on lifetime then.

reply

[–] bpschut 17 years ago

Bad script, bad acting (despite star supporting cast), full of cliches... Horrible movie, really awful. The 4.7 average is on the high side as far as I'm concerned. Wanna see a good Texas Hold'em movie, watch Rounders!

reply

[–] whitakerchisam 17 years ago

Seriously. This movie was awful. If Rounders would have come out ten years later, it would have been a HUGE hit. That's the one to watch. This movie gave me a nosebleed it was so bad!

reply

[–] EnrageD 17 years ago

hate to say it but rounders is probably what sparked the entire Hold Em craze we see today.

but i do agree alot of new poker players probably have never heard of the movie.

reply

[–] knifeparty2004 16 years ago

hate to say it but rounders is probably what sparked the entire Hold Em craze we see today.

I disagree, Rounders was released in 1998, five years before the poker boom hit. The poker boom/craze was the result of the WPT on cable and Moneymaker winning the WSOP.

reply

[–] jsndrs210 17 years ago

Rounders is the reason for the poker craze. Everyone thinks they are great poker players.

reply

[–] DaGuest 17 years ago

I totally aggree whit bpschut!
Watch Rounders if you wanna see a good poker movie.
cos' this one sucked big time!!

reply

[–] Adept34501 16 years ago

More nudity and sex scenes... so there is some.

R.I.P Agent Pendrell

reply

[–] sodapop78 16 years ago

Some of the story line was rushed, pertaining to the father and mother. It's not a bad movie, rent it or watch it on one of the Showtime channels (as of 05-03-08) and see for yourself.

You guys just aren't being fair. It's far from the worst movie ever. The only reason Titanic made so much money is because people wanted to see a CGI boat, because I didn't think it was an A+ movie, A- at best.

reply

[–] psu190 16 years ago

Your statment is a little off for titanic..it grossed over 1 billion dollars..that's an insane amount of revenue for one movie..a little more then a cgi boat..but about the movie..yeah it was like a cinimax film, i saw somebody put bad dialog..bad acting needs some nudity to keep the interest..sorry to say..but it's true.

Would I rather be feared or loved? Um.. both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.

reply

[–] So_In_Love 16 years ago

Titanic was huge because the girls loved Leo. Tweenies went back five and six times to see him in that movie. If I'm not wrong, I think Jurassic Park was the biggest movie and history until Titanic hit the scenes.

A movie's box office does not mean that it is a good/bad movie. I hate it when people say that a movie that bombs sucks in quality.

In the case of this movie, it sucked period. With a good supporting cast like that, it was bad because of the writing, and everything else. Although Michael Madsen is good in everything he plays. With his bleached blonde hair...

Always an active duty Jr. American Gladiator!

reply

[–] brandnewcoheed28 16 years ago

yea im pretty sure porn would have had better dialouge...

reply