Lay the Favorite (2012)

(11%) A limp waste of both man's and the world's resources who's cinematic release came and quickly vanished away before the glue that stuck the lame and cheap looking advertising posters had even properly dried. This is one of those films that starts OK with hope of things yet to come, but any hope here is badly misplaced. Rebecca Hall plays a ditzy, quite annoying stripper who becomes a Las Vegas high rolling pro gambler within the blink of an eye utilising her Rain man style abilities that are mentioned once and never spoken of ever again. It really is amazing how easy it is to get a well paying job in this movie, so much so that in this universe there's no such thing as poverty and everyone retires at 22. Bruce Willis plays the boss of a group of gambling speculators, and even he managers to annoy with his character who doesn't seem to accept that betting on anything is massively risky and requires nothing more than blind luck to succeed. While Catherine Zeta-Jones and Joshua Jackson are hardly featured and play mostly pointless roles anyway. Overall this managers to be both mundane, dry, and strait-laced, yet still a bit of a mess.

Fmovies: Lay the Favorite stars Rebecca Hall as an ex-stripper and Bruce Willis as an ageing Las Vegas bookie. But nothing comes good in the script. It is as flat and the writing is noticeable. We can now see why the film was not shown wide in America. The affection between Beth and Dink feels a lot more genuine, with Willis delivering a finely tuned performance. Hall bounces off him with comically goggle-eyed expressions but she comes across more clumsy than needed. This film is listed as a comedy and drama but it really is neither funny, nor it is as dramatic as one should be for a sports betting film. It is also utterly predictable, specifically its ending.

If I hadn't seen Rebecca Hall in any other movie I guess I wouldn't have been amazed by the transformation or her performance in general in this movie. You really buy her ... let's call it naive nature, she puts on display here. Bruce Willis is pretty passive, which works in a way, but not throughout. Joshua and Catherine are not used in the best way possible, but the main focus is on Rebecca so that can be forgiven.

Story-wise, there is not that much exciting or new happening, the jokes are not always working, but the movie has a low budget charm to it (if you can accept that and not look at it as a star vehicle movie with a big budget). It's a nice little movie, that has more potential than it shows on screen.

Lay the Favorite fmovies. Wow. Just wow. Easily one of the worst films (if you can really call it a film) I have ever seen. I spent the first half of the movie waiting for a punchline that never came. I thought maybe it was doing some kind of retro, pretend to be a B movie thing that would have some good laughs over how ironically lame it was. Nope. It really just is a B movie (and a terrible one at that) that somehow managed to trick big stars into it. I kept gasping in disbelief that the movie really could be that bad and still have big names. I thought maybe it was some lost movie that they decided to release now for some reason, but even that didn't make sense because even Bruce Willis' first movies were leagues better.

When I saw the cast list, I thought this would have to be at least okay. I mean it has B. Willis, C. Zeta-Jones, V. Vaughn, J. Jackson, and L. Prepon. All well know actors, and usually in decent films. I still can't believe that every one of these actors actually decided to do this film. It is just mind-blowing. This is easily the worst film of all of their careers, and the worst acting any of them has ever done. Even these stars couldn't overcome the script and make themselves look like good actors. If you were only listening and not paying much attention you wouldn't even know it was them, seriously. Then you would look up half way through the movie and it would blow your mind that it was these stars you were listening to, bumbling through their terribly lines.

Nothing about this movie was accurate or realistic at all. The script is terrible, the acting is terrible, and it looks like it was filmed by amateurs using cameras they bought from Futureshop. How did this movie possibly cost 20 million? I kid you not, Kevin Smith's "Clerks" looks like it has higher production value than this. No real plot either. No twists, no nothing. There is not one single interesting thing in this movie. I was only able to get through it so I could verify that it was bad all the way through. It is one of those movies you keep watching only because you just can't believe it is THAT bad.

The main character is played by Rebecca Hall (a complete unknown), and my god, what an atrocious acting job. Get ready for one of the worst I- can't-believe-they-put-this-person-in-a-movie performances you have ever seen. I feel bad for the girl working with such a poor script (even Willis appeared to be a bad actor in this), but man, I would be terribly surprised if she ever gets an acting job again, unless it is just for sex appeal.

I just can't emphasize how terrible this was. Just astonishingly bad. You won't believe your eyes. The only remotely redeeming quality is that Laura Prepon's breasts make an appearance, and I say this only jokingly. It certainly won't do anything for her career to get naked in this mess of a film.

The movie "The Room" is actually better than this, and it is widely regarded as the worst movie ever made.

