Is there anything more painful than watching somebody needlessly piss money away on screen? Yes, of course. But not much. I’d sooner watch a nerd rejected by a prom queen or Kristen Wiig take another shot at a Bridesmaids speech. Somewhere in the middle of The Gambler, Jim (Mark Wahlberg) collects all the money he needs to square his life ($260,000. That’s two-hundred-and-sixty thousand dollars — several years’ salary for your average worker) and instead of paying off his amassed debt, he grabs his student/lover (Brie Larson) and heads for an Indian casino where he plays cards until all the money is gone. And, I swear, that seems to be the objective.
You know, if your mid-life crisis has a price tag, could you at least invest in a Porsche?
Jim Bennett is one of those guys I think I’d absolutely detest in real life – born to privilege and untold wealth, he has become a second-rate novelist and a professor of English lit. (That’s not the detestable part) In turn, he treats his class like one big sociology experiment and in his free time throws money away like he’s playing catch with an ATM. Often, it’s not his money, but that’s OK, because he doesn’t seem to give a crap about anything. In real life, people like this often while their days away on couches, unable to join the rest of us for living purposes. Gamblor here, however, takes his untold apathetic angst out on shylocks and college students. The latter makes him an asshole; the former makes him a dangerous asshole.
I swear Jim approaches all gambling situations like he can’t wait to lose. Note to amateur gamblers out there – don’t play “double or nothing,” like, ever. And certainly don’t keep playing it hand after hand. Eventually, you will lose and then you have nothing. It’s just stupid.
The Gambler became yet another film which gets sports wrong, really wrong – a tennis “champion” has a forehand he couldn’t hit past my dead grandmother and the ending moments of a close basketball game are embarrassingly unintuitive – where are the 
fouls? Where are the three point attempts? Where’s the keep away ball movement? Why does the team currently ahead attack the basket?
See, when you get things like that wrong, it makes me kind of think, “you probably got the things I don’t know wrong as well” – like why would anyone lend this douche more money? Why? You’re all businessmen; what sense does it make to give a perpetual loser who can’t pay the $200k he owes you another $150k?
The Gambler constantly wants it both ways – we’re supposed to laud Gamblor’s Devil-may-care perspective, but then worry for him when he realizes his gambling will bring down innocents. It also wants us to see the dangers of gambling and yet promotes gambling as the only way to save the day. I also found Jim Bennett’s teaching style wanting. We see Bennett’s classroom perspective as a challenge to the hoards of non-geniuses among us, “can’t write? Don’t try. Become an electrician.” This is the writer’s perspective, clearly. My, there’s a lot of bad assumptions here, not the least of which is: do you have any idea how difficult it is to become an electrician? Any idea what kind of genius that work takes? Finally, presenting such a lecture in the context of a one-and-one-half star script calls for a special lack of self-aware. Screw you, William Monahan.
♪You’ve got to know not to hold ‘em
Know not to fold ‘em
Know you’re a loser
Know you’re a chump
Don’t have to count your money, when you’re sitting at the table
You don’t even need fingers when the answer’s “none.” ♫
Rated R, 111 Minutes
D: Rupert Wyatt
W: William Monahan
Genre: Fool
Type of person most likely to enjoy this film: Guys with a death wish
Type of person least likely to enjoy this film: Penny pinchers
♪ Parody inspired by “The Gambler”
