Bookies
Movie Review
"Bookies"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C+
Rating: R
Released: Thursday, January 16, 2003
Directed by:
Cast:
"Bookies" has an interesting premise that it allows to languish from underuse. Rather than mining comedy or drama from it, the film throws its idea onto the screen and then shuffles away.
The idea is that three college guys -- smart, handsome Toby (Nick Stahl), computer-nerdy Casey (Lukas Haas) and irrational hothead Jude (Johnny Galecki) -- have lost $1,000 in a massive bet on college sports. It occurs to them that the only ones making money on gambling are the bookies, who take a 10 percent "vig," or service charge, on every bet. Ergo, it seems advantageous to become bookies themselves.
Now, no one can know who the bookies are, of course, or they'll be at best turned in to the cops and at worst beaten and robbed by fellow students. Jude works at the campus library, though, and he hits on a genius system. Each bettor is told a specific book in which to place his money, and another specific book from which to collect his winnings, if any. Naturally, Jude selects only books that are never checked out, lest the cash fall into the wrong hands. Since the gamblers assume they're dealing with high-level bookies, they never think of just not paying up.
The system is fraught with peril, yet aside from one incident whose significance is largely ignored, it does not result in any grand mishaps. It works pretty well, in fact, and the trio of students become wealthy. Casey wants new computers, Toby wants to woo a pretty sports-medicine student (Rachael Leigh Cook), and Jude starts doing drugs. They also run afoul of the local Mafia, which already had a nice gambling ring going, thank you very much.
The film was directed by Mark Illsley, whose debut, "Happy, Texas" (1999), had all the whimsy and humor that this film lacks. It has brief moments of fun, and some minor skirmishes with high drama. But for the most part, it is content merely to tell its story, the plot of which is nothing different, unusual or special. This is an uncompelling movie.
What's curious about it is the way it deals with the moral aspects of the boys' scheme. To raise the initial capital necessary to start a gambling operation, Toby takes out an emergency student loan. If gambling isn't already somewhat questionable in your system of morals, here's something that surely is. And yet, the film ignores such questions. Early on, I assumed there were two ways it could go. Either it would all come crashing down and it would turn out to be a cautionary tale, or else they'd get away with it and the film would revel in the immorality of its characters. Little did I suspect a third possibility: that the film would pretend the moral questions don't even exist. My problem with the film, then, is that without those issues, what's the point? Did the characters learn anything? Did they NOT learn anything? The movie acts like learning isn't even one of the things movie characters are expected to do, which seems pretty obtuse.
Grade: C+
Rated R, a lot of harsh profanity, some drug use
1 hr., 26 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.



This item has 2 comments
December 10, 2007 at 6:25 am
After the credits roll there is a clip that shows the two professional bookies pulling Johnny out of the trunk of a car and there is a suggestion that he gets whacked with a chainsaw....pretty gruesome....think that is a bit of a learning experience.
Did you see that part? Was it not Johnny? Sure looked and sounded like him.
Thanks.
Hope
March 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hope:
I might be in the minority here, but I don't think of after-the-credits bits like that as part of the the movie per se. Say you were reading a work of fiction, and for all intents and purposes, it seemed to have wrapped itself up: the big climax occurred, the resolution followed, there's no major lose ends sticking out in your mind, and you reach the last page, with the Dramatic Last Words. The End.
You assume the next two or three pages are the "About the Author" and another page advertising some other books from the publisher, as at the end of many books.
Then you talk to your friend, who says that they liked the part at the very very end, printed on the page opposite the inside of the back cover, where the main character ends up dead instead. Now you're confused, because everything seemed like it had already ended, and this action throws your perception of the ending off.
Is it really still part of the story? If it was supposed to be, then why wasn't it part of the rest of the story itself? Why did they have to plant it someplace where a lot of people wouldn't see it because they thought it was over?