9 reviews
"Big Shot..." is a little comedy with a big message which takes the audience on a fun ride with Krumholtz as a savvy college student who plays life fast and loose and gets caught up in making book on sporting events only to find the money comes easy but the problems come easier. In the end, the film turns serious as it deftly delivers a poignant message for all those who think there's a fast track to success in life. Though "Big Shot..." is no more than a little journeyman B-flick, it takes the high road without getting preachy and entertains without pandering to the audience making it a good example for all the Hollywood big shots who can't see past the easy money and the big bottom line. Kudos to the producers of this very big little movie with a positive message for all the wannabe big shots. (C+)
Note - I watched this flick back to back with Spielberg's huge "Minority Report". Pound for pound, this is the better of the two.
Note - I watched this flick back to back with Spielberg's huge "Minority Report". Pound for pound, this is the better of the two.
- killasin32
- Jun 24, 2003
- Permalink
Although this film is a product of the MTV generation, with its hyper-speed cuts to go with the sex, drugs, and money, it actually is a very entertaining movie. The story is about Benny Silman (David Krumholtz), just a normal college student, who gets a taste of making lots of money and becomes addicted. He becomes a bookie, making small time bets on sporting events with the local college kids. After a while, Benny is approached by a big time bookie (Nick Turturro), who tells him that there is more money to be made. Soon after, Benny becomes friends with the starting point guard for the college basketball team, and convinces him that he could make a lot of money if they were to fix games. Benny now is making big time money, but is he too deep into the lifestyle that, if trouble brewed, he couldn't get out?
As I said before, a very entertaining movie, very well placed, at the time of the NCAA Tournament, to let people know the dangers of getting into serious gambling such as this. Ernest Dickerson does a good job of setting the mood with his wild camera work and settings. Since it was on FX, I'm sure that it will be played 50 times in the next WEEK, so check it out
8 out of 10
As I said before, a very entertaining movie, very well placed, at the time of the NCAA Tournament, to let people know the dangers of getting into serious gambling such as this. Ernest Dickerson does a good job of setting the mood with his wild camera work and settings. Since it was on FX, I'm sure that it will be played 50 times in the next WEEK, so check it out
8 out of 10
- Booyahjeff
- Mar 31, 2002
- Permalink
Hmmm, after reading the others' comments on "Big Shot: Confessions of a Campus Bookie", I am wondering if they really watched the same movie. Characters are the same, events are the same, even the silly cardboard cut-outs in the "big game" scene are the same.
So why would these people take the time to write glowing reviews of a boringly predictable moral tale?
Answer 1: Novices. Perhaps these people have never witnessed a "moving picture" before and are very impressed simply by the illusion of movement across large white screens (or glowing dots of light if they're watching on a television). Perhaps they have never experienced any of the thousands of children stories that show a protagonist doing something ethically questionable and then regretting it in the end (ie, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", "King Midas", "The Godfather", or any story involving getting wishes).
Answer 2: Friends of the movie. Perhaps these people either worked on the movie or are somehow associated with people with interests in the movie.
To keep with the movie's theme, I'm giving 3:2 odds on the latter.
Okay, the review (skipping a summary as you can read that elsewhere): From the opening scene, the protagonist, Benny (ably played by Numb3rs' star David Krumholtz), tells us this is the story of how he came to regret his current state. This swift reveal also destroys much of the opportunity this movie had to keep us engaged. Instead of letting us discover what happens, we already know how it's going to turn out. There's a fourth act and a bizarre epilogue as well, but I'll get to that later.
Benny's sidekicks are capably but predictably played as your basic NYC stereotypes. Benny's girlfriend is decently portrayed by "House" star Jennifer Morrison. The other bookies, bad-guys, and the basketball star (Tory Kittles) are again simple characters marking simple stereotypes. While better actors could have squeezed something out of the characters, there was clearly nothing in the script for them to work with.
