R
RGCheek
Guest
OK, I have to get a few things clarified up front.
I love gambling movies as they are usually a morality tale of some kind and that helps me to not play with the mortgage money, if you know what I mean. Since the last time I was in Vegas I lost so much of my personal ‘mad money’ that I have been tight on personal fun stuff since last July. I keep my risks in iron bands of refusal.
The second thing is that when I give a personal review of a movie I end up with one of several conclusions; #1 ‘go see it on the big screen ASAP as many times as you can before it is gone’, #2 ‘go see it on the big screen’, #3 ‘go see it if you are bordered and have $40 to blow’, #4 ‘Wait for the DVD’, and finally #5 ‘I want my money and two hours of my life back’.
After watching the Gambler I now must add a sixth category to my review summary; #6 ‘Please shoot me to make me stop remembering this horror-fest’. Sometimes violence is the only way to stop the emotional trauma, you know what I mean?
This meandering (no discernable plot for 3/4ths of the movie then it becomes ‘guy saves his girl’ sort of, maybe), posturing (existential suicidal loser tortures the audience for the sake of ???), misleading (it isn’t a gambling movie at all) and the characters are utterly flat, unappealing and unsympathetic. I was wishing that the main character would get offed so that maybe something more interesting might save the movie.
If you hate yourself to the point of burning yourself with cigarettes or cutting your facial skin with shards of dirty beer bottles, then OK, go see this movie since you seem prepped up for handing that much pain.
Otherwise, if someone gives you a DVD of it, you have a sure winner for Yankee gift exchanges at office parties…for people you loathe worse than chicken pox. Now I feel like finishing that novel I have worked on for 4 decades, lol.
I used to trust Wahlberg to do only good movies, but I don’t follow him closely, so maybe I just got lucky and missed some of his worse bombs.
That trust has been vaporized into nano-dust.
I love gambling movies as they are usually a morality tale of some kind and that helps me to not play with the mortgage money, if you know what I mean. Since the last time I was in Vegas I lost so much of my personal ‘mad money’ that I have been tight on personal fun stuff since last July. I keep my risks in iron bands of refusal.
The second thing is that when I give a personal review of a movie I end up with one of several conclusions; #1 ‘go see it on the big screen ASAP as many times as you can before it is gone’, #2 ‘go see it on the big screen’, #3 ‘go see it if you are bordered and have $40 to blow’, #4 ‘Wait for the DVD’, and finally #5 ‘I want my money and two hours of my life back’.
After watching the Gambler I now must add a sixth category to my review summary; #6 ‘Please shoot me to make me stop remembering this horror-fest’. Sometimes violence is the only way to stop the emotional trauma, you know what I mean?
This meandering (no discernable plot for 3/4ths of the movie then it becomes ‘guy saves his girl’ sort of, maybe), posturing (existential suicidal loser tortures the audience for the sake of ???), misleading (it isn’t a gambling movie at all) and the characters are utterly flat, unappealing and unsympathetic. I was wishing that the main character would get offed so that maybe something more interesting might save the movie.
If you hate yourself to the point of burning yourself with cigarettes or cutting your facial skin with shards of dirty beer bottles, then OK, go see this movie since you seem prepped up for handing that much pain.
Otherwise, if someone gives you a DVD of it, you have a sure winner for Yankee gift exchanges at office parties…for people you loathe worse than chicken pox. Now I feel like finishing that novel I have worked on for 4 decades, lol.
I used to trust Wahlberg to do only good movies, but I don’t follow him closely, so maybe I just got lucky and missed some of his worse bombs.
That trust has been vaporized into nano-dust.