Croupier

Jack is an aspiring writer struggling to finish his debut novel. To make ends meet, he takes up employment as a croupier at a local casino- a job for which he has some ability. Jack is drawn into the action-packed world of gambling like a moth to flame, to the detriment of his relationship with his girlfriend Marion. As he becomes more involved with the casino and its inhabitants, Jack's life becomes increasingly complex and dangerous. Surrounded by cheats, card-sharps and cads, will Jack be able to beat the odds and finish his book, or will the house win again; leaving him with nothing?

Directed by Mike Hodges from a screenplay by Paul Meyersberg, 'Croupier' is a stylish crime drama that- at its best- effectively harkens back to the golden age of film noir. Meyersberg's narrative is full of deception and uncertainty, while his characters are cynical creatures motivated by greed and ambition. He uses Jack's tale to explore the seedy underbelly of contemporary London, where everyone is trying to con someone, and nobody wants to lose. Like Fred MacMurray's Walter Neff in 'Double Indemnity', Owen's Jack is our nihilistic gateway and guide to this sordid city of inequity, and like with Neff, we know his story probably won't have a happy ending.

This is not to say that Meyersberg's screenplay is without fault, or that his narrative is thoroughly engaging, however. The third act drags quite a bit and features a 'twist' so obvious and unnecessary that it cheapens all that came before it. Furthermore, his secondary characters aren't developed particularly well, seeming like dimly defined background noise. Jack's father, for instance, is more of a plot device than anything else, with little to no personality or depth. A sub-plot involving a fellow croupier named Matt initially seems important, before fading into absolute nothingness. It seems Meyersberg wasn't sure what direction to take some aspects of the story; so just left them mid-stream to flounder.

'Croupier' fares better in terms of visuals, having atmospheric production design and cinematography throughout. Director of photography Michael Garfath's utilization of close-ups, zooms and alternate angles in the gambling sequences heightens the narrative tension, while his spirited, inventive use of shadows, low-key lighting, and tilted angles helps maintain the film's thematic links to film noir. Coupled with Jon Bunker's lush production design- which makes terrific use of contrasting lighting, spaces and colours- 'Croupier' boasts consistently strong visuals that linger in the mind long after the credits have rolled.

As do the performances, especially that of star Clive Owen. Cold, calculating, but not without a certain charm, he masterfully underplays the role of Jack. With his detached voice-over-narration and laid-back demeanour, he plays Jack as the classic noir anti-hero and has the audience on side from the get-go. Gina McKee, Kate Hardie and Paul Reynolds also shine in their roles, giving commendable performances that elevate their characters beyond the screenplay and Meyersberg's scant secondary characterization.

With its nihilistic, cynical tone and assured, stylish cinematography, Mike Hodges's 'Croupier' is a tense crime drama that entertains and intrigues in equal measure. Though it may have a few issues- particularly regarding pacing and the structure of Paul Meyersberg's screenplay, which lags in the third act- this strongly acted, atmospheric film is a must watch for fans of film noir or Clive Owen. If 'Rounders', 'The Gambler' or 'Casino Royale' didn't satiate your lust for gambling movies, then go look for 'Croupier;' it's a bet that's sure to pay off.

"Croupier" is a British neo-noir. It has a detached character (or even better, two characters) who progressively get involved in a shadowy world from an apparently safe beginning, it has voice-overs, lots of artistic and original swearing, a depressing atmosphere and if you don't feel like lighting a cigarette with a Zippo after the movie is over, you're dead. Clive Owen gives an amazing performance as the croupier of the title, who is very conscious of his split personalities: Jack, a gambler, the writer who works in the casino to pay the bills, and Jake, a croupier, a man who enjoys watching his customers losing all his money and who makes sure he's always dealing the cards. In the end, Jack loses and Jake wins. The message is delivered in the least subtle way possible, Hell, the voice-over is practically an intellectual analysis on the movie's meaning, but it works because Jack/Jake is an amazingly engaging character and because the movie is so well directed. The crime plot, although not surprising in the least, develops itself smoothly and contains lots of unexpected sources of humor. "Croupier" is a very stylish and criminally underrated neo-noir that beats the living crap out of most of recent Hollywood releases centering about a big robbery or con. It might be heavy-handed, but it's conscious of where its strenghts lie, and Wilson is great. Why it's so criminally underrated... I don't have the faintest about.

Croupier is a film that shouldn't work. It doesn't have a conventional plot, doesn't seem to be about anything, (it's got gambling in it and is set inside a casino, but isn't really about gambling.) and the main character seems to have no clear desire for anything. I'm still wondering why I enjoyed it so much. Perhaps the absence of these motifs that you'd expect in any conventional film is what makes it special, I suspect that they add to it's originality, but what really makes the film work is how completely engaging the main character is made.

Jack Manfred, from his chain smoking to his dry voice-over, is completely engaging as a character, without having to go through any obvious conventionalities that would force the audience into finding him endearing. This is surely a combination of Mike Hodges directorial skill, the script and Clive Owen's acting ability.

The film is essentially a character study, with a front of a gambling film, that examines this character and his relationships with the people in his life, - his girlfriend, boss, father and colleagues, how he sees the world, and how he will cope when presented with certain situations.

It is brought to the screen with quality that demands attention and a score that heightens the atmosphere the film creates and really sets the tone.

In the "Croupier", Mike Hodges takes us in a thrilling journey in the underworld of gambling. We are introduced to Jack (Owen), an average guy who tries (unsuccessfully) to make a living as a writer. He lives a with his girlfriend Marion (McKee), an ex-cop who is deeply in love with him (while he is quite more reserved in his feelings). However, after his father arranges for him a job offer as a croupier in a casino, his life gets completely transformed: His new world and the creatures that live in it begin to devour him, and his character gets gradually reshaped. He is faced with corruption, lust, and ultimately, crime, and Marion does not seem to have the ability to bring him back.

Mike Hodges gives us an excellent account of Jack's world, with the characters being vividly and convincingly portrayed. A small plot twist in the end adds up to the overall excitement.

Clive Owen is simply superb as the icy croupier, who although he tries to be detached, he simply cannot (and probably does not want to) escape from his downhill path. We also enjoy very good performances by all the other actors involved.

8/10.

An aspiring writer (Clive Owen) is hired as a croupier at a casino, where he realizes that his life as a croupier would make a great novel.

My interest in gambling movies is about average, though I do find them somewhat interesting in the context of organized crime. That was not a major aspect here, though the movie was not without its unexpected death and shady characters. Lead by Clive Owen, it was a decent little story.

I also like that he was not a croupier just for the sake of being a croupier, but also had the idea of writing a book in mind. This then creates the fun of the unreliable narrator... is everything he says true, or is part of this just his fantasy of what would make for a better story?