Review: The Gambler (2014)

Mark Wahlberg plays a college English Lit professor, washed-up novelist, and self-destructive gambler. He seems to have a thing for taking big risks…and often losing big. Perhaps he even has an addiction for losing, not just gambling. His debts to rather dangerous people are starting to pile up, however, as he already owes money to a powerful Korean casino owner, and further borrows money from ruthless loan shark Michael Kenneth Williams, as well as another loan shark played by a bald John Goodman. On the side, we also see Wahlberg’s relationships with smart student Brie Larson and promising basketball player Anthony Kelley. Jessica Lange plays Wahlberg’s fed-up, rich mother, Richard Schiff plays an immigrant pawnbroker, George Kennedy is Wahlberg’s dying grandfather, and Andre Braugher plays a work colleague.

 

It’s been so long since I’ve seen the 1974 original that I barely remember it, but this 2014 remake from director Rupert Wyatt (“Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) and screenwriter William Monahan (“Kingdom of Heaven”, “The Departed”, “Body of Lies”) is full of terrific performances, even if Mark Wahlberg doesn’t seem the best fit to play an English professor. I mean, have you heard the guy speak? Hardly the most articulate or cunning of linguists. It’s a strong film that I think deserves a better reputation than it seems to have acquired.

 

Boy is the title character in this film a loser. How much so? His gambling game of choice early on is Blackjack, the ultimate loser’s game, next to the roulette wheel. And yes, after winning at Blackjack, Wahlberg’s character indeed heads for the roulette wheel like a giant loser. That’s why the film’s climax doesn’t seem so ridiculous to me. It makes some sense that his character would risk a helluva lot on the most luck-based (and often rigged) gambling game of all. This guy isn’t a gambler, he’s a gambling addict. Although I would have preferred Ben Affleck, Edward Norton, or Matt Damon in the role (Robert Downey Jr. would’ve nailed it earlier in his career, though it might’ve also struck too close to home, ala “Less Than Zero”), Wahlberg’s character here is really interesting. He’s a selfish, yet self-hating addict who acts like kind of a dick to his students, yet he also clearly cares about them. There’s a good person there inside of him, but he’s going down a really bad path with his gambling. Wahlberg may not convince as an academic, but he’s always had a pugnacious, anti-social quality to him on-screen that suits the role of a gambling addict on a self-destructive path.

 

He is also surrounded by a helluva supporting cast, including a very old-looking George Kennedy in a cameo as Wahlberg’s dying, tough old grandfather. He’s such a terrific, long-serving character actor that one wishes we got to spend more time with him here. Brie Larson…I’m in love with you. There. I said it. Go and see her in “Short Term 12” and you’ll understand why I’m obsessed with the actress. She’s so beautiful and in her very first second on screen here, everyone and everything else ceases to exist. She’s steals a lot of scenes in this film by saying very little, yet conveying a lot. That’s talent and star quality, folks (She’s certainly more appealing than gap-toothed Lauren Hutton in the 1974 film). Meanwhile, this may just be Jessica Lange’s best performance since 1982’s “Tootsie”, by virtue of being the first performance she’s given since then where she hasn’t seemingly been playing a drunk Blance DuBois. I have to say, though, that ultimately John Goodman and Michael K. Williams walk off with this film in vivid supporting roles. Williams owns his first scene just by being so damn ice cool. The actor is starting to become a favourite of mine, I must say, and boy is he intimidating in this. Goodman looks disturbingly latter-day Brando in this one, but gives a brilliant character turn somewhere in between Francis L. Sullivan and Herbert Lom (both of whom were in “Night and the City”, another film about a giant loser), but obviously an American version. Williams may be intimidating, but Goodman is downright dominating in his every moment on screen. I’m not sure why Richard Schiff and Andre Braugher have turned up in such nothing roles. It’s always seemed a shame to me that the best supporting actor on “The West Wing” has been taking on so many bit roles in the years since. He and Braugher are much better than that.

 

Some might resist the rather unlikeable lead character, but this is a really good and interesting film that could’ve been even better if it featured more scenes with Goodman, Larson, and Kennedy. So, does anyone know Brie Larson’s number? Help a brother out, OK? 

 

Rating: B-