The Card Counter

This is not really a review, it should be taken more as a collection of impressions of the film.

Incredibly underrated film that amazed me beyond belief thanks to its perfectly blended plots and subplots that create a beautiful dark atmosphere full of anxieties and uncertainties. In general the film is really well done and the acting is wonderful and this helps perfectly in the characterization of these very complex and multifaceted characters. Having said that, however, it must be said that the film is very underrated because its value as a thriller is great and even just the poker games cause incredible anxiety.

Paul Schrader's new film is, to no surprise, another dark and meditative character study that seeks to analyze complex questions relating to vengeance and morality. Oscar Isaac gives a strong leading performance in the film, and his lead role was the primary reason I was interested in seeing this. I wasn't sure whether this would be that distinct and authentic a film or a more generic one, but the very strong reviews out of Venice convinced me to see it. The film's performances are generally strong and its aesthetics are potent, but its narrative doesn't hold up quite as well as one would hope.

The film's plot centers on William Tell (Isaac,) a former military interrogator who served 8.5 years in a military prison. He has an obsessive interest in poker, and plays in various tournaments while aspiring to go to the World Series of Poker. After crossing paths with a financially troubled young man (Tye Sheridan,) a plot of revenge on a former commanding officer at Abu Grahib (Williem Dafoe) comes into formation. Isaac's character acting is disciplined and methodical, while clearly conveying the character's emotional torments, erratic tendencies, and interpersonal challenges. Tye Sheridan's performance is strong and thorough as well, and does a good job articulating a genuine sense of grit. Tiffany Haddish plays a friend of Tell who often accompanies him to various poker tournaments, but her character is unfortunately not as well-utilized within the story as she could be. I love Williem Dafoe as an actor, but unfortunately he is underutilized here as well. The film's aesthetics are characteristic of Schrader and, to a lesser degree, Scorsese (who produced the movie,) but that makes them no less strong--color contrasts, rock music, wide shots in both scale and scope, and an overarching sense of grittiness. Despite these strong qualities, the film's plot unfortunately ends up becoming more predictable and uneven as it goes on, and ends up muddling its worldview and messages on morality--or the severe lack of it. The character development in the film is not always especially interesting or authentic compared to other Schrader films. Yet the acting here makes the film a decent examination of a troubled man's past and present that spans from its opening to the very powerful final shot. 7/10.

I so wanted to like this movie. And I did up to a point. The gambling topic and casinos are always an interesting topic to me. Seeing the Martin Scorsese name associated with it, I expected greatness. The movie had an interesting look to it. It did move slowly at times as the main character (William) was a moody, thinker type the entire film. That character trait did add drama to the story because you just didn't know whether he was sane, insane, a good guy, or bad guy. As the storyline progressed, we started seeing the dark, hidden past that haunted him. Where it fell apart for me was the final 15 or so minutes. Time and distance realities seemed to go into fantasyland and the viewer was expected to just accept the unbelievable in order to get to the movie finale. For a serious drama, I found that unacceptable. This movie can be considered a deep thinker movie and I can see some people truly liking the ending. I just felt disappointed and was hoping for a better climax to what was an interesting lead up to it.

(BTW: Blackjack card counting, assuming no devices are used to do it, is not illegal or cheating in the U. S. as someone alluded to in their review. Casinos don't like it because it can hurt their profit margin and if they suspect a person is doing it to their financial success, they can ban them from their privately-owned business property. It would be difficult to prove someone actually is doing it anyway).

I was in the movie theater a few weeks ago and saw a poster for this movie which I had never heard of before. It had Oscar Isaac, Tiffany Haddish, Willam Dafoe, and was produced by Martin Scorsese, how had I not heard of it? Then, a few minutes later, I saw the trailer. It looked interesting, showing an army veteran going into gambling while dealing with his past. It seemed like it would be pretty good.

Key word there is "seemed"

This movie started off pretty well, with Oscar Issac's character playing blackjack while, in typical Scorsese fashion, narrating to us how counting cards works. However, it's only downhill from there. The movie seems to have an identity crisis, with two different plots that never seem to mesh together well. Not to mention the fact that either plot really isn't that interesting. The card playing scenes are the best parts of the movie, but it takes forever to get to them.

(Side Tangent: You gotta love how this movie's about someone who learned how to cheat at blackjack, and then spends the whole movie playing poker. Like, it's literally the title of the movie, how do you mess this up? Tangent over.)

One of the few good things about this movie is the performances. While the script is pretty meh, the cast does the best they can with it, and they do well. I mean, they're basically reading nothing, but at least they read it well.

"The Card Counter" had promise, but almost instantly fell on its face. The slow pacing, the bland story, and the general lack of any real substance to anything happening makes it a rather forgettable movie. There isn't much to gain from watching this, so don't feel bad if you miss it. There's much better things to watch right now.

Whenever I see "such and such presents" on the cover of a movie I think to myself oh no, this movie obviously isn't very strong and they need to attach a good filmmaker's name to it to try and trick people into thinking it's good. I hoped that wouldn't be the case with 'The Card Counter' but it absolutely was. This movie was a bit of a mess.

There are a lot of scenes where the lead character narrates different casino games and explains how best to win them. There is the odd interesting one like the card counting explanation, however most of them are embarrassing to listen to when you know a thing or two about casino games. They are both over-dramatised and over-simplified at the same time.

The film itself is just bizarre. Characters find connections without the film doing anything to sell them to us. We are just supposed to accept them. It's really odd. Also for a large portion of the film we have no idea what the point is. Things just kind of drift along and you wonder why you are even watching this. Then at the end it tries to make up for all that lost time, but again it is just so out of place, unearned and unusual that it has no effect on you at all.

I wanted to like this film, I really did. The premise sounded so good in the synopsis. I assure you though, the promise of "cinematic intensity" is not lived up to for one minute. This is one of the least intense films I've ever witnessed. I'll generously give this a 5/10. Not one I'd recommend.