Croupier

Agree that the screenplay is superb, disagree on the director choices, which I also feel to be superb. Cinematography is exceedingly sharp, that film cost about 4 mil to produce, you'd never know to look at it.

Yep, I enjoyed (and still remember) the screenplay, visual characters, good dialogue. Never got around to seeing the film, alas.

-Derek

I loved it. A friend told me it was a perfect film. I know I disagreed with that, but I can't remember why. The acting was awesome.

Haven't seen or heard of it. I'll have to look for it.

I think that a lot of what is good about that movie is Clive Owen. He's spectacular.

I watched it years ago and I actually don't remember the plot that well (I didn't recall he was a writer for instance). So I can't say that I thought the screenplay was that great. It certainly wasn't terribly memorable for me.

I agree about the directing not being anything too special though. I do remember not being entirely impressed by it. But it was serviceable.

Mostly I remember Clive Owen. Boy is he good.

Keep meaning to see this but never get around to it.

Okay... Feb 27th on Starz!

"Croupier" stands out for a lot of reasons. It's a combination of two has-beens or never-wases in Mike Hodges (director) and Paul Mayersberg (writer) who each had a sterling moment or two decades ago but have done nothing since. Hodges made "Get Carter" with Michael Caine in 1970, and it's a brilliant take on revenge, violent but totally believable. Recently remade as a piece of Hollywood junk. And Mayersberg wrote "The Man Who Fell to Earth" starring David Bowie in 1975. Talk about brilliant writing! Buck Henry is in the movie, Candy Clark, Rip Torn, and they've got a lot to feed on. Make sure to rent the uncensored version. Incredible movie, a real writer's movie. Has some great lines by Clark about writers being interessting but lonely people. Mayersburg also wrote "Merry Christmas Mr. Laurence," but that's about it. So for Hodges and Mayersberg to pull a movie as polished and slick out of their hats at this late stage in their careers is a big surprise. And I thought Clive Owen was a revelation at the time, but now I see that Daniel Criag or David Thewlis or even Pierce Brosnan would have been just as effective. The female characters, as in so many gangster flicks, were terribly written. That was my one discomfort through the whole movie.

For anyone interested in "Croupier" I would recommend Chris Nolan's "The Following" instead. Not only intense and well-written, it is real low-budget, as in a few thousand dollars, but still suggests the confidence Nolan brought to the screen a short while later with "Memento," which is easy to overrate but hard to deny for its utter cunning.

Hodges had some money to spend on "Croupier" and I don't think it's notable for its account. Many movies are made far cheaper with much more elan. They got lucky with Owen, who morphed into a good villain in Spike Lee's newest, but Hodges and his producers didn't get any more for their buck than most other middling production efforts. If you can't make a movie like "Croupier" for three million dollars, you shouldn't be claiming to be a director (or a scripter!), and Hodges knows low budgets since he's been producing dreck for British TV for two decades.

I'd say Clive Owen had already played a villian in Closer.

I thought The Following was about as good as Croupier, except the latter has Owen -- who as you can tell I think is terrific (and I find you comparing him to Daniel Craig and David Thewlis vaguely crazy, but obviously that's subjective... I don't think Brosnan would be as good in the same role because he's brilliant in lighter and more comedic fare but I don't think he's as strong in drama....)

"Vaguely crazy"? What kind of bait is that?

I didn't compare Owen to Thewlis, Brosnan or Craig. I implied the movie was strong enough or well-written enough or well-produced enough that any of those three actors could have stepped in and made "Croupier" work as well as it did with Owen. I agree that Brosnan is better in comedy, but that might be for the simple reason that the drama he is in is over-written or over-produced, and a smaller vehicle like "Croupier" could show him in a much more subtle light.

Too true. I do apologize for the phrasing. I have been a bit brainwashed in the Owen camp as my boyfriend thinks he's simply the best working actor today. I think he's fantastic, but often have to sit through lengthy paeans to Owen's glory. I stumble out of this cultish haze saying things like that.

David Thewlis is just creepy to me to be honest. And I interviewed Daniel Craig once and he put me off so severely I don't think I could ever like him in anything. And I think Brosnan has been given some decent dramatic chances (although I agree a good bulk of his career has been plagued by the over-produced and over-written).

But yes, Croupier... good, fine...

Thewlis is creepy, for sure. I agree 100%. But he was magnificent in Michael Leigh's "Naked." Not sure anyone could ever act better than Thewlis did in that role. My god. The movie and its misogyny didn't bother me a bit, but I sat slack-jawed as I watched Thewlis motor back and forth through 80 gears. And if you saw that movie, did you catch Spud from "Trainspotting" as the crazy Scot screaming for his girlfriend in the street? I know I say this all the time, but Americans cannot -- or will not -- make these kinds of smart movies. Amazing.

Owen's okay. I don't think he's going to have a career even as well-rounded as Brosnan's. Could Clive Owen carry a movie like "Matador"? On the other hand, he would have been fab as the thief with Renee Russo. And it doesn't surprise me what you write about Craig. Even in "LayerCake" he seemed too conniving. So he looks like Steve McQueen! All brawn, no pathos in my book. Craig would have been great in the Caine role in "Get Carter," for instance, but he would have been a mis-cast joke in "Matador." Could any of these guys approach Kinski in "Aguirre"? That's the standard I would apply for sheer acting chops, and I think only Thewlis out of these four could hold a candle to that kind of decades-lasting portrait by Kinski. Would he ever get a chance, though?