MovieChat Forums > The Gambler (2014) Discussion > A sheer joy to watch John Goodman nail i...

A sheer joy to watch John Goodman nail it again..


I'm hoping he's nominated for an Oscar, I felt his performance was fantastic.

reply

his performance was FANTASTIC, but he had so little screen time, i am not sure if that counts as "supporting male acter". it was a borderline "extra" role. xD

reply

He was great as usual. Everyone else in the movie? Not so much...


'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson

reply

c'mon, wahlberg's performance was good. one can only comprehend up to a certain level if the script isn't that good.

reply

I could see that. But he simply wasn't believable as a college professor. It's the actors job to make me believe, that's like the one thing they have to do. Not every actor has actually been the profession they are portraying, yet we still buy it. Here that just didn't happen.

Although in general I agree the writing was worse than the acting...

'Get yourself a real dog. Any dog under 50 lbs is a cat and cats are pointless' - Ron Swanson

reply

considering my own experience with crappy & excentric profs, i found it believable. some are just full of themselves and one just wonders how they got the job.

"Although in general I agree the writing was worse than the acting... "

totally. it was watchable overall, but it was filled with bad decisions.

reply

But he simply wasn't believable as a college professor.

Yes, but, his character had lost "faith" in being a professor also? After just watching this I can't help but think he was also trying to convey a lack of "enthusiasm" for his profession. I thought he done this quite well, it was a sudden change of "type casting" from action/muscle films to this. But he impressed me, Im glad he gave this a go.
Regards

reply

Yea I'm with ya dotcom, I dunno if he got enough screen time to get the nom

reply

I agree. He's terrific. I've always enjoyed his work.

reply

Agreed 100%. Role was short but sweet.

reply

I'm so glad I wasn't the only person to notice this. I thought he was absolutely outstanding in this film, really needs to be noticed in my opinion.

Everything about this movie was mediocre for me, with the exception of John Goodman's performance. Considering how little time he was on the screen that says a lot.

reply

John Goodman was the ONLY part of the movie I liked and he was terrific.

reply

I agree, Goodman nailed it. His monalogue about *beep* you money was dead on. He had much less screen time than any of the loaners and yet completely sold me as the most feared...when you can articulate your wrath in words and calm menacing demeanor rather than having a minyan beat up the guy...truly gripping. As for Walhberg I thought he did a good job. Actually really enjoyed the movie overall, only question I had...he owed 260k (60k to king of spades, 200k to Korean) borrows 260k from Goodman.Then another 100-150k from Korean. Then bets it in Vegas on game...wins...that would give him 520k (if he gave 100-150k to ball player student) he could then pay everyone off and be clear then right??? But then he takes 520k bets it on black and doubles...he would then have 260k as his winnings to keep...am I missing ssomething??

reply

He didn't get additional money from the Korean though he bet a small chunk of the loan from the big man on the game and only had a little over half of what he owed to the other two thus after the win, & doubling that money, Goodman offered him the 'little left over'

He also gave more $ to the other guy he owed 60k too because he said 9 points as he paid him but owed him 7 unless I misunderstood what happened there.

reply

He was awesome. He's so great in these minor roles.

reply

[deleted]