Not perhaps the worst film of all time but possibly the most bland and uninteresting. Characters you can't care about suffering first world problems that you can't get excited about. Waste of 2 hours. I am not sure it is possible to fill the required ten lines of text for this review, because the is so little of interest to say about this film. I really can't believe somebody didn't just say no. I can't believe Al Pacino is in such a weak film. I think a film about the trials and tribulations of Al Pacino going to the supermarket and cooking lunch would have been more interesting, perhaps his newspaper could be slightly damaged as a major plot twist. That would be one up on this film.

At the end of the day, after we have already discussed the story, the morality, the flirt-with-the-wife arc, the ending .... at the end of the day this movie will be remembered for Matthew McConaughey's willingness to go up against Pacino. No easy feat, that. Pacino is an actor's actor, he has been stealing scenes with aplomb since his Godfather days (where, no coincidence, they based an entire segment on his character). When he is not in a film stealing scenes, he is on Broadway, or off-Broadway, honing his craft (ie, honing his ability to steal scenes.) And nature has been kind to Pacino, on top of everything else, in the last 20 years his voice has turned into a natural growl that is not only unique on the screen but helps him (you guessed it) steal even more scenes. So, into the ring walks Matthew McConaughey, an actor of wildly uneven skills, sometimes brilliant, sometimes lost (see his forays into horror) and the real issue here -- plot aside -- is, does McConaughey hold his own, or does he get chewed up with the rest of the furniture? Answer: Matthew pulls it off. Gifted with an odd sort of physicality, he does indeed hold his own in this film against the pro, and THAT is what makes this film likely to stand the test of time.

Al Pacino stars with Matthew McConaughey and Rene Russo in "Two for the Money," a 2005 film directed by D.J. Caruso.Pacino plays Walter Abrams, a man with a serious heart condition, a wife, and a child. As his wife says, "he's held together by meetings. If it has an "anonymous" after its name, he goes to it." A former compulsive gambler, he now runs a sports betting business. He becomes interested in a former football player, retired due to a knee injury, named Brandon Lang (McConaughey). Lang gives out accurate predictions and point spreads on a 900 line, and Abrams invites Lang to work for him.Lang moves to New York, where Abrams changes his name to John Anthony, dresses him professionally, and ultimately puts him on television. Anthony is very successful - the business gets a percentage of every win, and Anthony does very well by his clients.Unfortunately, as Abrams himself says, Anthony is not a psychic - which Anthony seems to forget, becoming too interested in golf games with his clients instead of research, and the inevitable happens. "John Anthony" then must come to terms with the complex man he's working for and how and if he's going to get back in the game.This is a good-looking film with Pacino sucking out all the air in the room, overpowering both McConaughey and Russo with his take no prisoners acting. McConaughey is one hot number, and there was a time, when he first started acting, that he wanted to be another Paul Newman. Then he was pulled into chick flicks. The result is a successful career but not necessarily a successful acting career. Therefore he's not really a good match for Pacino.Jeremy Piven plays another analyst who works for Abrams, and he does an effective job, as does Armand Assante, a bettor who doesn't like to lose - he's really excellent in a short role.But Pacino rules - you can sense this man's volatility and you have no idea what he's going to pull next. This is definitely a film for Pacino fans. It's not terribly original, but there are some good scenes and some witty dialogue.

I thought this movie was quite good. Matthew McConaughey did a great job, as did Al Pacino and Rene Russo, as always. The subject matter was interesting, and not something I had seen before. I also enjoyed the character study of Al Pacino, who was clearly not a recovered gambler after all, he just started gambling with his company and with people, rather than his own personal money.The father father/son, mentor/protégé aspect was also interesting. You could tell that Jeremy Piven's character had been Al's golden boy at some point.Many have pointed out a lull in the second act. I didn't feel that at all--quite the contrary I was very tense, especially watching the football games where they had taken the "under" and so had to sweat each point.