Mark Wahlberg, Brie Larson, Michael K. Williams, John Goodman, Jessica Lange

Rupert Wyatt

Rupert Wyatt’s “The Gambler” is a curious beast. It’s based on a film that’s just obscure enough that a remake wouldn’t ruffle too many feathers, yet is well-regarded by those who have seen it. In other words, the 1974 original starring James Caan isn’t exactly holy ground, but there’s not much to improve on either, which makes this Mark Wahlberg vanity project feel every bit as irrelevant as the story it’s trying to tell. There’s nothing wrong with flawed characters – in fact, that’s what makes some of the best movies – but when they’re as irredeemable as the one that Wahlberg plays in “The Gambler,” it makes it very difficult to give a damn what happens to him.

Wahlberg stars as Jim Bennett, a college English professor who gave up on his literary dream after his first novel was met with little fanfare. The grandson of a banking magnate, Jim partly attributes his privileged upbringing to becoming the degenerate, high-stakes gambler that’s led him to his current predicament. After falling into debt with a Korean mobster (Alvin Lee), and then borrowing money from nefarious loan shark Neville Baraka (Michael K. Williams) that he promptly loses on the blackjack table while trying to win back what he owes, Jim is given seven days to pay or else. When his mother (Jessica Lange) eventually caves in and gives him the $260,000 to clear his debt, vowing that it’ll be the last time she bails him out, Jim blows it at the casino instead, putting him in a precarious position when Neville threatens the lives of his two students.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Television Critics Association press tour is always an exciting opportunity to mingle with my TV critic peers, meet and greet with the individuals involved in the latest and greatest (and otherwise) new series, and get the scoop on what we’ll all be seeing on the small screen over the course of the subsequent six months. This summer’s tour was the first time I didn’t subsequently write up my recollections of the event – my only excuse lies in the lyrics of John Lennon: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans” – but had I pulled together a list of highlights, one of them certainly would have been that I had the opportunity to head over to the 20^th Century Fox lot and attend a special advance press screening of the pilot episode of FX’s “American Horror Story.”

Creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk were in attendance to introduce the pilot, along with cast member Connie Britton, and, as is par for the course for series creators when they’re standing in front of an audience of TV critics, Murphy and Falchuk seemed as excited for us to see the episode as they were nervous to learn what we thought of it. Indeed, unless they were skulking in the back of the auditorium, they didn’t stick around to witness our reactions to the events unfolding onscreen, let alone to hear any of our discussions after the closing credits had rolled.

It should come as no surprise to learn that critical reaction was mixed – I mean, that’s pretty much a given for any new series, right? – but if there was one recurring theme to the many conversations going on about “American Horror Story” during our post-screening dinner, it was that a great number of the people who wouldn’t necessarily commit to actually liking what they’d seen were at least willing to concede that it was going to stay near the forefront of their thoughts for quite some time to come…which, as it happens, is where I was with the show, too.

If you’ve seen the pilot, you can probably appreciate my position: it’s creepy, disconcerting, and, yes, there are a few legitimate scares amidst the cheap but effective made-ya-jump moments, but it’s also full of a multitude of horror tropes and plot devices, including (but not limited to) a haunted house, gory murders, ghostly apparitions, eccentric neighbors, a sinister stranger delivering a warning of impending tragedy, and a pregnancy possibly brought about by evil forces.

Was it memorable? Absolutely. Did it make an impact? I dare say it did: even though I didn’t know if I liked it, I already couldn’t wait to watch it again. Was it sufficiently intriguing for me to want to seek out a second episode? You better believe it. But even with these things said, in addition to getting the feeling that Murphy and Falchuk were throwing things against the wall to see what stuck, I was also left with nagging uncertainty about where the hell they were going with this thing.

Now that I’m six episodes into the proceedings, I’m far more confident about the situation, but I won’t lie to you: it was a little bit touch-and-go for a bit.

Read the rest of this entry »