User reviews

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

Despite being tedious and annoyingly creating its own problems, The Gambler is still a really good drama that manages to come to a very satisfying conclusion. Mark Wahlberg is great. Brie Larson, John Goodman and Michael K. Williams all give really good supporting performances. Rupert Wyatt's direction is also really good. The soundtrack is excellent and the music by Theo Green and Jon Brion is good.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Yes this is a gambling film and includes just about every cliché you can think of. No it isn't any good.

Yes Mark Wahlberg plays a gambler. No he doesn't hit, shoot, stab, or otherwise assault anyone.

Yes the film has several excellent co-stars like George Kennedy, Andre Braugher, and Richard Schiff. No you won't see very much of them and if you sneeze you may miss them.

Yes there is some romance. No it doesn't work with a girl who is half Wahlberg's age.

Yes it's great to see John Goodman in a meaty role. No he isn't going to play Jabba the Hut in the next Star Wars release.

Yes I did stay for the entire movie hoping that the final scene would somehow raise the stature of the film. No it didn't.

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.

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.

As unfortunately I have quite a long and bad gambling history I could definitely get the main character. Talented and maybe because of that not happy with a common life. Leading to wanting more and then little by little getting into this nasty ratrace of self-destruction where your whole life is about getting money....and then in an attempt to set things right losing it in one night. I recognize the attempt of shifting money around: loaning from person B to pay person A. I recognize the disappointing of the people that love you the most: girlfriend, family and friends. I recognize the dispair...the rope that getting tighter and tighter around your neck. Making you do things you never thought you would do and makes you despice yourself. I regret some unrealistic things . The strop-strategy (doubling till you lose) is not the strategy a gambler follows . And the ridicolous amounts people keep on loaning him, even knowing about his debts. All in all I liked the movie. But probably if you have no feeling with this insane gambling world, you would just say: what a stupid morron...and in fact you are right.

The dark 1974 movie "The Gambler", starring James Caan, I thought was the definitive film about compulsive gambling. Although this modern version gives credit to James Toback (writer of the 1974 movie), I'm sorry to say I found this film to be beyond ridiculous, with incredibly stilted and pretentious dialogue, as well as absurd characters and situations.

I will say the acting, given to what they have to work with, is top notch with Mark Wahlberg leading the way as Jim Bennett, an associate professor of literature at a college. He comes from an extremely wealthy family, but is a totally obnoxious, insulting jerk, who seemingly has a "death wish" regarding his compulsive gambling.

Michael Kenneth Williams is also excellent as Neville Baraka, a loan shark and gambler, while John Goodman gives his usual most solid performance as Frank, another loan shark and mobster. Poor Brie Larson, who has to play the role of Amy Phillips here. She's one of Jim's students, and apparently a genius of a writer, but the more she sees Jim destroying himself with his gambling she cluelessly becomes even more attracted to him. Good luck with that!!

To me, this was quite the disappointment from two talented filmmakers, the director Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Escapist), and the writer William Monahan (The Departed).

All in all, I'm sorry to say I found this movie to be far inferior to the 1970's classic, and a major disappointment for me.

If you enjoy a film noir kind of feel in movies you will enjoy this movie. This is not an action film and has no humor. It does have a soundtrack featuring obscure covers of famous songs. Check out the reggae version of a Pink Floyd song from Dark Side of the Moon (I can't remember the title.) John Goodman's performance stands out. With everyone else you feel like you're watching them on the screen. With him, you feel like he's in the room with you. This is definitely a suspend your disbelief kind of movie. It's hard to imagine the series of evens that happen in this movie really taking place. Not a date movie, not a feel-good movie, not a classic. But worth $1.50 at Red Box.

Morons who don't finish the movie and then right a review on the movie they just refused to finish, should NOT be allowed to review the movie. Their review should be erased. Anyone who said this movie had no suspense did NOT watch the movie. Their review should be erased. With that said, every other critique is purely subjective as always. This movie is worth watching at least once like most movies. It might not be great, but I didn't think it sucked. There are far worse movies you could watch or things you could do to waste your precious time. It's kind of hard to develop characters when the storyline takes place over such a short period of time. What was it 2 weeks. Shoot me if I'm wrong on that one.

