Now, this is a movie MADE for me! I’ve been saying for awhile that there’s a great film to be made about poker’s explosion of over the past 10 years, and finally, someone’s made it. The results are decent-to-solid, but much was left on the table—while director Douglas Tirola clearly loves the game and recognizes many of the key turning points, he fails to delve deeply into what drives so many to the game beyond and keeps them there. Nor does he tackle what might be the most exciting aspect of all to those who aren’t as familiar with the game—the massive amounts of money that the top players (both online and live, but particularly live) reel in per year, and what being a professional poker player is really like. Either would have been a much better choice for the fourth section of All In then an entire 30 minutes devoted to Chris Moneymaker. However, Tirola does do an excellent job with his section on Rounders (1998), and neatly touches on most of the key components in poker’s rapid-fire growth.

Tirola splits All In into four sections—the birth of poker, Rounders, online poker’s beginnings and impact, and the Moneymaker effect. Section #1 is very good, with enjoyable clips and short stories about many of the game’s legends (Amarillo Slim, Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, etc.). It also accurately portrays poker as a microcosm of the American Dream—anybody who works hard and puts in the requisite hours can become successful (albeit not all at the same level; obviously, you need a certain amount of natural talent to reach the heights of the true stars). For those unfamiliar with poker’s rich history (for instance, Richard Nixon funded his first campaign for congress almost entirely with poker winnings), the first 20-25 minutes should prove quite educational.

Section #2 contains the best moments in the film, as it measures Rounders‘ powerful impact on the boom. If you haven’t seen (or heard of) Rounders, it was released in 1998 to very little fanfare, and left theaters very quickly despite a big-name cast including lead Matt Damon, Edward Norton, and John Malkovich. I believe this is due to a complete lack of interest in the topic matter at the time; outside of home games and casino’s, few really knew much about poker if they weren’t REALLY into it. When it hit DVD, though, junkies began snatching it up…and showing it to their friends…who showed it to their friends. And just like that, a cult classic was born (count me in among those who 1. love Rounders, and 2. were drastically impacted by its depiction of poker as a game of skill that favored the sharp and patient, not just a form of gambling). Many of the top players were first inspired to give the game a twirl after seeing Rounders, and All In does an outstanding job of illustrating just how prescient Rounders looks these days, and what the poker underworld that inspired it did for the game as well. And for those like me who PLAYED at the clubs in question…well, it’s just too cool for words. Many of the greats cut their teeth in these joints (the shout out to the Mayfair was particularly awesome), and it’s terrific (and nostalgic…clubs are few and far between these days) to see them get their due onscreen.

Part three is probably the most important and applicable to today’s culture; the online explosion, government’s intervention, and what the future holds. With the current laws sketchy (idiotic former Senator Bill Frist tacked an amendment onto the end of a completely unrelated bill that bans online gambling, but sites such as Poker Stars and Full Tilt continue to allow U.S. players, as their headquarters are not in America and they don’t feel it’s enforceable), a few current congresspeople have sponsored a bill that would regulate and tax online poker, creating billions of dollars in much-needed revenue for the Government. Leaving aside the stupidity behind horse racing being completely fine but poker a “problem,” more and more people are recognizing that poker is an unarguable game of skill, and the support for this is rapidly growing—it also doesn’t hurt that President Obama is a big fan! Tirola effectively communicates all of this, as well as how the process works and just how much money is in it for the CEO’s of these sites, but there’s a missed opportunity here; too much emphasis is put on the advantages of playing in your underwear, and not enough about the lifestyle itself. Many of the top online players (as well as a large majority of the thousands upon thousands who make 200-500K per year playing on their computers) are in the 17-25 range, and have finally found a way to channel their intelligence into something productive. Plenty have been poor students without direction, and poker served as a vessel to channel their talents and avoid a deadbeat lifestyle. On the flip side, there are serious downsides to the career without discipline; it’s easy to eat terribly, avoid exercise, and have no balance to your routine. While Tirola can’t be expected to address this in depth, he certainly could have planted the seed.

Until now, All In has had many more positives than negatives, but by dedicating the final 25 minutes of the film to the story of Chris Moneymaker—the bumbling Nashville accountant who parlayed a $39 tournament on Poker Stars into a seat at the 2003 World Series, and won it for $2.3 million dollars—Tirola makes a serious error from a cinematic perspective. There’s no question that Moneymaker’s victory represents a key turning point in the boom, as it invigorated everyone who’s played & enjoyed poker with a “why not me?” attitude (and the ironic nature of his last name didn’t hurt matters either). But by this point in the movie, all but the biggest poker junkies were likely getting restless, and the concluding segment could easily have been edited into part three without losing any of its substance. I would have much preferred to see All In wrap up with some interviews with the young lights in the poker world (Tom Dwan, Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, et al), and let the audience into what it’s like to win or lose hundreds of thousands dollars in a given day. The emotional fortitude required is breathtaking, and could serve as a lesson for many in other fields. If Tirola felt differently, he should have just merged sections three and four, and produced a leaner documentary that doesn’t drag. As is, it’s well worth seeing, but could have been so much more.

58/100