The Gambler
- Thread starter Blaze500
- Start date
Bob Loblaw
Superstar
is it as close to the original as the trailer makes it look
Mediocre to me.
I watched the original on Christmas night, and saw this a few days later….The original was incredible, i was kinda shocked how good it was, it was dark and ugly, well directed and shot, tension and desperation emits from every scene. Loved the cast, and the ending was perfect, bleak and unforgiving as the rest of the movie indicated.
The remake plays it a lot safer, and says different things about life, and people in general while keeping a lot of the originals broader plot points and themes….I really enjoyed the remake, it is a strong movie, with it's own merits. Walhberg's performance is a serious cut above any of his recent output, and may be a contender for his best role, if I am not forgetting too much of his earlier filmography. He has a different take on the character, but doesn't make it a bad one. John Goodman's performance was amazing, and I loved every second he was on screen, his monologue about the 'fukk you position' was brilliant writing and delivery, as well as his first meeting with Walhberg. I could write an entire other essay about Michael K. Wiliams as a character actor, in these type of movies. I will just say he was very good, but so limited by the script, and the way Hollywood writes these characters. Brie Larson, who I loved in 'Short Term 12' doesn't have much to do, or much conviction to do it with, and besides the ending, which I didn't care for mostly….her character was very unneeded. Her characters very purpose was not needed. The movie is well directed, and written, and keeps the tension and anxiety moving, aside from a few minor scenes, and classroom speeches by Walhberg, that could have been clipped.
What I didn't like, was much of the 'Hollywood' gloss about everything, esp. the criminals, the casino, the way K. Williams character was handled, the overly stylized touches of limousine convoys and vast warehouse torture chambers, the Asian thugs beating up Walhberg with Muy Thai or whatever that was, over stylized and too much. Goodman's character was by far the most grounded performance, and best portrayal of that world. Also, the end. If they didn't want to go bleak or dark….thats fine, but they pile on the cliches in the final act, and over bet their hand, by the last frame I was rolling my eyes….if it has ended just a second before, I would be less critical, but they hit on 19 and went way over. But, overall, it doesn't detract from a sleek but grimy drama thriller, with more then it appears to say about life, desperation, and 'fukk you' money.
The remake plays it a lot safer, and says different things about life, and people in general while keeping a lot of the originals broader plot points and themes….I really enjoyed the remake, it is a strong movie, with it's own merits. Walhberg's performance is a serious cut above any of his recent output, and may be a contender for his best role, if I am not forgetting too much of his earlier filmography. He has a different take on the character, but doesn't make it a bad one. John Goodman's performance was amazing, and I loved every second he was on screen, his monologue about the 'fukk you position' was brilliant writing and delivery, as well as his first meeting with Walhberg. I could write an entire other essay about Michael K. Wiliams as a character actor, in these type of movies. I will just say he was very good, but so limited by the script, and the way Hollywood writes these characters. Brie Larson, who I loved in 'Short Term 12' doesn't have much to do, or much conviction to do it with, and besides the ending, which I didn't care for mostly….her character was very unneeded. Her characters very purpose was not needed. The movie is well directed, and written, and keeps the tension and anxiety moving, aside from a few minor scenes, and classroom speeches by Walhberg, that could have been clipped.
What I didn't like, was much of the 'Hollywood' gloss about everything, esp. the criminals, the casino, the way K. Williams character was handled, the overly stylized touches of limousine convoys and vast warehouse torture chambers, the Asian thugs beating up Walhberg with Muy Thai or whatever that was, over stylized and too much. Goodman's character was by far the most grounded performance, and best portrayal of that world. Also, the end. If they didn't want to go bleak or dark….thats fine, but they pile on the cliches in the final act, and over bet their hand, by the last frame I was rolling my eyes….if it has ended just a second before, I would be less critical, but they hit on 19 and went way over. But, overall, it doesn't detract from a sleek but grimy drama thriller, with more then it appears to say about life, desperation, and 'fukk you' money.
