That was an excellent one.

Excellent, a Must See

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I thought this was going to be a sleeper given the cast, but what I saw was very pedestrian at best. The plot was was OK, but the directing and/or the acting(usually that means the directing was lacking) was hard to watch. When Sly Stallone used Edward G. Robinson's line from "The Cincinnati Kid", I laughed out loud. How this classy cast ends up in this train-wreck is the real con. It tries to be The Sting, The Cincinnati Kid, A Big Hand for the Little Lady, but the script and direction just don't pack the gear. I felt no attachment to the characters, and the actors were allowed to phone in their lines. With the class-act cast of Gabriel Byrne, Thandie Newton, Jamie Foxx, and Hal Holbrook, I really expected an A movie at least, but this gets a C- at best.

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

I won't lie, I thought it was a pretty good movie. But I have seen two distinct versions of it! I purchased and watched the DVD version of this movie, and then acquired (for backup purposes), watched, and deleted an .avi version of this movie, only to find that it was quite different. Most of the music was different, the story had a few significant changes as well, and the "chapter" headlines that appear in the DVD version were not on the other version. I would say that the non-DVD version or this film was superior. Does anyone know of a second cut that legitimately exists, and if not, what happened to it? I would like to get my hands on the non-DVD version, and the movie would have gotten an 8 from me if that was the only version out there.

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.