We all remember the classic children's story of "The Little Engine Who Could" about the train that kept telling itself "I think I can, I think I can", and he eventually was able to make it up the hill. "The Gambler" is a lot like "The Little Engine Who Could". It's a movie that obviously set out to be an Oscar contender: it was a remake of a classic film and a classic novel; it starred Mark Wahlberg, one of the best actors in Hollywood these days; it had a terrific supporting cast, including John Goodman and Jessica Lange; and the movie was released in December of 2014, the time that Oscar contenders tend to be released if they want to get the Academy's attention. It's obvious that all who were involved in this film tried really hard.

But, unlike "The Little Engine Who Could", "The Gambler" could not.

I'm writing this review one day after the 2014 Oscar nominations were announced, so I have the benefit of hindsight in making that statement. Still, having seen the movie in the theater just a few days ago, it's obvious that this was a film that wasn't really going anywhere in spite of a good effort.

I should note that I have not seen the 1974 James Caan version of this film, nor have I read the Dosteovsky novel on which it is based, so I can't comment on its faithfulness to its source material. What I can say is that in spite of good efforts on the part of the actors involved, the script for this movie did itself a huge disservice by being a bit too artsy at places. The film is an odd blend of a neo-noir style story with a curious style. It would have been best served to be a straight forward narrative without too much in the way of artistic inventiveness in how the story was being told, but in the end we got too much Coen Brothers directorial influence and not enough "Chinatown".

One might also question the film standard that the movie was captured in, as the movie had a very bright, crisp quality that made it look and feel like a sitcom rather than a gritty, mature themed film about a man who is in serious trouble with loan sharks. It was like reading a copy of "The Godfather" that had been printed in Comic Sans font. That aesthetic vibe caries into the overall tone of the film, as it comes across as almost humorous, despite the attempt at being more serious and deep. The final product is a bit of a mess, with the movie begging to take your attention in too many different ways. It's an attempt at both a gritty novel, a love story, and a witty humor show. It never really gels into any of the above.

In spite of all this, if you go into the movie with a generous attitude, it's certainly not the worst film ever made. It suffers from its setbacks--one scene features Wahlberg running the equivalent of a marathon without breaking a sweat, which was demonstrative of the cumulative problems of the script. And yet, if you approach the film without hopes of it being Oscar worthy but instead of it just simply being a creative two hour diversion, then you may find yourself enjoying the film overall. In spite of my criticisms, I've still rated the movie slightly favorably, giving it 6/10 stars.

Still, it's a pity that this movie tried so hard and has little to show for its effort. I read on the trivia page here that Wahlberg shed 61 pounds for this role and spent a great amount of time researching college literature professors mannerisms. That's a valiant effort on behalf of a great actor. But in the end, it's not enough to get this train up the hills of Hollywood to where it wanted to be.

The Gambler tells the story of a depressed university professor that owes a great deal of money to dangerous people to feed what seems to be a gambling addiction.

Some viewers will not at all like this movie because they won't at all identify with or have any empathy for the main character in the movie. The movie does not spell it all out for the viewer. This is not an action movie. If you are looking for action, you will be disappointed. It is a dialogue driven movie that is likely to bore some viewers. I identified with the main character in a way, but even I can not deny its faults. Some of the let us call them "mobsters" are comically bad. There is not much going on plot wise and there is very little pay off to this movie. Your ability to enjoy this movie is almost entirely dependent on you caring and having empathy for Mark Wahlberg's character. If you have a low empathy quotient or you just have not been there, you will find yourself simply bored.

The Gambler tells the story of Jim Bennett, a college professor with a dangerous and self destructive addiction to gambling at underground casinos in the underbelly of Los Angeles. His addiction soon begins to effect his professional and personal life to severe and deadly consequences. The Gambler features great performances from Mark Wahlberg and Jessica Lange along with flashy and stylish direction from Rupert Wyatt. Much like the 1974 original, The Gambler is very much so a character study. We see Wahlberg's Jim Bennett in every scene, and see him make every bet, lose every hand and blow every dollar without shying away from Wahlberg. This is a new, transformed and extremely mature performance from Mark Wahlberg. He is in top form here, delivering a career best performance along with the physicality of a twig. It is certainly a better portrayal of a teacher than what we see in 2008's horrendous misfire The Happening. When we see Wahlberg in The Gambler he loses himself in long monologues that never once will make you question his validity in this part. The supporting cast features Brie Larson, Jessica Lange and John Goodman. Each give amazing performances, especially Goodman who steals some scenes from Wahlberg with colorful monologues filled with expletives and subtext that is classic William Monohan but it does grow tiring after awhile. The screenplay written by Oscar winner William Monohan is far from a perfect script but it is very interesting and keeps your attention. It doesn't pack the punch The Departed did, but it gets the job done. Rupert Wyatt proves that not only can he do a big budget action spectacle as Rise of the Planet of the Apes but he can also deliver hard hitting drama. My only issue was that Martin Scorsese is such a huge influence here in filmmaking style that you start to wonder what it would be like if Wyatt just stuck to his own style instead of trying to capture something that is clearly above his talent because it does backfire on multiple occasions especially during its Hollywood-fueled finale. For a film as dark as The Gambler, the ending just simply doesn't fit and feels more like a studio ending rather than something that would be true to the film and true to the original vibe of it all. Overall, The Gambler is a fitting remake that fails to capture the essence of the original but displays Mark Wahlberg in a career changing performance that shouldn't be missed.

