Shade (2003) Reviews

• Flawed fun

  snow0r2006-02-27

  Shade draws its audience into a world of sharp suits, jazzy tunes and card tricks, which, despite its obvious cool, doesn't really make the grade. That isn't to say that Shade isn't entertaining. It looks good, it sounds good, and the performances are effective enough (Foxx is particularly...noticeable), but the film just isn't as well done as other con movies such as The Grifters (1990), and is way below the sophistication of bigger heist movies such as Ocean's Eleven (2001). My biggest problem with Shade was the the final plot twist. It seemed a bit unnecessary. The biggest problem in terms of plot is that it's based on an a grudge from an event that happened before the film starts, that we only learn about through infrequent references. Sure, there's tension between Charlier (Grabriel Byrne) and Vernon (Stuart Townsend), but it's not enough, and it's something that could have been made clearer with a flashback or even a short conversation. After all, they did it enough for Stevens (Stallone), and he's a supporting character at the most. That being said, Shade is still a decent enough con movie to be worth watching, and while it has a few problems, that doesn't stop it being enjoyable. And it *did* make me want to play poker.

• My Thoughts

  leafsfanatic2004-06-29

  I work at Blockbuster so it's fair to say I have seen my fair share of movies and to be honest in the last 3 years...nothing has really caught my eye and made me sit and enjoy watching the same movie over and over again. One thing I notice to is we get a lot of 'sleepers' or straight to DVD titles and often those are the better of the movies. Shade was one of them, this movie had an excellent story, great acting and was just fun to watch, when I saw it I wanted to own it, although it cost me $30 Canadian it was worth it. Stallone, although not well liked or viewed as a good actor by public opinion, I beg to differ. Rock, Cop Land, Shade were all excellent movies, he was good in the remake of Get Carter as well. Stuart Townsend also is an up and coming actor. It's a shame a well made movie like this didn't go to theaters. It is movies like Shade and Poolhall Junkies that I can sit down and enjoy watching, forget sitting and watching the Pitch Black's, the Torque's and all those other overhyped movies, give me the sleepers anyday!

• A shade better than expected.

  gridoon2005-01-05

  As movies about card games and/or con artists go, "Shade" is no "House Of Games" or "Nine Queens", but it's better than you might expect for a film that was barely released theatrically. The first two twists caught me completely off-guard (the final twist though....I saw it coming a few seconds before it happened). The poker scenes are highly entertaining (where can I get one of those "juiced" decks?). There are many good performances (Townsend, Foxx, Byrne), and nice turns by veterans (Hal Holbrook, Bo Hopkins). The weak links are Stallone and Melanie Griffith, who look awful in this film. Stallone's performance isn't bad, but they could easily have replaced him with an actor more appropriate for this role; Griffith IS bad, and it's hard to know what she's even doing in the picture. An actor who stands out (in a good way) is Roger G. Smith as Marlo, the mob enforcer with the extremely calm voice. (**1/2)

• does follow real rules of cards

  iloveannettebug2010-12-11

  decent movie if you know nothing about cards. if you are a card player, which now a days everyone plays Texas holdem, you will notice that this movie wasn't written well according to how cards are actually played. i haven't seen this movie for like 5 years so i don't remember everything that was wrong but someone should have pulled out a poker rulebook when making this movie. for example 1. they announce they are going to play a game of no limit Texas holdem, but instead are playing some variation of 5 card draw instead. 2. throughout the movie when the guy with the bigger chip stack moves all in and says "o im all in now too and you cant cover my bet so i win", NO. in real life poker if the other player cant cover the larger chip stack the pot will only go up as far as what the small chip stack can cover, in this movie Stallone has a more money than the other guy and is like "you need to come up with more money or i win the pot...doesn't happen like this in poker like i said its been a few years since i saw this movie but next time someone decides to make a movie about poker, please read a rule book and try to make the movie follow the rules of the game (like in rounders) because this movie is so full of goofs when it comes to how poker is played

• Totally Unrealistic (possible spoiler}

  callnrick2006-01-14

  As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!