A good drama needs two components for it to be worth an audience’s time: an interesting, tense story and great acting. “Two for the Money,” starring Matthew McConaughey and Al Pacino, comes up short on both of these aspects.

The storyline had potential. Brandon Lang (McConaughey), a former football player, is hired to make predictions on football games for a sports advising company. His boss, Walter Abrams (Pacino), realizes Lang’s talent and decides to build his company around his new employee. In the process of doing so, Abrams becomes a father figure to Lang and also corrupts him at the same time.

Unfortunately, the story stays relatively predictable. There were a couple of decent moments in which characters were forced to choose one of two directions. However, nothing stood out in the film to make one take notice and say, “I did not expect that!”

Luckily, “Two for the Money” also had some comedic elements thrown in, which helped to keep the audience entertained during the slow points in the film. Most of the laughter came from Abrams acting foolishly and getting people angry with him, which was actually the best character development in the movie.

As for the other half of what makes a drama worth watching, the acting was decent. Although none of the actors are likely to be remembered for their roles in “Two for the Money,” the portrayal of each character was adequate enough to show the actor’s talents.

During some moments, mainly toward the climax, the characters took on a believable quality. That being said, there were other times when actors, generally Pacino, seemed to be overacting. Overall, the acting was nothing spectacular.

If there is one thing that “Two for the Money” does well, it is the way football was implemented into the story. It is actually a pretty silly thing to praise about a movie, especially one about sports betting, but it should be noted. The film provided enough interesting athletic scenes to entice sports fanatics, but everything was explained and weaved so well into the plot, that other viewers will not feel alienated by them.

When all is said and done, “Two for the Money” can best be described by the same adjectives used to describe its acting: Decent, adequate and nothing spectacular. It is not the type of film that warrants running out to see in theatres, but if you do, you probably won’t feel the need to demand your money back.

Matthew Loriso can be reached at mloriso@ulv.edu.