Talk:Smokin' Aces

Date of Release

According to several sources including the IMDB page linked at the bottom the release date was 2007 at least in north american. The original edit had it as 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.223.5 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting needed

Review follows:

Smoking Aces is a film about a group of assasins who descend upon a Lake Tahoe casino to kill Buddy "Aces" Israel for a million dollar bounty. This film is advertised as a non-stop action film but in reality it feels like 50% build up, 40% action, and then 10% of not making much sense, leaving me with the feeling of being let down. I guess this story is trying to bring up a number of issues - the regrettable tendency of emotionally immature people to respond to violence with more violence; the disasterous, escalating effects of misunderstandings caused by imprecise communication; the ease with which groups that work in secret can cover up their (many) mistakes; and more, but I didn't come to see those things. I came to see ass kicking and name taking, of which there was plenty. Most of the villians were very clever, the big fight scenes were well done (if a little confusing), and the escapes were pretty ingenious. I was expecting at least one more blow out to tie up a loose end and it felt like they ran out of film and had to wrap it up quick, so one of the heroes went and got stupid and then suddenly it was all over. My reccomedation to you is (at most) rent this film, then turn it off after the scene where the bearded man gets the car keys. That way you can enjoy more of the film and not see the crummy, stupid ending that was tacked on.

needs to reworked. Poor English, incoherent writing style.

"Preceded" by?

In the movie's basic information box it states that this movie is "Preceded by Smoking Aces: Blowback" (aka Smoking Aces 2). Even though Smoking Aces: Blowback is a prequel it does not precede Smoking Aces since Smoking Aces came out first. It should say "Followed by Smoking Aces: Blowback". My reasoning is that the Followed By/Preceeded By section does not consider the continuation of the story or the story going back to cover the history (prequel). That section covers the release dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.167.235 (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The bounty was too little

Is there any info on how why the bounty was so cheap just to kill ace? And why did so many people wanted to kill ace?

And also, why did the FBI shoot Primo Sparazza?

-- Was the bounty cheap? I don't know what your circumstances are, but a million bucks would get me pretty far. If I were the kind of person who was up for killing people to begin with, a million bucks would operate as a pretty strong incentive.

-- The FBI shot Sparazza because he was really an undercover FBI agent and the FBI was convinced that he'd "gone over to the other side," so to speak.

Most bounties are a few grand to a couple hundred grand.... I think a million is a fair price for 1 target. It was only the mob people who wanted to kill him and if I can remember I think they sent out contracts or invitations to hitmen. Welshy1791 03:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From article (Controversy)

According to a Schuykill Underground Press article, there is a dispute that this movie is an allegory for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The FBI represent the Zionists who try to save Buddy Israel, and the Mafia represent the anti-Israeli Palestinian Arabs who want to see Buddy Israel killed.

I've moved this to the talk page as unsourced and POV-laden material. Noclip 04:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

none of that is true

Does anyone realize that at the conclusion of the movie, neither buddy nor his father where hooked up to life support!! Ryan Reynolds character just pulled the plug on the machines, that turned off, then turned themselves back on again. Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad to the point of disgustingly stupid writing.

What the hell are you talking about? --C.Logan 11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast

In regards to the cast section, I'm not sure if I'm meant to have bolded the Agent part of the name. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and please let me know if I am <3. Tony Schwarz 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary is Long

I haven't seen this film, but I can tell just by looking that the summary is quite long. Would anyone like to try narrowing it down? Xazy 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it, it's currently 2,345 words. Quadzilla99 00:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I re-posted a different summary. What do you think?

I removed the tags because the plot summary isnt that long its only 5 paragraphs. Also i moved the ratings box down a bit so thre wouldnt be such a huge gap between the opening paragraphs and where the plot description begins.Luciferian56 02:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary is incomplete...

The more concise plot summary has been replaced with a didactically long one (again.) Lame.

Grammar and usage are also seriously flawed. Appears to have been written by a struggling third grader.

There needs to be a warning in your header stating that your summary is a spoiler.