"Lay the Favorite" has many dissenters, most complaining that it's completely unbelievable. It's true, it is. Beth (Rebecca Hall) is a ditzy bimbo who quits her job as a stripper and moves to Las Vegas to become a cocktail waitress. A great idea! Instead, as soon as she arrives, she gets a very lucrative job as a sports bettor for a bookie who isn't a bookie since bookmaking is illegal. She's a genius with numbers and words.

She's also capable of getting guys to do whatever they think she wants. They need to do the thinking since she's too dumb to even know what she wants. The kicker to this story of an over-sexed, ditzy bimbo, numbers genius, sports-betting millionaire, is that it's a true story. I decided to watch the YouTube video of the real Beth Raymer reading from her memoir which this film is based on to see if Hall accurately captured her varying characteristics. And she did. She does the hair twirl and the dumb girl giggle as she describes the kings of sports gambling giving her job after job after job.

I'm one of the few who liked Rebecca Hall in this. So different from her usual indie fare. She has to ooze sex and play beautiful even though she has never really been described that way before. But in order to like this movie at all, you need to care about this floozy. Other than her ridiculous free ride through life, nothing really interesting happens to her.

Her first job in Vegas is with Dink (Bruce Willis) who owns Dink Inc. She loves him, he loves her Â… mind? Yeah, right. Apparently he does. So when she gets herself in trouble along with a nice, smart successful guy (Joshua Jackson) who doesn't seem to mind throwing his life away for her, he comes to the rescue.

Personally, I found Hall's sexy naiveté and Willis' extreme gambling entertaining enough to keep watching. However, the movie doesn't seem to play the unfortunate reality that this is a true story for laughs. When there's a story too unbelievable to be true then you should be making fun of everybody who allowed it to occur, instead the film just wanted the audience to go along for a fun ride. It is somewhat fun, it's also very unbelievable, and ultimately, pretty stupid.

Who Might Like This: Anybody who likes seeing ditzy bimbos succeed in life; people who like watching unbelievably true stories; fans of Rebecca Hall.

Until a friend suggested going to see this movie, I hadn't even heard of it, and other than what I gathered from skimming the synopsis in the cinema-foyer listings-leaflet -it seemed to be some kind of comedy, and starred Bruce Willis as a gambler-, I wasn't sure what it was about.

And now, after sitting through all ninety-four incoherent, enervating minutes of it, I'm still not sure. One of my friends, who is usually uncritical and easily entertained, said he thought that "The Tree of Life" made more sense than this film.

Unlike Terrence Malick's "metaphysical masterpiece" however, there is no confusion here as to what the subject matter is (it's the life of professional gamblers), what is confusing is how that subject matter is presented, and how the narrative is (or isn't) constructed around it. For example, what was the intended tone of the movie, what was the film-maker trying to convey? Was it supposed to be amusing? entertaining? or moving? were we supposed to be excited, or to feel intellectually stimulated? Who knows. My main emotional reaction to the film was a kind of repulsion, because I felt like I was being exploited, like the film was insulting my intelligence and my basic humanity. Like I might expect to feel if I'd been suckered into spending an evening feeding coins to a slot machine.

The first 10 minutes were slightly amusing to be fair, but after that that it just descends into complete mind-numbing absurdity. You might think Vince Vaughn would offer some comic-relief but, for the brief appearances he makes, he's just going through the motions (though it's still the most convincing and consistent performance of the movie).

There was no tension, or intrigue, at all, for the first seventy minutes. I mean nothing seems to really matter to any of the characters, they behave so unrealistically, and incoherently. And when things finally seem to get real and there is some adversity for the characters to face, you just don't care because you can't feel sympathy for such pantomime puppets as these.

They could have gone more into the details, the mechanics, of the gambling operation, that might have been interesting, but they thought it would be better to pad the story out with completely vapid romantic-interest scenes.

Maybe, with the attraction of Willis, Zeta-Jones, Vaughn, (and Rebecca Hall's legs), it was thought that such things as humour, narrative direction, consistency and pacing, character development, etc., were unnecessary.

After seeing the movie, I learned that it was adapted from a book, that at least goes some way towards explaining why there were so many undeveloped, seemingly irrelevant details, obviously included for the sake of those that have read it. For example, Holly (Laura Pripon's character) keeps warning Beth that she is becoming "one of us", in the book there might be context for this but when you watch the film you're just like "what is this I don't even...."

But, even for those that have read the book, maybe more-so, this film will only bemuse and bewilder. While I'm informed the book was written in a 'picaresque' -and no doubt droll (not to mention self-deprecating) style-, on screen, without the benefit of a narrator, this translates into characters, like Beth, who starts off as some kind of cartoon-airhead-bimbo-stripper, sunbathing with baby-oil on her back, ending up as an extraordinarily articulate, mathema