The Gambler

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Rupert Wyatt/Starring: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Alvin Ing, Brie Larson, Jessica Lange and Michael Kenneth Williams

I'll never quite fathom remakes. Unless a director or producer feels the original was an utter pile of bat guano demanding re-tooling, then I suppose the effort makes sense. But Hollywood history is littered with cinematic rubbish some producer or director felt needed to be retold or made current. I've seen very few remakes that best the original. And what do such ill-conceived endeavors often produce? Useless, vacuous, retreads that lack the original film's dramatic power, wit, humor, charm or spirit.

So movie screens are carrying director Rupert Wyatt's remake of the 1974 film of the same name and I again find myself asking rhetorically: Why? And why The Gambler? Did James Caan not perform his part well, or did the film suffer in some way that made Wyatt or the current producers (Wahlberg among them) itch? Was there an impassioned movement, membership a million strong, clamoring for a remake? If so, why was I not made aware of this? I suppose I could devote a blog-post solely to questions regarding remakes but I won't exhaust your eyes with something so pointless.

Mark Wahlberg plays Jim Bennett, literature professor, author and pathological gambler. When we first see him, he is having a run of luck at a blackjack table in an illicit gambling establishment. Rather than playing sensibly, Bennett transfers his winnings to the roulette table, where he places all his chips on black, but the ball falls on red. His all or nothing approach to gambling is his MO in the film, which brings him misfortune and trouble.

Bennett's freewheeling gambling habit leaves him with prodigious debts to underworld figures who become a ubiquitous presence in his life. A Korean kingpin named Mr. Lee (Alvin Ing), whose illegal gambling houses Bennett frequents, allows the professor to run up a $250,000 debt, which he demands in seven days time. Another shadowy wraith to whom Bennett is indebted is Neville Baraka (Michael Kenneth Williams), who is keen to level his own threats.

When not gambling, Bennett teaches literature at a local university and in his class is a young woman named Amy Phillips (Brie Larson, in a thankless, underwritten role), who is employed in one of Mr. Lee's establishments.

I'm not sure Mark Wahlberg makes a convincing literature professor. I can't picture him actually picking up a copy of Albert Camus' The Stranger or sharing his insights on the book in class. Actually, it may be one of the only books mentioned in his course. Bennett takes up a lot of class-time (and screen time) hectoring his students about their lack of writing talent, though he singles out Amy for her exceptional writing skills. We have to take his word for it; we never see any evidence in the film that would substantiate his value judgement.

A romance between Bennett and Amy percolates, which his dire gambling situation complicates. The relationship is very unconvincing. The lack of chemistry between the two is one of the film's salient failings. Aside from Bennett's lofty praise and her link to his extracurricular life, the relationship is the screenwriter's far-fetched contrivance.

As the days to the deadline are counted onscreen, Bennett seeks out his mother Roberta (Jessica Lange, doing terrific work in a small role), whose wealth offers him his only recourse to debt alleviation. World-weary and edgy, Roberta receives her son's plea for an exorbitant amount with a degree of outrage but she agrees to his request; citing fear of losing another family-member as her means to justifying her action. The subsequent scene in the bank of Roberta and Jim sitting before a puzzled manager is one of the film's best moments (of which there are a scant number).

Rather than eliminate his debt, the self-destructive, volatile Bennett decides to gamble with the money; a catastrophic act that is too mind-boggling to imagine and too painful to watch.

What are the psychological underpinnings of Bennett's gambling? One might say it is merely a gambling addiction but that practical explanation isn't enough to characterize his reasons for such aggressive, manic behavior. It's hardly the thrill of risk, for Bennett doesn't exhibit any elation or high from gambling. A flimsy, existential motivation is subtly posited but no explanation is really satisfying. Except maybe profound stupidity.

Having foolishly and recklessly gambled his mother's money away, Bennett has little choice but to borrow a sizable sum from a dangerous loan shark named Frank (John Goodman), who issues his own vague but ominous threats. But unlike Mr. Lee and Neville, Frank takes a paternal interest in Bennett, though the threats remain.

With the deadline only days away, Bennett hatches a plan that involves offering a basketball star in his class a chunk of cash to moderate his performance on-court to cover the spread on the odds. Bennett's plan to satisfy all his debts with the winnings is risky, dangerous and contingent on the player meeting his end of the deal.

I don't know about the original film--I haven't seen it in years--but this iteration seems more than just a bit silly. Wahlberg's over-the-top classroom theatrics don't resemble that of any literature professor I encountered in college. Wahlberg is a terrific actor given an appropriate role, but his broody-cool demeanor isn't mysterious, just hokey. Brie Larson, whose breakthrough performance in Short Term 12 showcased some fine acting, may as well be a hologram for all that is expected of her in the film. Her motivations are limited to; adore Jim Bennett and then adore him some. The more intriguing performances belong to Lange, John Goodman as the Jabba-the-Hut-like loan shark and Michael Kenneth Williams, who also does much with so little.

Whatever motivates Bennett seems nebulous and nonsensical. Nothing about his character or his predicament is recognizably human. Does he learn anything from his follies? It is hard to say; Jim Bennett remains a cipher to the end.

The ending is what it is; hardly unexpected and unsatisfying. But what does one expect of a remake? I wish I could recommend the original but as I mentioned earlier, I haven't seen it in years so I can't vouch for its quality here.

I'm sorry to say this will be the last film for which I offer an impression in 2014. If only my last posting could have been A Most Violent Year, a film I have yet to see but is earning rave reviews. That will have to wait until January. For now, let my final blog-post for the year end with a whimper and a groan, while I hope for better cinematic experiences in 2015. See you there.