Croupier (1998) User Reviews

Croupier

[Hawley_Griffin · 8/10 · 9 November 2004]

"Croupier" is a British neo-noir. It has a detached character (or even better, two characters) who progressively get involved in a shadowy world from an apparently safe beginning, it has voice-overs, lots of artistic and original swearing, a depressing atmosphere and if you don't feel like lighting a cigarette with a Zippo after the movie is over, you're dead. Clive Owen gives an amazing performance as the croupier of the title, who is very conscious of his split personalities: Jack, a gambler, the writer who works in the casino to pay the bills, and Jake, a croupier, a man who enjoys watching his customers losing all his money and who makes sure he's always dealing the cards. In the end, Jack loses and Jake wins. The message is delivered in the least subtle way possible, Hell, the voice-over is practically an intellectual analysis on the movie's meaning, but it works because Jack/Jake is an amazingly engaging character and because the movie is so well directed. The crime plot, although not surprising in the least, develops itself smoothly and contains lots of unexpected sources of humor. "Croupier" is a very stylish and criminally underrated neo-noir that beats the living crap out of most of recent Hollywood releases centering about a big robbery or con. It might be heavy-handed, but it's conscious of where its strenghts lie, and Wilson is great. Why it's so criminally underrated... I don't have the faintest about.

Croupier Is A Sure Bet

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 7/10 · 13 April 2023]

Jack is an aspiring writer struggling to finish his debut novel. To make ends meet, he takes up employment as a croupier at a local casino- a job for which he has some ability. Jack is drawn into the action-packed world of gambling like a moth to flame, to the detriment of his relationship with his girlfriend Marion. As he becomes more involved with the casino and its inhabitants, Jack's life becomes increasingly complex and dangerous. Surrounded by cheats, card-sharps and cads, will Jack be able to beat the odds and finish his book, or will the house win again; leaving him with nothing?

Directed by Mike Hodges from a screenplay by Paul Meyersberg, 'Croupier' is a stylish crime drama that- at its best- effectively harkens back to the golden age of film noir. Meyersberg's narrative is full of deception and uncertainty, while his characters are cynical creatures motivated by greed and ambition. He uses Jack's tale to explore the seedy underbelly of contemporary London, where everyone is trying to con someone, and nobody wants to lose. Like Fred MacMurray's Walter Neff in 'Double Indemnity', Owen's Jack is our nihilistic gateway and guide to this sordid city of inequity, and like with Neff, we know his story probably won't have a happy ending.

This is not to say that Meyersberg's screenplay is without fault, or that his narrative is thoroughly engaging, however. The third act drags quite a bit and features a 'twist' so obvious and unnecessary that it cheapens all that came before it. Furthermore, his secondary characters aren't developed particularly well, seeming like dimly defined background noise. Jack's father, for instance, is more of a plot device than anything else, with little to no personality or depth. A sub-plot involving a fellow croupier named Matt initially seems important, before fading into absolute nothingness. It seems Meyersberg wasn't sure what direction to take some aspects of the story; so just left them mid-stream to flounder.

'Croupier' fares better in terms of visuals, having atmospheric production design and cinematography throughout. Director of photography Michael Garfath's utilization of close-ups, zooms and alternate angles in the gambling sequences heightens the narrative tension, while his spirited, inventive use of shadows, low-key lighting, and tilted angles helps maintain the film's thematic links to film noir. Coupled with Jon Bunker's lush production design- which makes terrific use of contrasting lighting, spaces and colours- 'Croupier' boasts consistently strong visuals that linger in the mind long after the credits have rolled.

As do the performances, especially that of star Clive Owen. Cold, calculating, but not without a certain charm, he masterfully underplays the role of Jack. With his detached voice-over-narration and laid-back demeanour, he plays Jack as the classic noir anti-hero and has the audience on side from the get-go. Gina McKee, Kate Hardie and Paul Reynolds also shine in their roles, giving commendable performances that elevate their characters beyond the screenplay and Meyersberg's scant secondary characterization.

With its nihilistic, cynical tone and assured, stylish cinematography, Mike Hodges's 'Croupier' is a tense crime drama that entertains and intrigues in equal measure. Though it may have a few issues- particularly regarding pacing and the structure of Paul Meyersberg's screenplay, which lags in the third act- this strongly acted, atmospheric film is a must watch for fans of film noir or Clive Owen. If 'Rounders', 'The Gambler' or 'Casino Royale' didn't satiate your lust for gambling movies, then go look for 'Croupier;' it's a bet that's sure to pay off.

