A poker movie that actually understands poker. Not the miracle river card version, the rent-is-due version. John Dahl shoots the rooms like pressure cookers and treats folding as a power move. The script speaks bankroll, position, and tilt without turning into a glossary. Matt Damon plays Mike as talent with a conscience, forever split between the hand he can win and the life he should build. Edward Norton’s Worm is variance in human form, charming and ruinous. John Turturro’s Knish is bankroll discipline in a cardigan. John Malkovich’s Teddy KGB is a cartoon that still works, turning cookies into a metronome. What it gets right: table selection, quit discipline, how one bad beat can cost three sessions if you play it angry. What it mythologizes a bit: the single big score that fixes everything. The cards are clean, the jargon lands, and the city hums like a second stake. Verdict: Slick, quotable, and sneakily practical about risk. It makes you want to play, then makes you check your roll. Pair it with: Mississippi Grind, The Cincinnati Kid, Molly’s Game, Uncut Gems.

Poker is not about luck, it's about accumulating chips.

Over the last two years, my brother has turned into something of a professional poker player. As such, I've had to listen to more than my fair share of stories from the tables, both online and in the casino. Through no fault of my own, I've even absorbed a decent amount of poker knowledge. I'm certainly no expert, but I can talk through a hand using all of the lingo and generally have a decent understanding of what separates good play from bad play, at least for Texas Hold 'Em anyway. So, with that context, I expect that I went into this film with an above average knowledge of the subject matter. Unfortunately, that familiarity with the world that the film explores detracts from the experience in two significant ways. The first way is obvious. For uninitiated audiences, the quirks of the poker lifestyle will feel fresh and unique, whereas those same elements don't feel like quirks at all to those who are already familiar. The second way relates to how the creators have to cater to those uninitiated audiences, resulting in dialogue that, for those in the know, may feel like ham-fisted exposition and/or oversimplification. This is a common pitfall with any movie/show that explores a very niche community/activity (e.g. when doctors critique _House_ or _Grey's Anatomy_). Even with my less-than-professional poker knowledge, I raised my eyebrows at some of what was happening on screen (i.e. why isn't Teddy KGB 3-betting his Aces?). In addition to those issues, there's also the problem of poker not making for particularly cinematic material. Having to lean on narration to convey what's happening on screen is never ideal. Despite all of these issues, the film is still very well made and I generally enjoyed it. It likely does the best job possible at capturing the low level poker grind, and I'm sure those who know nothing of that world will find even more to enjoy. Plus, Edward Norton plays a wonderful slimeball.

I enjoyed this film.

I really did enjoy this film b/c of the storyline and the subject matter, but it was surprising, coming from actual high-stakes poker players, they got some of the dialogue and sequencing incorrect.