Wrong on the last count. We don't use spoiler warnings for plot synopses. -R. fiend 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I, for one, feel that a plot synopsis should be a brief summary, not the whole movie. I just watched the movie on HBO and it made more sense that the spoiler does (no offense to the original poster). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.165.50.227 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The long summery is necessary to explain the complex plot of this film. A shorter summery could be added for those who are too lazy to read the large one. (76.121.54.245 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I've re-edited the summary to shorten it (by about 400 words) per WP:PLOT. I agree that the longer plot summary is necessary as it's an ensemble cast with many characters all doing something that drives the film forward. Also, spoiler warnings are never addressed on Wikipedia. Articles are intended to be informational and inherently include spoilers per WP:SPOILER. --Deftonesderrick (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Reception?"

Why is there no "reception" section, for the box offices stats and cute little quips about it rottentomatoes.com rating? I would go look it up but...it's 2am here. Could someone please ad it?

Wickedxjade 09:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The reviewers are fucking retarded. They compared this to a Tarentino flick (which sucks because all people do in his movies is yammer about bullshit for two hours) and then bitched because it wasn't as "good". Fuck them.

Levitating Card

When Buddy levitates a card between his hands, is that a special effect or an actual card trick? If it's the latter, what's it called, how's it done and have we got an article on it yet? 63.215.28.84 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In the outtakes (on the DVD), he screws it up, showing it's an actual trick. Looks to me like he's spinning it on his thumb. No clue how. --76.221.178.59 00:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several ways to do the trick, one involves tape and strings.Feral Mind (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ritalin-fueled?"

In the 11th paragraph of the plot description, there is a menion of the "disturbed Ritalin-fueled boy". This would imply that the Ritalin is causing the boy's hyper-activity, but Ritalin is used to treat ADD. Should that line be changed? 70.101.136.215 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read that the Ritalin expired in 1997, so that must explain why it isn't having any effect.--Aml_0000 10:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is used to not only treat ADD, but ADHD. So if it wasn't expired(Which according to the above reply, it is) he could still be immune to it. Raven6248 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add: having been a ritalin user myself in the past, the first poster's remark is technically false. Ritalin has the 'opposite' effect: it gives you more energy if you're down, and calms you down if you're hyper (essentially). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.152.6 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sykes, Ivy, and Watters Conclusion

When I first saw the movie, I thought pretty much the same way the article states, but recently I listed to the second commentary on the DVD, and Joe Carnahan states that in the original cut, it plays out differently with Watters not being caught and a gunshot still being heard with people running down the street in shock, but it was changed slightly because according to him, Sykes and Ivy actually became lovers in the film so he had to "give them hope" and even states on the DVD its not known what really happened in that scene. Should it be mentioned in the article that that point is opened ended due to what I wrote above?Raven6248 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot section should state what is directly depicted in the film. We do not see Watters being shot, only the sound of gunshots, and I have updated that sentence to reflect that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Comic Book tie-in

This really exists? That needs a citation... Ultimatemarvel (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

I don't see a need for listing the deaths of characters in the cast list. This is not common on wikipedia, and so people looking for basic details about the movie can easily have it ruined for them. I know there's not usually a spoiler warning, but then usually the spoilers are in the plot summary where they can easily be avoided. I'd recommend either getting rid of the death list or moving it to its own section with a proper title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.7.125 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Elevator shooting Carruthers/Acosta

It's only a minute detail, but having just watched this film, this article did say... "Carruthers encounters Acosta, disguised as a security officer, in an elevator at the hotel. Carruthers senses something is wrong and both are disabled in a gunfight." Since both characters ended up dying of their injuries, I don't see how the description 'disabled' quite conveys what happened, whereas 'mortally wounded' clearly does, hence the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.96.4 (talk • contribs)

Not only is Acosta not clearly shown as mortally wounded in the elevator, the film depicts him being taken from the hotel on a stretcher with an oxygen mask and his hand deploying his weapon. I will edit that section accordingly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)