El apostador

"Eventually a debt gets too big to pay." Jim Bennett (Wahlberg) is an English professor at a major college, as well as being a high stakes gambler. He isn't very good at either. When he falls into an insurmountable debt to a ruthless loan shark one life begins to bleed into the other and his life, and the lives of those around him, is in danger. Going in I thought this movie could go 1 of 2 ways. It could either be tense and good, or slow and boring. After watching it I would have to say it is more tense and good, but also nothing amazing. I did like this quite a bit and recommend this, but it just seems like they could have done so much more with this character. Another down side of this movie is that it is pretty much like every other movie about gambling. The best part of this movie is John Goodman, but he is so under used that it is a little upsetting. If he was in it more the movie would have been better. Overall, a movie that I did ultimately like and recommend but it is a little generic and lacking the punch it was going for. I give it a B.

This would have been much easier to remake if the director had stayed true to the grittiness of the original. It's stripped clean here. From the cinematography, to the acting, the music and more, there is an overall lack of desperation. It's as if everyone making the film has never experienced desperation or addiction of any sort, which I know can't be true. Even the music is inappropriate and sounds like someone randomly picked tunes from their favorite alternative rock radio station. The romantic subplot is mere fluff and also lacks grit from the casting to the photography and inappropriate music making me feel as if I was suddenly watching a romantic comedy. Why did this UCLA beach blonde love interest work in a underground Asian owned casino? Huh? Shouldn't she have been Asian? And what would a young college student even see in this loser? Some choices just made no sense and were out of date, out of context, and simply not the right tone. I would say even Mark Wahlberg was in over his head and the role was not the right fit for him.

I read some reviews here I can see that we have mixed feelings about The Gambler. Some hate it, some love it. I thought it was an okay movie to watch once. I didn't think it was that boring like some want to make us believe. Mark Wahlberg plays a gambler that isn't very passionate about his life anymore. He just searches for somebody to live for, to give him some passion in his boring life. Due to his lack of passion for anything he creates big debts and he doesn't really care about it. Maybe the debt collectors should have been a bit more violent to make the movie more satisfying to some but to me it was okay. Michael Kenneth Williams gave us a good performance as well. John Goodman with a smaller role was also good in his typical way. I found the soundtrack of the movie really good. It just fitted really well with the story and ambiance. Unlike others I wasn't bored at all with this movie. I certainly saw worse movies then this one.

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.