A BAD ENDING ???


The ending scene SHOULD HAVE BEEN ... a showdown with Lange/Goodman/Williams = GOLD!!! The movie was on point, for most of the film, hence why I stated the audience reactions. Even after the bank scene w/Lange, I heard at least 15 people say Whoa/Wow. EXPOSURE = EVERYTHING!!!

- On another note, I can't exactly put my finger on if Larson was just miscast here or what. I'm sure she saw the script, saw the actors attached, then said "I'm in," even though the role sucked. At least with Hutton, she was a 'sex goddess' (which is a subjective notion) at the time. Larson is by FAR not a huge sex symbol, like Hutton, so no one, outside of here, really has a clue who she is. I think they should have cast an absolutely smoldering beauty with that WOW factor, because to be honest, there were some scenes I viewed of Larson that actually left me feeling she had been in the morgue for a few days (check out the makeup/lip color in some scenes).

reply

You know, even if I/we couldn't have got our dream ending, I think it's total CHICKEN *beep* that Wahlberg can know his basketball student will (hopefully) win by no more than 7 ... with enough intuition that he bet a TON of money in Vegas on the matter, only to pay off Goodman/Williams, and there is NEVER any resolution w/his mother, with a payoff etc. So, in a sense, he would have rather paid men off who meant nothing to him, even though he apparently didn't care whether he lived or died, than pay his own mother ... who gave birth to him, gave him his money as a GIFT, unlike the others who threatened to kill him, yet there was no resolution there?!?!?

- That's some BS right there, and I will exhaustively get my point across to Ruprett and Co. the best I can. I would have even taken the last scene, with Wahlberg going to his mother's house to beg for forgiveness (then had Larson reached out to Lange, or vice versa), I mean, you're killing 2 birds w/one stone here while solidifying that the women were the keys here to keeping the man centrally grounded. Basically everyone got to have their cake and eat it too besides Lange. I am now (clearly) more unsettled by the ending than I was last night!

reply

AND FINALLY, let's not forget that Goodman even offered Wahlberg 2 huge stacks of cash for settling up, and what does he do...he REFUSES it all...heaven forbid you bring any of that to your GD mother!!! Okay, so what happened here? Was it a lack of writing for the women or just an overall attitude of "Who gives a *beep* about these women?"

reply

Man (or lady)...you are WEIRD.
Why are you taking this movie and its characters so personally??
Who said Mark Wahlberg's character MUST be a good, likeable guy who does all the right things?? Who made that rule? Hey, that's life, friend. It doesn't always get wrapped-up in a nice, resolved, satisfying little bow.

Was Hanibal Lector a nice guy? Was Brando a nice guy in The Godfather? Was D'Niro a nice guy in Cape Fear? Was the shark a nice fish in Jaws? Sometimes....stories about the human condition (like self-destructive behavior and addiction) are just painful, and don't always get resolved in the tidy manner you might prefer. Tough.

Sure, in a perfect world, he would have paid his mother back (even though she DID say she was glad to pay him off and get him out of her life). But the right things don't always happen in movie stories...or in life, for that matter. Did the right things happen at the end of the movie "Seven" with Brad Pitt? Were you traumatized at the end of Casablanca when Ingrid Bergman didn't stick around with Rick? See my point yet??

The end of The Gambler was GREAT. Spot on. He played the bet of his life, ironically to win it back (and to save the student they threatened). Fate finally dealt him a favor. And with that fateful spin of the wheel and turn of the tide, he ran (literally) as fast as he could from that dark and dismal life...ran FAR away, until he couldn't run anymore, and he never looked back. He was free, at last, to start over.

reply

LoL, I see your point, I was just being a tad dramatic. I'm also typing on another movie blog site, and I got all stirred up while discussing. With that said, do you think you would have written the ending the way it was in the film, or would you have taken one of my choices ... or one of your own?