Sonny Corinthos
Superstar
This.
I feel I screwed myself by watching the original days before. I didn't even know this was a remake and starred James Caan at that
The first was so raw and sometimes cringe inducing, I was expecting the same thing here but was disappointed. I feel they tried to make you feel bad for Wahlberg here and want him to get out of his situation. In the original it was known Caan was a degenerate who gave no fukks and had no control and honestly didn't care to change
This movie was a legit disappointment to me overall. Omar and Goodman killed it tho
Pointless and messy remake. So its pretty much the average remake these days, Still a failure.
kingdarius
Wtf u talkin bout? Ya Bish
hmm the coli snobs say its trash so it might be pretty decent 
name names since you been going from thread to thread calling people snobs.hmm the coli snobs say its trash so it might be pretty decent
Wargames
One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
It was a shytty film. Keep in mind outside of Marky Mark everybody in the film was a good to great actor so for this film to be this shytty it speaks volumes on the source material, the director, and the script. The most noticeable shytty feature was the dialogue. it felt like it came from a novel. The second main flaw of the film was that at no point did Marky Mark's character show concern over the shyt he was in nor did they explain why he did what he did in the end.
I mean I guess in some Holden Caulfield teen rebellion type of way this whole film was suppose to be a cool movie about sticking it to the man, but it came off as douchy when you see a 40 year old do it. Especially when the 40 year old is supposed to be a character whose family is rich as fukk.
Not to mention when the main character who has the most lines is played by the actor with the least ability in the film. Its hard to convey why all these people who appear generally smart and capable overall give a fukk about him. They had grade A actors in 2 minute cameos throughout the whole film but they want you overlook Marky Mark (who should never have been casted as college professor again after he made the happening) using word such as obstreperous as an attempt to show how he is smart. Yet, he turns around and does the stupidest shyt ever. These same smart characters around him then inform him that he is stupid as fukk, but still then proceed to offer him even more money to lose. It just didn't make sense.
The only 2 redeeming aspects of the whole god damn movie was the "fukk you money" speech John Goodman gave (who gave a great performance considering the overall bad dialogue in the film) and the editing and cinematography of the basketball game scenes. Honestly I would of liked the movie more if they had focused on the 3 guys marky mark owed money too more than they focused on him.
I mean I guess in some Holden Caulfield teen rebellion type of way this whole film was suppose to be a cool movie about sticking it to the man, but it came off as douchy when you see a 40 year old do it. Especially when the 40 year old is supposed to be a character whose family is rich as fukk.
Not to mention when the main character who has the most lines is played by the actor with the least ability in the film. Its hard to convey why all these people who appear generally smart and capable overall give a fukk about him. They had grade A actors in 2 minute cameos throughout the whole film but they want you overlook Marky Mark (who should never have been casted as college professor again after he made the happening) using word such as obstreperous as an attempt to show how he is smart. Yet, he turns around and does the stupidest shyt ever. These same smart characters around him then inform him that he is stupid as fukk, but still then proceed to offer him even more money to lose. It just didn't make sense.
The only 2 redeeming aspects of the whole god damn movie was the "fukk you money" speech John Goodman gave (who gave a great performance considering the overall bad dialogue in the film) and the editing and cinematography of the basketball game scenes. Honestly I would of liked the movie more if they had focused on the 3 guys marky mark owed money too more than they focused on him.
Last edited:
i watched it, shyt was unrealistic., how do you consistently gamble and do dum shyt when you got the money to pay your debts off.
In real like he would've been merked on day 2 honestly after he blew his mother's money she could've gotten him merked
In real like he would've been merked on day 2 honestly after he blew his mother's money she could've gotten him merked
Go to a gambler's anonymous meeting and talk to those people and they will describe in detail how all the stuff in the movie is done...it actually is alot worse than what was in the movie...mothafukkas mortgaging houses, cars, and businesses to gamble even when they are in debt. shyt is no joke.
Movie was still bad though.