The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Continuing my plan to watch every Sly Stallone movie in his filmography in order, I come to a supporting role, in his best movie in years, 2003's Shade. Plot In A Paragraph: Vernon (Stuart Townsend) Miller (Gabriel Byrne) and Tiffany (Thandie Newton) are small time con artists, who cross paths with Jennings (Jamie Foxx) and attempt to con "The Dean" (Sly Stallone) in a high stakes poker game. In his best movie in six years (since Copland in 1997) Stallone plays it closer to his real age (albeit going from one extreme to the other with the hair dye) giving one of the most effective performances of his career. With his eyes gazing steadily from his strong face reminding us what a splendid actor he is when he is allowed to escape from his stereotyped roles. For his brief time on screen (he doesn't appear till 40 mins in) Stallone brings style to the proceedings. There are some good individual performances, but the main cast lack any real chemistry with each other Stuart Townsend looked destined for big things (but it never quite happened) Gabriel Byrne does what Gabriel Byrne does, whilst Jamie Foxx is effective too, and poor Thandie Newton looks great, but she isn't a good actress, and is often embarrassing against the stronger actors. In his one scene, Hal Holbrook (who I always like to see) goes through the motions of performing in a part that's has no lines worth speaking and Tony Burton (Duke in the Rocky movies) has two small scenes, unfortunately none of them are with Stallone.

"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.

How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor – but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus – the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!

This is an exceptionally stylish movie, loaded with well-known talent. Some, like Sly Stallone, Hal Holbrook, Stuart Townsend, Gabriel Byrne, and Thandie Newton (outstanding!), keep all the grifters in high-stakes poker games entertaining and watchable. Jamie Fox has a smaller role, but does his best with what he's given. The weak link is Melanie Griffith. Although she has done better cinema, and won raves on Broadway for "Chicago," she has little to work with here and is difficult to watch. The various plot twists and interrelationships among the various stars and supporting characters never reveal the final, surprise ending. The range of card tricks and poker maneuvers would never play in Vegas, but they are clever and well-executed. A bonus feature on the DVD illustrates and explains how the actors learned the dynamics of slight-of-hand at the Magic Castle for magicians in Los Angeles.