Hey, the movie happened, and there's nothing I can do about the ending, but I find it strange that he would find resolution w/the people who openly threatened to kill him, upon not repaying their money, but find no resolution w/his mother. Don't forget, we are still in a time where men predominantly get the better roles/scripts, so one could look at this film as a slap in the face to the women, especially Larson, who didn't even have the script material to piss on. I thought the running scene was great, but the entire audience, at the theater, was waiting for something else extra, at the end ... hell, even a drive off into the sunset, as cheesy as that sounds, would have sufficed. So, what did you attribute the need to shoot the vacant lot for 30 seconds outside the hotel/apts?

- Basically, everyone got paid back/vindication but the mother, who was never portrayed to be a *beep* deserving of her fate, which seemed to have been the worst. They could have at least offered a scene w/a phone call of gratitude, considering he was afforded all of the luxuries in the world from family. IN FACT, I would have taken a phone call where he looked down, saw that it said 'MOM,' smiled, then made a statement similar to "You're next mom," after he gave Larson a kiss. I'm sorry, but that would have made sense, and it would have appealed more to the female audience member. Had Lange/Roberta been deserving of her non-gratitude fate, I wouldn't even be writing this now.

reply

His relationship with his mother was dysfunctional.she was probally worth a few billion anyway.. She didn't need paying back but he needed to be out of her reaches. He didn't want contact. When he said he isn't a gambler anymore . He meant it. With his mother being around it was to easy to get money from her.. There would never be a last time even though she said it....

Yes I am probally making the film out to be smarter than it is. But it makes for a better ending.
ΔΨΨΔ

reply

Very true.

reply

If you borrow money you pay it back / you don't decide not to based on your personal view of whether that person needs the money or not.

reply

Yeah that's why people always settle their debts in real life. Oh wait.

reply

He didn't borrow it from her. She gave it to him to settle things.

reply

If you write a sentence in English, you use commas, not forward slashes based on your lack of literacy.

reply

I am in my 60's - I have arthritis and my sight is not so good.

I am a member of the National Union of Journalists and the Guild of Food Writers and am a published writer. Indeed, I have largely made a good living across various aligned sectors using the written word.

Sometimes I write quite quickly when responding on boards such as these and don't always spot minor grammatical errors in punctuation.

You are another of the legion of feckless idiots who come on to these boards to try and make yourself feel superior (because you clearly are not) by belittling other posters.

I have no time for you other than this response.

Grow up kid and stop trying to big yourself up. People come to this forum to discuss films, not punctuation.

reply

That's telling him/her/it! Don't take *beep* like that off nobody! You go!

reply

I like you.

reply

If you write a sentence in English, you use commas correctly. Your insult is missing one:

"If you write a sentence in English, you use commas, not forward slashes, based on your lack of literacy."

Your insult is awkwardly phrased, too. Replace "based on" with "due to." And "lack of literacy" is also known as illiteracy. Overall, your insult would read far better as

"English calls for commas, not forward slashes."

There's always a bigger fish. You seem to have missed the point of the movie.

reply

If you write a sentence in English, you use commas, not forward slashes based on your lack of literacy.

reply

I see you also liked "The Expendables 3."

reply

~Don't forget, we are still in a time where men predominantly get the better roles/scripts, so one could look at this film as a slap in the face to the women, especially Larson, who didn't even have the script material to piss on.~

This is such a crock of sh*t and I don't agree with it at all! 1st of all, this isn't the 1950's! Women have made huge progress, in the last 30yrs, in many different fields, especially the entertainment industry. I'm just an average Joe and am not in the industry, nor are you, so neither one of us is privy to Hollywood's casting process. My point is, you don't know who gets preferential treatment as far as roles/scripts go. And to say: you could look at this film as a slap in the face to the women, is highly presumptuous. You're just assuming they got the short end of the stick. You're just assuming they got the sh*ttier roles. You don't know for sure and you probably never will. And exactly what kind of material is an unknown actress, like Larson, supposed to be given anyway?? She's only been in 1 big movie, that I'm aware of. This was her next big film...hardly anyone knows who she is. So she gets the kind of role/material that an unknown actress is supposed to get! She has to prove herself first! Then she gets the higher quality material. Not the other way around.

And what exactly is your definition of, better roles?

reply

They do get the short end of the stick. Movies rarely put women in as a lead role, especially older women. Obviously, this isn't always the case. There are huge movies with women as the lead role, but in general that statement is true.

