This movie isn't boring, but it's nowhere near exciting or suspenseful either. It's biggest problem is, what's the point? Steve McQueen waits for the game, he plays the game, he loses the game. The end. 2 hours after I started watching the film, my life ain't changed a bit. I wasn't even particularly moved by the Kid losing everything, as his opponent's character was classy and sympathetic and Lancey's win also meant Slade's betting money going down the drain. I don't find poker exciting at all, so the game itself didn't deliver any suspense, and to top it off its outcome was as predictable as they come. The Kid losing all the money in one hand kind of symbolizes the film's failure, as nearly all of the drama is supposed to be in the poker game.
The film has some more problems. As other reviewers point out, the anachronisms are insulting to the viewers intelligence - unless, like myself, one didn't read that the movie was supposed to take place in the 20's or 30's beforehand. The movie was released in 1965 and most of the settings, costumes, hairstyles etc. look pretty much like the 60's. The only things hinting at the 30's are black people exclusively staffing all the low-wage jobs (bellboy, waiter, shoe polisher) and Kid taking a bus to visit his girl (a successful American gambler in the 60's would fly+taxi or drive instead). In fact I had found these things as anachronistic, before I educated myself reading the forums after the movie ended.
"Cincinnati Kid" concentrates so much on the poker game, that a whole bunch of interesting possibilities are ignored and left unresolved. What's "Cincinnati" about the Kid? What's the meaning of Lancey's presumed illness? What's the card trick about? What experience causes The Man to recommend to a fellow player not to bond with a woman? More issues while I'm on it: the movie treats us to a bloody, graphic cock-fight that serves no purpose at all (talk about pointless violence, Pulp Fiction-bashers). The Shooter character is supposed to be noble and respectable while coming across as weak, neurotic and eventually succumbing to a blackmail (what Slade had on him anyway???). Additionally, we're supposed to believe that a fun-loving hottie in Melba would fall for and marry this strawberry-nosed, boring old guy. The movie generally drags and the characters don't develop enough to really empathize with them, although you can feel the potential is there.
A strong redeeming quality of the movie is the acting. Ed Robinson is perfect as always, Steve McQueen does his usual blueyed subtleness and both Tuesday Weld and Ann-Margret deliver good performances as well as extremely good looks (plus a sweet voice on part of Tuesday). Rip Torn does the best one can do with an one-dimensional villain role and similarly Karl Malden with his annoying, incoherent character.
Generally, good actors turn this movie from a waste of time into a fairly engaging experience. Watch for Steve McQueen or sexy Ann-Margret but don't look for the advertised drama here..
The film has some more problems. As other reviewers point out, the anachronisms are insulting to the viewers intelligence - unless, like myself, one didn't read that the movie was supposed to take place in the 20's or 30's beforehand. The movie was released in 1965 and most of the settings, costumes, hairstyles etc. look pretty much like the 60's. The only things hinting at the 30's are black people exclusively staffing all the low-wage jobs (bellboy, waiter, shoe polisher) and Kid taking a bus to visit his girl (a successful American gambler in the 60's would fly+taxi or drive instead). In fact I had found these things as anachronistic, before I educated myself reading the forums after the movie ended.
"Cincinnati Kid" concentrates so much on the poker game, that a whole bunch of interesting possibilities are ignored and left unresolved. What's "Cincinnati" about the Kid? What's the meaning of Lancey's presumed illness? What's the card trick about? What experience causes The Man to recommend to a fellow player not to bond with a woman? More issues while I'm on it: the movie treats us to a bloody, graphic cock-fight that serves no purpose at all (talk about pointless violence, Pulp Fiction-bashers). The Shooter character is supposed to be noble and respectable while coming across as weak, neurotic and eventually succumbing to a blackmail (what Slade had on him anyway???). Additionally, we're supposed to believe that a fun-loving hottie in Melba would fall for and marry this strawberry-nosed, boring old guy. The movie generally drags and the characters don't develop enough to really empathize with them, although you can feel the potential is there.
A strong redeeming quality of the movie is the acting. Ed Robinson is perfect as always, Steve McQueen does his usual blueyed subtleness and both Tuesday Weld and Ann-Margret deliver good performances as well as extremely good looks (plus a sweet voice on part of Tuesday). Rip Torn does the best one can do with an one-dimensional villain role and similarly Karl Malden with his annoying, incoherent character.
Generally, good actors turn this movie from a waste of time into a fairly engaging experience. Watch for Steve McQueen or sexy Ann-Margret but don't look for the advertised drama here..