Greetings again from the darkness. "I'm all in!" That's a gambling phrase of which even the most risk-averse amongst us recognizes. When Blackjack addict Jim Bennett (played by Mark Wahlberg) goes all in, which he does every time, it's more proof that he is "the kind of guy that likes to lose" … a description offered by one of the mobsters and loan sharks who lend him money.

Director Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, 2011) and screenwriter William Monahan (The Departed) deliver a remake of the very cool 1974 film of the same title starring James Caan and written by James Toback. Wahlberg is spot on as the self-destructive gambler who, rather than live for the thrill of winning, seems intent on pushing the envelope of misery and turmoil. His character manages to go seriously in debt to the Koreans who run the underground gambling establishments, as well as ruthless gangster Michael Kenneth Williams ("Boardwalk Empire"), and a philosophical mobster (a bald John Goodman) doing his best Jabba the Hut impersonation. These are three guys most of us would avoid at all costs.

Unfortunately, it's a bit more challenging to accept Wahlberg as the rebellious writing prodigy with a privileged background, who articulates in a motor-mouthed rapid-fire onslaught of derisive observations meant to prove how he so despises mediocrity. It's obvious Wahlberg is "all in" for this role, but it's difficult not to compare to the more nuanced performance of Caan forty years ago.

Brie Larson (so great in Short Term 12) plays the bright student in Wahlberg's class, but her role is so limited we are left to only imagine the heights of her talent. Anthony Kelley plays Lamar, a college basketball player ripe for Wahlberg's world, and Andre Braugher has a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene as the college dean. Richard Schiff offers up some comic relief as a pawn broker making Wahlberg's misery just a tad worse. The great George Kennedy plays Wahlberg's dying grandfather in the film's opening scene, and he is the first to provide warning on the mess his grandson has created.

Jessica Lange does a wonderful job as Wahlberg's estranged mother who is filled with both scorn and sadness at the state of her son, and offers up one last bag of cash in an attempt to allow him to begin anew. The support work is strong across the board, but it's Goodman who stands out, both with dialogue and a physical presence that deserves some type of award for personal courage and lack of inhibition. His monologue on "F.U. money" is worth the price of admission, though you may request a refund after seeing him shirtless in the sauna.

There is a distinctive style to the film, though at times it comes across as a Scorcese wannabe. From a soundtrack perspective, the diversity of music ranges from classical to folk to big band, with some of the lyrics acting as commentary on the story. The film is pretty entertaining as you watch, but leaves an emptiness once it's over. With so much that works, it's a shame it all disappears so quickly … just like money on a Blackjack table.

I never thought I would see the day when Mark Walberg appeared in a bad movie. Of course the usual clueless eggheads and elitist wannabes had to give it rave reviews because, in their minds, some jittery screen effects made a boring, classless movie 'artsy.'

The movie was boring, the dialog was inconsequential and dragged out, and there was no plot or theme. The characters, including the main character, were not developed at all and the romantic interest was basically a one night stand that at the end of the movie was made out to be Romeo and Juliet. By the end of the movie and the so called "surprise twist' I couldn't care less about whether Walberg's character won or lost, lived or died. The only redemption was the superb acting by Walberg and Goodman, but they didn't come anywhere close to saving this movie. It was simple boring and nonsensical. I'm glad that I saw this on 12/31/14, because if I had seen it a day later, then it would have ruined the New Year for me.