Also, women actresses get paid a lot less than their male counterpart. That is just simply a fact.

reply

Also, when arguably one of the greatest (and my favorite) living actresses, besides Streep, publicly states that she is going to retire after a few more films (now she's completed In Secret, The Gambler, and the upcoming Wild Oats), then a true fan/admirer, like myself, can't help but to wish she would go out on an extreme high, with a fantastic script. I realize she read the script, before saying yes...to the part, but had she had a finale scene, at the end, she would be heavily considered in the running for the 2014 Best Supporting Actress race. I can think of one or 2 current nominees that Lange could easily take the place of (and I'm hoping Russo gets in too, but that's a totally different forum topic).

- Also, had Lange/Goodman had a final square off, Goodman would be a heavily favored nominee, as well, so Lange wasn't the only one hurt here. This became WAY too much of a vehicle for Wahlberg, and he, unfortunately, won't garner any nominations...

reply

Regarding the lack of female roles in the film...the story just didn't call for many, except a couple, for plot purposes. I'm fine with that. The movie "Steel Magnolias" didn't call for many MALE roles, except for a couple, for plot purposes. Fine with that, too.

Regarding Jessica Lange's role being small, that doesn't mean it was a bad or weak part. It was a bit role, which she knew up front, but a key one. And actors/actresses really tend to love key/bit roles where they can play an eccentric or dark or idiosyncratic character and really chew up the scenery in their few minutes of key screen time. Ask Alec Baldwin how much fun he had in his 5-minute role in Glenngary Glenn Ross. Ask Jack Nicholson how much fun he had in his 8 minutes of (priceless) screen time in Terms of Endearment.

Regarding the final scene of The Gambler....I thought it was perfect. It would have been an absolute cop out if the writers/producers went with a typical "Hollywood ending", and wrapped everything up in a nice, comfortable bow. Life doesn't always work that way...and I was glad they gave this movie an appropriately dark ending, with a small glimmer of hope and relief. It would have been cheesy and cliche had he showed-up at his mother's door with flowers and a big bag of money...resolving all conflict. Their relationship was over, and that was tragic. But we learned all we needed to know about their relationship in their first conversation. And we learned about the cold, bitterness of her character even in the few words she said to her tennis instructor. And when she told her son she wanted to give him the money so she never had to see him again, she meant it.

This movie was dark and tragic. Not every movie is made to make us feel happy, resolved, whole and hopeful. Some movies are made to make us feel sad (Terms of Endearment)....enraged (Glory)...exasporated (Seven)....scared (Jaws)...freaked out (Requiem for a Dream), etc, etc. Movies, art, literature, etc....are designed to make us FEEL, but it doesn't always mean feel GOOD. And things aren't always nice and resolved. Such is life.

In the final scene of The Gambler, we see Mark Wahlberg's character risk his life with one spin of the wheel....and fate provided him a second chance at life. He was a shell of a man. A sad man with very little love, hope or dignity left in his heart. A self-destructive man in a spiral that would most certainly have ended in his death--which he was fine with. But when his student was threatened, the final and only card he could play was to risk it all on one spin. It worked. Fate finally ruled in his favor and gave him a way out. He took it and ran. Ran as fast as he could away from the darkness and out into the dawn. And he kept running until he could no more. He got out, and would never look back. The ending was perfect. It was bleak and tragic....but also had a glimmer of hope and relief. After going through hell with this character and coming out of it into the dawn, the audience in my theater was emotionally spent, but welcomed that hint of hope.

I've seen a few threads complaining that Mark Wahlberg's character wasn't sympathetic...or "likeable". Who said every character in a story needs to be..."likeable"?? Where is THAT rule written?? Was D'Niro's character in Cape Fear...likeable? Was Nic Cage's character in Leaving Las Vegas...likeable?? I saw a bit of myself, and my own demons in Wahlberg's character.....and it definitely wasn't likeable. But it resonated. *beep* if it didn't hit home. That's what movies often do. They make us FEEL. And it doesn't always need to be happy, resolved feelings. Wahlberg's character didn't need to run out of that vile, underground gambling hall into rainbows and sunshine. And when I walked out of the theater....neither did I. Just hope, and air.