One interesting note is the excessive use of body-mounted cameras. These shots are used to portray various intense moods of Benny, but are so used that they get very annoying. Instead of hitting the same note on the piano, let the DP use other tricks, please. Other than that, the look and style was decent for an ultra-low budget film.
But for a movie that indulges so much in the coarse pleasures of life (drugs, violence, strip-clubs, etc.), I am amazed at the lack of female eye-candy in this film. This is made especially more painful from the tease of the establishing sequence of why Benny chose to come to Arizona in the first place. Even the titty-bar shuns nudity (the girls are all wearing bikinis or silly-looking pasties). Sure, this was a made-for-TV movie, but it's already rated R. Truly sad is the decision to make an exploitation movie and not have any exploitation.
While the occasional breaking of the fourth wall (where the Benny talks directly into the camera during a scene a la "Malcolm in the Middle") is amusing, the near constant use of voice-over narration to explain, re-explain, and re-re-explain the plot is not only overkill, it's downright insulting. I paused the movie eight times to cool down before I finally finished it. Had I been in a theater I would have simply walked out.
And if the painfully clear moral of the film wasn't drop-dead obvious enough, after the out-of-no-where fourth act comes an epilogue. In this final bit, the real Benny Silverman talks directly to the audience (think "Blow"), re-re-re-repeating the moral, insisting for the audience to never do what he did (what? and never get a movie made about your life?).
It's like paying to hear a rich drug addict preach about not doing drugs. For me, the message is clear: I want my money back!
So why would these people take the time to write glowing reviews of a boringly predictable moral tale?
Answer 1: Novices. Perhaps these people have never witnessed a "moving picture" before and are very impressed simply by the illusion of movement across large white screens (or glowing dots of light if they're watching on a television). Perhaps they have never experienced any of the thousands of children stories that show a protagonist doing something ethically questionable and then regretting it in the end (ie, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", "King Midas", "The Godfather", or any story involving getting wishes).
Answer 2: Friends of the movie. Perhaps these people either worked on the movie or are somehow associated with people with interests in the movie.
To keep with the movie's theme, I'm giving 3:2 odds on the latter.
Okay, the review (skipping a summary as you can read that elsewhere): From the opening scene, the protagonist, Benny (ably played by Numb3rs' star David Krumholtz), tells us this is the story of how he came to regret his current state. This swift reveal also destroys much of the opportunity this movie had to keep us engaged. Instead of letting us discover what happens, we already know how it's going to turn out. There's a fourth act and a bizarre epilogue as well, but I'll get to that later.
Benny's sidekicks are capably but predictably played as your basic NYC stereotypes. Benny's girlfriend is decently portrayed by "House" star Jennifer Morrison. The other bookies, bad-guys, and the basketball star (Tory Kittles) are again simple characters marking simple stereotypes. While better actors could have squeezed something out of the characters, there was clearly nothing in the script for them to work with.
One interesting note is the excessive use of body-mounted cameras. These shots are used to portray various intense moods of Benny, but are so used that they get very annoying. Instead of hitting the same note on the piano, let the DP use other tricks, please. Other than that, the look and style was decent for an ultra-low budget film.
But for a movie that indulges so much in the coarse pleasures of life (drugs, violence, strip-clubs, etc.), I am amazed at the lack of female eye-candy in this film. This is made especially more painful from the tease of the establishing sequence of why Benny chose to come to Arizona in the first place. Even the titty-bar shuns nudity (the girls are all wearing bikinis or silly-looking pasties). Sure, this was a made-for-TV movie, but it's already rated R. Truly sad is the decision to make an exploitation movie and not have any exploitation.
While the occasional breaking of the fourth wall (where the Benny talks directly into the camera during a scene a la "Malcolm in the Middle") is amusing, the near constant use of voice-over narration to explain, re-explain, and re-re-explain the plot is not only overkill, it's downright insulting. I paused the movie eight times to cool down before I finally finished it. Had I been in a theater I would have simply walked out.