A hypnotic character portrait

[The_Triad · 8/10 · 28 October 2006]

Croupier is a film that shouldn't work. It doesn't have a conventional plot, doesn't seem to be about anything, (it's got gambling in it and is set inside a casino, but isn't really about gambling.) and the main character seems to have no clear desire for anything. I'm still wondering why I enjoyed it so much. Perhaps the absence of these motifs that you'd expect in any conventional film is what makes it special, I suspect that they add to it's originality, but what really makes the film work is how completely engaging the main character is made.

Jack Manfred, from his chain smoking to his dry voice-over, is completely engaging as a character, without having to go through any obvious conventionalities that would force the audience into finding him endearing. This is surely a combination of Mike Hodges directorial skill, the script and Clive Owen's acting ability.

The film is essentially a character study, with a front of a gambling film, that examines this character and his relationships with the people in his life, - his girlfriend, boss, father and colleagues, how he sees the world, and how he will cope when presented with certain situations.

It is brought to the screen with quality that demands attention and a score that heightens the atmosphere the film creates and really sets the tone.

This guy knows his stuff!

[filthyphil · 20 April 2003]

I was a croupier myself for the best part of 15 years and I expected to see the usual depiction of a casino. You know the scene - think of any Bond movie - the Roulette wheel spins so fast that you can't see the numbers, the dealers all have sticks and speak in French accents, the bets are all placed before the ball is spun and all straight up on the number.

Not so this movie. Anyone that has ever been inside a real casino would

recognise this place. The urgency of every punter trying to get the last bet on before the ball drops, the cheats, the sad, sad losers that wait forever to place their last chips.

This is the most realistic depiction of a casino I have ever seen.

Clive Owen is perfect. He has obviously had a lot of training - only one criticism of his technique - he looks in the wheel as the ball is dropping - a good dealer looks at the layout and watches for late bets, he should be the last person to know which number has come up - he must have eyes in the back of his head to

spot a cheat the way he deals!

For realism, you can't fault this film - every character, even the peripheral extras are real and believable - it's a tour de force of perfect character sketches - the plot is almost irrelevant - in fact, it is not quite up to the incredible atmosphere created - but it's good enough, the film is well worth your time. Hell, it's worth watching 2 or 3 times just to catch all of the great little cameos that you might have missed the first time

9 out of 10

Good In Places . Bad In Places

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 20 May 2004]

I vaguely remembered when CROUPIER was released in 1998 . It was a heist movie directed by Mike Hodges of GET CARTER fame and it`s a movie that brought Clive Owen to everyone`s notice , but it was a movie I never got round to seeing until a few nights ago when channel 4 broadcast it.

Right away I was convinced that I was going to be watching something that was influenced by CASINO , Hodges directing style of this movie screamed at me Scorsese , Scorsese , Scorsese but after the first ten or so minutes that struck me the movie might not be going anywhere it finally finds its feet . CROUPIER might not be the most compelling movie I`ve seen all year but it is a very interesting drama as we follow Jack Manfred a wannabe writer who works in a casino .

Two things I should point out though : First of all a lot of reviews I read when the movie was originally released is that they over stated the point about this being a " heist " movie when in fact it`s more of a drama . If you`re expecting something along the lines of OCEANS ELEVEN you`re going to be disappointed . Secondly if you have no interest whatsoever in what croupiers or frustrated writers do for a living you`ll probably have little desire in watching this movie . Like I said this is mainly a drama than a crime film and I must say that Hodges has perfectly captured the rather impersonal , empty and lonely atmosphere of London very well , and seeing as Clive Owen seems really at home in a casino wearing a tuxedo he wins my nomination as the next Bond . James Bond

I did start off this review by criticising the start of this movie so I`ll finish by criticising the ending . It`s not the worst ending I`ve ever seen in a movie but I can`t help feeling cheated by the last twenty minutes which sees an unlikely plot twist of Jack visiting a morgue along with some unlikely dialogue with a policeman . We`re also treated to Jack having a telephone conversation which does seem ridiculous almost as though the screenwriter didn`t know how to finish off the screenplay along with a faintly ridiculous final scene

Not a Bad Story

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 25 July 2015]

An aspiring writer (Clive Owen) is hired as a croupier at a casino, where he realizes that his life as a croupier would make a great novel.

My interest in gambling movies is about average, though I do find them somewhat interesting in the context of organized crime. That was not a major aspect here, though the movie was not without its unexpected death and shady characters. Lead by Clive Owen, it was a decent little story.

I also like that he was not a croupier just for the sake of being a croupier, but also had the idea of writing a book in mind. This then creates the fun of the unreliable narrator... is everything he says true, or is part of this just his fantasy of what would make for a better story?