reply

Thank you for your thoughtful response, as it helped me put things in better perspective. Much appreciated.

reply

Pleasure discussing with you. And sorry for calling you weird. ;) You are obviously a passionate fan of film and great stories, as am I!

reply

The only way out is all in.

reply

Ur wrong. He didn't risk it all on 1 spin bec his student is threatened. Only da blk ppl threaten 2 kill da gurl and he alredy paid them

reply

"It would have been an absolute cop out if the writers/producers went with a typical "Hollywood ending", and wrapped everything up in a nice, comfortable bow."

That's just the problem, I feel that for what a pathetic lowlife Jim Bennett was they did go with the typical Hollywood ending. Things worked out way too well for this guy who deserved to have his *beep* kicked in once again because he did nothing throughout the movie to garner an ounce of sympathy. Main characters do not always have to be likeable but in this particular movie it was obvious that the writers were desperate to paint this completely unlikeable character as some sort of protagonist against the equally unlikeable loan sharks, which pissed me off. It felt like they were saying "Yeah this guy is a worthless piece of *beep* but you should root for him anyway because he had a strained relationship with his mother and he has hidden writing talent." Not buying it.

I would have much rather seen him lose the final bet and receive his final comeuppance. Then maybe the movie would have some saving grace by sending a message about the dangers of gambling.

reply

Hannibal Lecter--fascinating character. Brando in Godfather--family man. DeNiro in Cape Fear--horrible remake of great movie in which Mitchum played a frightening killer that kept us on the edge of our seat. Jaws? The shark was being a shark! I respect your opinion and I'm sure many people enjoyed this film. I just found Jim to be a very dull character. I appreciate characters that are multi-dimensional or, in the case of villains who do not get audience sympathy, that they either get what's coming to them, or are fleshed out in a way that gives us a window into their sick world. I was rooting for the loan sharks! (@Djokerjan--EXACTLY!)

reply

Because the character was supposed to walk in to the sunset as a redeemed man and he clearly was not.

reply

Quite - he should have paid back his mum. In essence his character was a self-obsessed, selfish a***hole and I could not find a shred of sympathy for him.

reply

I think it's implied that his relationship with his mother is especially strained and that all the transactions between them involved some guilt tripping leading to a shift of money from his mother to him. I think that their family doesn't exchange love or appreciation or kindness. You can tell that his mother loves him but the only way she knows how to show it is to bail him out. They both seem resigned to the fact that this is the nature of their relationship. This was just another bailout. I doubt either of them feels that he is indebted to her for the money. She just wants to make his problem go away- she does not want to know what the problem is. She tells him that this is the last time she plans to bail him out and that he's on his own now. He internalizes this is the inevitable end of the relationship and they both go their separate ways. It's a trade off for both of them: he gets the money (even though he pisses it away) and she feels she's done as much mothering as she's capable of.

reply

Did you not watch the same movie as I did? He was making insane bets all the time.

reply

Sorry, but the ending was the only part of it that I liked! Of all the movies I've seen in the last 2-3 months, this was the only one that did not impress.

reply

I think you need to back off Brie. I thought she was absolutely gorgeous throughout. Money doesn't matter when you have a woman like that that loves you for recognizing her strengths. What's the terrible treatment here?

reply

It ended perfectly.

He was not a gambler because if he was...he'd have taken that money. He couldn't find happiness and wanted someone to kill him until he found something worth fighting for. He's lucky he knew he had a way out...which did involve some luck.... but he was done with gambling and he didn't take that money because of the "F you" clause. Even Goodman knew it was the right thing to do to NOT take the money.

http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn

reply

The ending scene SHOULD HAVE BEEN ... a showdown with Lange/Goodman/Williams = GOLD!!!


Nah.

reply

The ending was slow but you get he ran to his new clean, non gambler life right? With the girl, his former student who had quit school to be a writer? Good films don't spell it out word for word. You have to e paying attention. He ran to the building. She was in it. "I'm not a gambler." Ending saved his for me. I rated it an 8 whereas without the last minute or two it was goi f the way of a 6.

reply