The Gambler

We've seen a plethora of film re-makes in our past: "The Planet of the Apes", "I Am Legend", "The Out-of-Towners", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", etc. The list is endless, so it's not difficult to believe that yet another re-make is in the offing. The interesting thing is, why "The Gambler"? This was not a great original film, so how could it ever be a good re-make? Good questions all.

Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is a risk taker. Both an English Lit professor and a high-stakes gambler, Bennett bets it all when he borrows from a gangster, Neville Baraka (Michael Kennedy Williams), and offers his own life as collateral. Always one step ahead, Bennett pits his creditor against the operator of a gambling ring, Mister Lee (Alvin Ing) and leaves his dysfunctional relationship with his wealthy mother, Roberta (Jessica Lange) in wake. He plays both sides, immersing himself in an illicit, underground world while garnering the attention of Frank (John Goodman), a loan shark with a paternal interest in Bennett's future. As his relationship with a student, Amy Phillips (Brie Larson) deepens, Bennett must take the ultimate risk for a second chance...

Others to round out the cast are Anthony Kelley as Lamar Allen, Emory Cohen as Dexter, George Kennedy as Ed, Richard Schiff as Jeweler, Andre Braugher as Dean Fuller, and Lauren Weedman as Banker.

This was directed with intensity and grit by director, Rupert Wyatt ("Subterrain" '01, "The Escapist" '08, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" '11). In this, Wahlberg teeters between playing a 'regular Joe' and a calculating gambler, which says a lot for Wyatt and Wahlberg in the pacing and the way Wahlberg changed like a chameleon from scene to scene. It was effectively written by William Monahan ("The Departed" '06, "Body of Lies" '08, "Edge of Darkness" '10) based on the 1974 film by James Toback. The original was definitely not as effective as this re-make in that the metamorphosis in character was much more distinct in this version. James Caan played Bennett in the 1974 version, and even though Caan is an achieved actor, Wahlberg just gave it that spin it needed so as to be as fresh as it could be. Mine you, this wasn't a great film, but a film with more promise than its predecessor. There were a few choppy areas, but not enough to take away from this, and Wahlberg certainly gave it the punch it needed.

As I've stated in prior reviews, Wahlberg gets better with every film he does, and this film is no exception, so when watching this, it's more Wahlberg one is looking at instead of the story line. You be the judge.

Out of 4 Stars: 3                           Rated: R                            111mins.