And if the painfully clear moral of the film wasn't drop-dead obvious enough, after the out-of-no-where fourth act comes an epilogue. In this final bit, the real Benny Silverman talks directly to the audience (think "Blow"), re-re-re-repeating the moral, insisting for the audience to never do what he did (what? and never get a movie made about your life?).
It's like paying to hear a rich drug addict preach about not doing drugs. For me, the message is clear: I want my money back!
- sleepfuriouslyfilms
- Jun 6, 2006
- Permalink
I just watched the DVD of this movie and loved it. A doesn't-take-itself-to-seriously romp of a true story about basketball point shaving in the early 90's. Krumholtz is fantastic (as usual). Ernest Dickerson does a great job. And the script is sharp. Big props to FX these days for doing some colorful stuff. If your interested in seeing a made for cable movie that attempts, and often succeeds, at doing something special... check this one
Yes, this film is made for cable and yes, they could have spent a little more on production. But the first time I saw it, I didn't know it was made for cable. I bought the DVD (had to order it because nobody carries it) and still find it pretty entertaining.
Benny Silman (played exceptionally well by David Krumoltz) takes up book making in college and gets more than he asked for. He ends up in a basketball points shaving scheme at Arizona State University that makes him rich. Yeah, the money is easy but greed soon turns the tables on Benny and his less than reputable business partners. The film has a good message, is relatively clean and has great script and actors. It does, however, leave you wanting a little more since it IS made for T.V. Still, I'm happy to own it and I watch it at the start of every college basketball season and maybe a couple of other times throughout the year.
I kind of hope they don't remake it as it would probably fall victim to overproduction, which seems to be the theme in Hollywood these days.
Benny Silman (played exceptionally well by David Krumoltz) takes up book making in college and gets more than he asked for. He ends up in a basketball points shaving scheme at Arizona State University that makes him rich. Yeah, the money is easy but greed soon turns the tables on Benny and his less than reputable business partners. The film has a good message, is relatively clean and has great script and actors. It does, however, leave you wanting a little more since it IS made for T.V. Still, I'm happy to own it and I watch it at the start of every college basketball season and maybe a couple of other times throughout the year.
I kind of hope they don't remake it as it would probably fall victim to overproduction, which seems to be the theme in Hollywood these days.
- josh_brown10
- Nov 18, 2009
- Permalink
Don't know why you've given so low score to this movie.... eventhough it's for tv only i think it's one of the most serious movies of the new generation it deals with the most scary subject of our ages "EASY MONEY" I've just loved it...... give to "Big shot" a second shot plz
c ya :D
c ya :D
Haters will hate but this movie is absolutely perfect. I can't believe headache never played in the NBA. It's a story of tragedy and lost opportunity. Was it worth it? The answer is no. Watching the movie you feel the hard ache of promise failing. Watch the movie and learn from their mistakes. It makes me sad seeing progressing future stars fail. I have seen the movie at least 10 times and every time I watch it, it breaks my heart. Sometimes the easy path is the wrong path. Having fixed games and bad people in your life will only hurt you. We can all learn from this movie what not to do. The easy path is not the right one. Remember the devil will and always has been at the crossroads. It's up to you.
I would like to know just how 20th Century Fox (the actual production company), ran out of money toward the end of this shoot. The storyline is good. Of course, it's a true story, so you get what you expect. I enjoyed the characters, especially Nick Turturro, but how in the hell did they not have enough money to shoot the last basketball scene....correctly?!?
If you watch the last basketball scene (ASU v. Washington), about a 1/3 of the crowd is made up of real people....and the rest? Cardboard cut-outs!!! May seem superficial, but I thought it instantly made this a less-than-mediocre "made-for-tv" movie. Pure schlock.
If you watch the last basketball scene (ASU v. Washington), about a 1/3 of the crowd is made up of real people....and the rest? Cardboard cut-outs!!! May seem superficial, but I thought it instantly made this a less-than-mediocre "made-for-tv" movie. Pure schlock.
- AaronHakeem
- Apr 1, 2002
- Permalink