Now I understand why people pirate movies. After getting their pockets picked by movies like this, it is only right that they would look to pick the pocket of Hollywood right back. Do yourself a favor and see any other movie. Even Plan 9 from Outer Space would be better than this dog.

I found this movie to be very gripping, but like others have said it requires some connection with the main character. For me it was there and I thoroughly enjoyed it (as did my wife who insisted we watch it again a week later).

I really enjoyed the brief table dialogues, one of my favorite succinct quotes being something along the lines of:

Walhberg: (Pushes a 10k stack onto the blackjack table) Dealer: That is $10,000 dollars, are you sure... Walhberg: Are you a financial adviser or a dealer?

Walhbergs character is pretty unique, and borders on unbelievable, but it very consistent and represents very real emotions.

Based upon a short novel by Fyodor Dosoyevsky this is a remake of an earlier film from 1974 of the same name . I haven't seen the original but does contain an absolutely gripping tagline of "For $10,000 they break your arms. For $20,000 they break your legs. Axel Freed owes $44,000" . If that tagline doesn't hook you in then may be you just don't like movies . On top of that I see the 1974 version has an average user rating of 7.2 , The 1970s was a highpoint of American cinema where morally dubious flawed people behind the camera were making movies revolving around dubious flawed fictional characters . This remake barely made a ripple at the box office when it was released at the end of last year and has a fairly low rating and after seeing it then it's not too easy to see why

Rupert Wyatt is an adequate director but nothing I've seen from it suggests he's anything more than that . The screenplay is written by William Monahan and this should get a few alarm bells ringing . Much of his work is composed of merely adapting from a vastly superior source and any embellishment he adds to the story is inferior compared to the original work . He also fails to disguise the source . You watch a film with Monahan appearing in the credits and there's some good bits in it ? Well give the credit to the original source material . You watch a film with Monahan appearing in the credits and there's bad bits in it ? Well you all know who to blame . Monahan could defend myself by saying he's not Akiva Goldman and he would be correct but I could equally defend myself by saying no matter what evil deeds I do I'm not on a par with Hitler . A strawman argument . Since this film sources a film that is based on a story by Dosoyevsky there's lots of existentialism spoken about . If you like this praise be to a 19th Century Russian writer . The protagonist finds himself stuck between a rock and a hard place due to his own self destructive actions ? Hey that's sounds like many American films from the1970s . To be fair the cast do their best with the material on offer and rise above the film's flaws but THE GAMBLER doesn't deal the audience a winning hand which is a pity

This is my first ever IMDb review, but I felt compelled to write it. I'm usually pretty partial to Wahlberg's movies, but this thing is just awful. I get what the movie is about, the self loathing and self destruction. The acting in this is just so flat, and boring and poorly directed. The script is ridiculously bad.

Wahlberg seems to think blurting out his poorly written dialog as fast and as unintelligibly as possible equates to a convincing portrait of an academic. It doesn't. He seems to think that acting bored equates to the portrait of a deeply troubled self destructive man. It doesn't.

Perhaps it improved dramatically after the hour mark, but I wouldn't know. For the first time in what must be 2 years, I gave up on a film. It was so terrible, not only did I fail to engage with any one of the characters or any aspect of the story at all, I was actively hating it! I could feel the movie literally vacuously and worthlessly sucking away my time like the most boring vampire that ever existed.

Bad script, woeful acting, weak direction, poor cinematography, weak soundtrack. So yeah...um...I didn't like it much.

James Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is a English professor and a high stakes gambler. He's gambling recklessly after his grandfather's death. He owes $240k and Lee wants it in 7 days. He takes out another $50k from loan shark Neville Baraka (Michael K. Williams) and loses it all. He takes an interest in his student Amy Phillips (Brie Larson) who works at the underground casino. His mother Roberta (Jessica Lange) refuses to give him more money at first. Star basketball player Lamar doesn't pay attention in class. He tries to a loan from gangster Frank (John Goodman).

I'm somewhat mixed on Wahlberg's performance. The material gives him lots of meaty opportunity to shine. Instead, he can only give a middling performance. It's not bad by any means. The first classroom scene has some electricity but it's all in the writing. He has a range that he struggles to expand on. There are some better performances in the movie and Lange is the chief among them. The problem is that she's acting against a wall in Wahlberg. He's not giving enough back. Brie Larson shows some interesting sides. It's commendable that Wahlberg is trying and maybe someday he can put in a worthy performance.