Quick Movie Review: The Gambler (2014)

I can always use a good gambling movie. Unfortunately, this isn't a gambling movie. The title may throw you off, but Mark Wahlberg's character, Jim, even says so himself; "I'm not a gambler." As disappointing as that is, I have to look past it. I have to take this movie for what it is--a story about a cynical realist who has a gloomy outlook on humanity and is struggling to rediscover his purpose. But he's not actively looking for a reason to live, until a couple of them fall into his lap. He didn't think he wanted a reason, but realized that sometimes you don't have a choice. You can try to control every aspect of life, but you have no control over your heart.

And while the messages of The Gambler may be well intended, the execution is a different story. The dialogue, although smart and often funny, just sounds like every character is speaking directly from the writer's mouth so that all of them are having the same supercilious conversation with themselves. Each character seems like an arrogant, vulgar Woody Allen.

Under the direction of Rupert Wyatt, the drama and suspense work outside of the actual gambling itself is impressive. But together with the DP, Wyatt seems to not understand the world of blackjack or basketball enough as a spectator. I typically become resilient when watching basketball movies because I understand the game too much that the slightest error annoys me. It's laughable, but I let it slide a little here. But the movie is about gambling--blackjack to be specific--and the filmmakers continue to show us 1st person perspective while NOT giving us enough glimpses of the dealer's hands. How can we adequately feel the suspense if we can't see what Jim is seeing--or the rest of the table for that matter?

What works is Wahlberg's interpretation of Jim. You can see in his eyes that he understands him, and that he and Jim are one in the same. You're convinced.

The rest of the cast is great as well. Brie Larson, who always delivers her lines with such fluidity, and John Goodman, who is as intimidating as ever, are joys to watch on screen.

But regardless of how entertained you are, you might be disappointed, like me, that The Gambler isn't really about gambling at all.

I heard the 1974 original is better anyway.

Twizard Rating: 74

Quick Movie Review: Born Yesterday (1993)

Melanie Griffith, as Billie Dawn, executes the role with such integrity. So convincing as she makes the film hers. But as a film, it just doesn't fit in well with the era. It feels as though they lifted a 1950 film and forced it to fit into 1993. They tried making a non-90s film but didn't pull out all the stops--or any stops, really. It just felt unexplainably awkward during most scenes.

However, the film wasn't intrinsically bad. It was actually quite enjoyable. The characters are likable, the themes are sincere, and the dialogue is snappy. 

A lot of the time it even overcomes its sloppy direction and confused narrative, but those faults are never forgotten about and a few times distracting. The setup is on the border of boring and the tone is intermittent. It also never fully commits to any of its antagonists, and even slips up a couple of times with Don Johnson's character, Paul. 

Born Yesterday is one of those films that is enjoyable and possibly forgettable at the same time. It means well, but could have been a better remake. And although I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, I wouldn't be against watching it again.

Twizard Rating: 73

WRONG Tomatoes: Red Dawn

After 2 months without a post, I now present to you my new segment entitled "Wrong Tomatoes," where I take a film that I have seen and explain how the score that it's given on Rotten Tomatoes is wrong. In this first edition I will discuss the current remake of the 1984 film Red Dawn. As of today it has a score of 11% on RT.....eleven. The original holds a 53%.

So, let me explain to you the issues I have with this by telling you what was wrong with the original film. It lacked character development of any kind. Out of the 8-or-so teenagers that made up the guerrilla warfare group called the Wolverines, about 3 of them had a distinct personality. The others neither had any identifiable traits, nor did they have any sort of relationship with each other. This made it difficult to become emotionally attached to any of the characters. If an audience isn't attached emotionally, they no longer care about the outcome.

Also, throughout the entire film things keep happening that seem like they were included last minute. A scenario that stands out is where, towards the end of the film, Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze's characters are seen in a playful manner as the former intentionally sprinkles food crumbs onto the latter's head. They both get a laugh. However, before this instance, both characters hardly even acknowledge the other's presence. Shortly after this event, Jennifer Grey's character gets killed, which finally clears up the decision for randomly and absurdly including the prior sequence. It was things like this that really lead me to believe that the creators were more into the IDEA of the film, rather than how they will make it entertaining for the audience.

Now, the remake fixes many problems that the '84 version suffered from. The story didn't feel rushed and you actually saw relationships forming between the characters. The issues that they dealt with were more realistic and you saw most of the maturing as the film developed. I mean, it had some issues of its own, but they were minor compared to the distracting and frustrating ones from before.

I know it's hard to have a film that was so significant and meaningful at one point in time and then have it remade. But compared to some of the most recent remakes such as Footloose or Conan the Barbarian, this one wasn't too shabby. It threw in a couple of twists to make it distinguishable from the original and, in my opinion, became a better film because of it.

All nostalgia aside, the 1984 version is pretty below-average. Although relevant to the times, the original is far worse than the 2012 remake. I understand that remakes generally suck especially if it is of such a "legendary" film, but despite the significance of this film in a trivial sense (e.g. the first PG-13 release and Charlie Sheen's first film role), it's hard to classify it as a classic for anything other than its historical representation.

Now, I urge critics to see the remake as its own film first and then re-watch the original with a new frame of mind to make the comparison. The acting might not be at par, but neither was the '84 version's. It's not, by any means, a perfect movie, and I could probably write a whole article about how it's not, but it's hard to believe that it's worse than the original.

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 11%

What it SHOULD be: 64%