'The Card Counter' film review: Insert 'witty poker pun about film that bluffs but just has a pair of 2s' here
Oscar Isaac stars as a wayward ex-con turned gambler trying to put a troubled young man on the right track in the drama 'The Card Counter' (in theaters Sept. 10).
In short: Ex-military interrogator turned gambler William Tell (Isaac) finds purpose in life after he meets troubled young Cirk (Tye Sheridan) and fellow poker player La Linda (Tiffany Haddish).
At its core, 'Counter' is a restrained character study asking "what happens after a person has paid their debt to society?" 'Counter' finds William bouncing from casino to casino, living a rootless existence as a wandering gambler. He makes just enough to maintain his lifestyle - that of living out of a suitcase, moving from one cheap motel room to the next and staying off the radar of pit bosses. He doesn't seem motivated by greed or any aspirations of gambling greatness - so it instantly piques curiosity as to why any smart, polite man would carve out such a nomadic and isolated life.
Oh, and just to get it out of the way: ‘The Card Counter’ is not a gambling movie. Very little actual card playing is shown on screen. The film has gone out of its way to edit out virtually all card playing, cutting in only to watch players leave the table after losing some hand. Writer-director Paul Schrader’s script has a lot to say about the probability and theories of card playing, but this film is all but completely uninterested in gambling - as a story-telling device. This is the story of a dishonorably discharged former soldier and felon’s attempt at redemption - gambling is almost incidental to this film … literally titled ‘The Card Counter.‘
Without spoiling any plot details, the story slowly reveals that William served a long prison sentence for his part in a violent scandal. His prison experience alone redefined his life - but the crimes William committed, while following orders, continue to haunt him. Although he spent years incarcerated, Cirk points out that those above William did not get any jail time - rather, they prospered. This defines the two tones of the film: William is continuously troubled by his past crimes - a weight manifested by his ritual of covering all furniture in his motel in plain white sheets - seemingly resigned to just passing time. He hasn't made peace with his past - but he's willing to just live with the guilt. Cirk seeks out William because Cirk's father committed the same crimes as William - and his father took out his guilt on his family.
Frankly, for most of the runtime, it's difficult to exactly tell which direction 'Counter' is trying to go. On one hand, William is trying to help Cirk rebuild his life and talk the vengeful young Cirk out of a foolhardy suicide mission. All the while, William reluctantly steps out from the shadows and joins La Linda on the World Series of Poker circuit. Although there's a thin thread of connective tissue between these two plots, they seem so unrelated and divergent that it's difficult to figure out where 'Counter' is going. Yes this is the primary conflict for William - but its so vaguely defined that it leaves the audience wondering what story 'Counter' is attempting to tell: a revenge mission or a gambling journey. William seems intent on pulling Cirk off the path of revenge and back toward normalcy - but it's not exactly clear why the otherwise inert William upends his own life to help some kid he just met. Likewise, the script never lays out the exact stakes of Cirk's revenge plan - other than the fact that the kid hasn't thought out his plan. The script's failure to clearly convey William's connection to Cirk or what Cirk's revenge plot might cost him makes it difficult to emotionally invest the story.
Part of what makes this confusing is 'Counter' sets up elements that are never paid off. La Linda initially offers to find an investor who will stake or fund William's entry into celebrity poker tournaments - but William goes to great lengths to explain he never wants to be under the thumb of debt to these investors. This tantalizing plot stake never becomes a part of the story. It's wasted energy to follow this well-laid out and legitimate concern on William's part - his vocalized argument against celebrity gambling - because it never becomes a part of the story.
Film, by definition, is a visual medium. One of the most frustrating aspects of 'Card Counter' is what the film decides to show and what not to show. The film includes so many extraneous tiny moments of pure tedium that just pad the film's run time, while also leaving important events off-screen. It lingers on Bill ordering drinks or checking into a motel - but two major plot points in third act ... occur off screen. William literally learns of one of these pivotal plot turns via television news, which is one of the laziest decisions any writer can ever resort to: exposition told at a character.
About the only part of 'Counter' that unquestionably works is the casting of Oscar Isaac as the politely aloof but quietly coiled William. His replies are measured, short but not brusque. Isaac's performance combines a quiet restraint with a simmering, unresolved rage. And as more is revealed about William, the film's most potent tension comes from anxiously waiting for something to cause William to snap. But Isaac is given very little to work with - so even this film, which is solely buoyed by Isaac, only gives its star only two or three strong scenes to truly shine. At least he's given more to do than Willem Dafoe, whose performance is wasted on a character so inconsequential that he's merely brought in when the film needs to take a melodramatic third act turn.
Final verdict: The heart of ‘Counter’ is a story worth telling - a guilt-ridden man discarded by society for following orders, while those who gave the orders just get away. Sadly, this story is buried under some totally unnecessary gambling and ham-handed melodrama.
Score: 2.5/5
'The Card Counter' opens in theaters nationwide Sept. 10. This drama has a running time of 109 minutes and is rated R for some disturbing violence, graphic nudity, language and brief sexuality.
