The appeal of this film comes down to whether or not you like Rebecca Hall because she is in just about every scene.
I don't find her difficult to watch at all. Apart from a likable performance, she reveals sturdy, tanned thighs in a succession of short shorts. She portrays Beth Raymer, the author of the book on which the film is based, as an infectiously good-natured woman looking for fulfilment in her life, but who is also drawn to exciting and edgy pursuits.
She becomes involved with Bruce Willis' character, Dink Heimowitz, a bookmaker, who gambles on just about any kind of sport for high stakes. He gives her a job and she shows aptitude for the work. But Dink is impulsive, moody and married – to Tulip Heimowitz played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Dink fires Beth to save his marriage. With her newfound gambling skills, Beth goes to work for a far more reckless gambler, Rosie, played by Vince Vaughn. She also meets Jeremy, a comparatively normal guy played by Joshua Jackson. However, Dink remains her mentor and eventually helps her to win a critical wager that ends the film.
Movies can involve you in subjects that you know little about whether it's coal mining, bomb disposal, the stock market, deep-sea fishing, football or whatever. Usually, enough knowledge is imparted for the audience to appreciate the subject's relevance to the characters.
Gambling and the world of bookmaking are the subjects of "Lay the Favourite", but little is explained.
Admittedly, my knowledge of gambling is limited. I even have trouble filling out the form for a Melbourne Cup ticket during my annual trip to the TAB. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, and I must admit I lost track of what was happening in the story even at the end when the whole thing hung on Beth's wager on the basketball game.
This is where I think the script could have done a better job in bringing the audience up to speed. After all, Dink needed to explain things to Beth when she started out and it was the perfect opportunity to inform the audience without narration or tedious exposition, but the explanations are rushed at best. Interestingly, director Stephen Frears' brilliant "The Grifters" explained itself perfectly while dealing with a not totally dissimilar subject.
With the exception of Beth and Jeremy, the characters are extreme and quirky. They almost seem to be modern-day versions of the Damon Runyon characters out of "Guys and Dolls". Dink, Tulip and Rosie, amongst others, are all fairly idiosyncratic characters, but the quirkiness knob might be turned a little too high.
I think the critics were too harsh with this movie. Described as a comedy, the film is more whimsical than outright funny. I can see it's weak points, but it held my attention until the end – I wanted to know what happened even if it was confusing.
I don't find her difficult to watch at all. Apart from a likable performance, she reveals sturdy, tanned thighs in a succession of short shorts. She portrays Beth Raymer, the author of the book on which the film is based, as an infectiously good-natured woman looking for fulfilment in her life, but who is also drawn to exciting and edgy pursuits.
She becomes involved with Bruce Willis' character, Dink Heimowitz, a bookmaker, who gambles on just about any kind of sport for high stakes. He gives her a job and she shows aptitude for the work. But Dink is impulsive, moody and married – to Tulip Heimowitz played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Dink fires Beth to save his marriage. With her newfound gambling skills, Beth goes to work for a far more reckless gambler, Rosie, played by Vince Vaughn. She also meets Jeremy, a comparatively normal guy played by Joshua Jackson. However, Dink remains her mentor and eventually helps her to win a critical wager that ends the film.
Movies can involve you in subjects that you know little about whether it's coal mining, bomb disposal, the stock market, deep-sea fishing, football or whatever. Usually, enough knowledge is imparted for the audience to appreciate the subject's relevance to the characters.
Gambling and the world of bookmaking are the subjects of "Lay the Favourite", but little is explained.
Admittedly, my knowledge of gambling is limited. I even have trouble filling out the form for a Melbourne Cup ticket during my annual trip to the TAB. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, and I must admit I lost track of what was happening in the story even at the end when the whole thing hung on Beth's wager on the basketball game.
This is where I think the script could have done a better job in bringing the audience up to speed. After all, Dink needed to explain things to Beth when she started out and it was the perfect opportunity to inform the audience without narration or tedious exposition, but the explanations are rushed at best. Interestingly, director Stephen Frears' brilliant "The Grifters" explained itself perfectly while dealing with a not totally dissimilar subject.
With the exception of Beth and Jeremy, the characters are extreme and quirky. They almost seem to be modern-day versions of the Damon Runyon characters out of "Guys and Dolls". Dink, Tulip and Rosie, amongst others, are all fairly idiosyncratic characters, but the quirkiness knob might be turned a little too high.
I think the critics were too harsh with this movie. Described as a comedy, the film is more whimsical than outright funny. I can see it's weak points, but it held my attention until the end – I wanted to know what happened even if it was confusing.