The Gambler

This movie is about a man who has given up hope on achieving his dreams and is trying to make his pain stop by engaging in self destructive behavior... his weapon of choice is gambling but he is not a gambler. He says so multiple times. I have read the many negative reviews of this movie and I think people are really just missing the point. He wants a real love and something real to do every day and if he achieve anything beyond mediocrity then he would rather be dead. People who can relate with that sentiment will love this movie but perhaps no one else. If you enjoy a movie that makes you think a little and go beyond what's on the surface. The movie is not about gambling... it is about finding inspiration and hope.

The Gambler is a decent movie with a reasonably well developed plot and a great cast. Mark Wahlberg makes some very interesting acting choices in this movie, losing weight for the part and portraying the character in a way that really stretches beyond his usual style. I also loved the chemistry between him and Brie Larson, it was definitely the strongest aspect of the film, in my opinion, as it was pure and felt very real.

The structure to this film is a bit of a mess, we are given a bunch of plot points and different reasons for this character to be in dept. It was clearly trying to overwhelm us with this characters situation, however, it just took me out of it when they began to throw too many things at me at once.

As well as that, we are never given a real reason to like the character of Jim Bennett, he is irresponsible and everything that happens to him is entirely his fault. He may have redeemable qualities, but not enough for me to support him. He does pull through towards the last ten minutes of the movie, but that does not make up for ninety minutes of him being an arrogant, self centred individual.

It has it moments, but there are a lot of movies similar to this that are much better. Good performances, but lacking in originality, The Gambler shines on few occasions, and I would not recommend it.

An obsessive gambler must get his life together to pay off his debts and be with the one he loves.

Best Performance: Mark Wahlberg

The seedy underworlds that are often associated with gambling and the mafia are worlds that loan themselves to film, for they breed certain characters, themes, and ideas that simply captivate, and provide audiences with ideas as to how a subculture operates. Having said that, it's a shame in the last few years, we've gotten a small, mediocre array of these films when the genre used to be dominated by the likes of people like Martin Scorsese, Al Pacino, and Robert De Niro, who knew how to create arresting films based off the mob. With Rupert Wyatt's The Gambler, a remake of the James Caan film of the same name coming at the end of the year following a recent trailer release like the film's release was an afterthought, we get another middling effort to showcase strong acting talent but mediocre-to-average screen writing as we watch a captivating idea be squandered by a bloated yet underdeveloped plot.

Mark Wahlberg plays Jim Bennett, a literature professor and a gambling addict, who doesn't know the meaning of quitting when he is up. Bennett rolls away at his odds until he is completely out of money, losing whatever winnings he accumulated and then some. He is in debt to numerous loan sharks, one of which Neville Baraka (Michael K. Williams), who, along with a Korean loan shark, informs him he has seven days to pay back a $240,000 debt or else he is whacked. Jim looks toward Frank (John Goodman), a ruthless, but almost philosophical man, who proposes to loan him the money but fears of his ability, or lack thereof, to compensate him on his investment. Meanwhile, Jim tries to keep it together in the classroom, as he stands before a group of clearly disinterested men and women, who aren't in the classroom to learn anymore than he is in there to teach. However, he takes a liking to Amy (Brie Larson), one of his students who shows great potential in writing. When discussing the idea of following one's dreams as a writer in class, he informs the remainder of his students that, "if you're not a genius, don't even bother."

Jim's thoughtless cynicism and complete disregard for his own life, without the merit or humor or any cogent philosophy or backstory, robs him of any ability to even be a tolerable anti-hero. He's a miserable character, with the only bonus of being played by Wahlberg, one of the finest leading actors working today, who communicates Jim's moroseness nicely throughout the film. Wahlberg is surrounded by other performers, who work equally well at matching his level of conviction, specifically Goodman, whose few scenes in the film amount to greatness in a predictable yet pleasant manner. Goodman delivers a great monologue about the luxury of having "f*** you money," which he estimates to be about $2.5 million. With that net worth, you don't need to take orders from anyone, and if anyone angers you, you can give them the old seven-letter phrase with great effect.

Wahlberg and Goodman are great fun to watch because they've played these kind of wayward characters in prior films, so they know the landscape and the material is fresh in their heads. However, screenwriter William Monahan (who also wrote Scorsese's Departed) threatens to lose control of the project when he writes in multiple different characters and several subplots, not developing enough to reach the level where we care about them. We already have an unlikable main character, and we can't rely on much of the cast to feed our desire to find someone we can at least sympathize with, so all we have is Jim and some bookies-turned-philosophers when the screenplay calls for it to supply character interest. Even the love story Monahan tries to concoct doesn't work, and at that point, we are essentially watching a collection of an interesting parts struggling to find something to work with while masquerading in a backdrop of strong cinematography by Greig Fraser (who also did this year's Foxcatcher, along with Zero Dark Thirty) and some well-executed musical cues that emphasize rather than embellish key moments.

The Gambler, as a whole, however, doesn't work because despite the high stakes and the large risk factor, we see the carelessness and the disinterest of our main character run so freely throughout the film, that we ask ourselves why we should care that this man is seven days away from a grisly demise. We can appreciate the actors, the way the setting is presented, and the music we're provided with to a certain degree, but when it comes time to dive into these characters, their motivations, and their will to live, they have very little, so why are we watching their lazy contentment with such a dour existence?

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Michael K. Williams, and Brie Larson. Directed by: Rupert Wyatt.

I have read few unfavourable reviews about The Gambler mostly saying the film is not gripping enough. I disagree. At no stage did i lose interest in what was going on and i thought the tension was palpable at times. A really good leading performance from Mark Wahlberg and it's good to see Michael Kenneth Williams ( Omar Little from The Wire ) in a big role. If i had to be picky i would say that the three people who Jim owed money to could have been a little bit more menacing and the ending is a little bit confusing ( or that could just be me ! ). Overall though an entertaining , enjoyable movie which also has a great soundtrack.

I like Walhberg as an actor, and I think he's a good actor. This role was a different step for him. I would not have imagined Mark as a one hit wonder novelist turned lit professor from a wealthy background who seems on the road to self destruction due to his gambling habit. He's pulling on his ability to drive a movie, and it works.

It's good that Wahlberg's performance was great (despite being very out of content form what we'd expected from him). The movie in itself was not really that good. I felt it acted too much like a sitcom with all our problems being fixed and wrapped up in a thirty minute format (or in this case two hours). Mark Wahlberg made you believe in how real this guy's problems were only for the story itself to contradict that.

Mark was not alone in carrying the movie as he also had help from the always great John Goodman, who could have used a lot more time in the film, and Micheal Williams who played a great antagonist to Mark's protagonist

For the most part, the movie was humorous and charming all thinks to the acting chops of Markie Mark. I don't know if the academy will take notice, but we all should.