I, croupier

[son_of_cheese_messiah · 6/10 · 23 January 2013]

This interesting but flawed film is ultimately let down by its disappointing and unsatisfying final 15 minutes. Before that there is much to enjoy in this archly cynical tale of part time author and full time croupier, Jack, played convincingly by Clive Owen. Jack compartmentalizes his life, so much so that he almost comes across as being a split personality. But great interest is maintained by his personal involvement in events are combined with his dry detached observations of the same events.

He has a tempestuous relationship with his wife, Marion. He claims to love her but has a brief fling with another casino worker Bella. She is promptly sacked from the casino but then turns up on Jack's doorstep to accuse him of getting her sacked. He denies this. but since we get no other explanation, we can only imagine she was correct.

Then there's Jani, a south African woman, who appears to be heavily in debt and in real risk of physical violence or worse being acted on her. After a scene in which he, rather strangely, fails to sleep with her (although literally sleeping in the same bed as her) she offers him £10,000 for some odd and unclear casino scam. He accepts.

Various more or less interesting characters and subplots appear along the way to kept the story moving. These all seem to be progressing to a powerful conclusion. Sadly, however, this is never realized. Instead the climax consists of not just one, but many, failed attempts to tidy things up.

MAJOR SPOILERS The first indication of this is the shocking and unnecessary death of Marion, which seems to serve no other purpose than to write her out of a story after she has fulfilled her usefulness. No explanation for this is given and to add to the strangeness, the policeman in charge blurts out "I loved her you know." A line both puzzling and almost unintentionally funny.

As bizarre and shocking as this was, had the film ended here, it could have been filed away alongside certain enigmatic events, such as the payment made to Jack. Being unexplained, the viewer could decide for themselves. But instead we are spoonfed a 'feel good' ending which blandly and unconvincingly over-explains some things while leaving other things dangling.

The payment turns out to be made by his father using his bride-to-be Jani as go-between. This explanation actually undermines the film before it since this subplot, which seemed sinister, now becomes cartoonish.

Likewise Jack's novel is published (anonymously) and implausibly becomes an international sensation. This is unlikely since Jack's authorial voice is too dark and cynical for the masses. I did not believe it, nor did it fit the general mood of the film. Nor could I believe that Jack would just carry on a job he professes to hate when he is rolling in money.

Finally we see Jack with Bella. Now they are together? Is this meant to be a feel good ending?

Engrossing, high quality film-noir drama

[FlickJunkie-2 · 9/10 · 1 January 2001]

This film-noir crime drama gets my vote for sleeper of the year. It is an expertly written story that is subtly directed and superbly acted. It makes up for the dozens of dreadful independent films one has to mine to find such a gem.

Jack Manfred (Clive Owen) is a struggling writer, who on the advice of his father takes a job as a croupier at a local casino, a job he previously held when he lived in South Africa. He takes the job to make some extra money, but soon he realizes that it would be an excellent setting for a novel. He becomes an impassive observer of the gambling culture on both sides of the table, taking mental notes that are later incorporated into his book. However, as time goes on he is seduced from observer to participant, gradually breaking all his own rules and justifying his decadence by convincing himself that he has become the character in his book. His feeling of control is delusional as he is being manipulated by unseen forces that are beyond his comprehension.

There is a wonderful multi-layered texture to the story. It examines the psychological aspects of the gambling casino from the inside out, allowing us to look at the trade from the casino's perspective. It also weaves in love, sex, deceit and betrayal along with robbery and murder. A few plot gaps leave the viewer with some unanswered questions, but they are minor. The ingenious weave of plot elements culminating in a clever ending more than makes up for the flaws. Director Mike Hodges did an outstanding job of creating realistic casino environment without a lush budget. Hodges got the feeling just right as well, portraying various types of gamblers from the high rollers to the addicts.

The acting was superlative. Clive Owen emerges from the shadow of his television resume to deliver a complex and brilliant performance as the cunning but stolid croupier. If anyone with clout ever sees this film, his agent will certainly be getting some calls. Alex Kingston also does a fine job as the enigmatic Jani, who lures him into a nefarious scheme that sends his life spinning dangerously out of control.

This intelligent film keeps the viewer engrossed throughout. I rated it a 9/10. It presents a fine alternative to mindless big budget films that are more form than substance.

A stylish, dark and close to depressing noir tale that delivers.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 16 October 2006]

'Croupier' is a very dark, very bleak noir thriller about one man and his general struggle in life. This message is put across through his inability to get a good book going and general lack of being able to communicate and holding things together.

This film just feels 'efficient'. It's never really that colourful, the characters voices never really get above a certain low decibel level and most people just seem to skulk around getting on with their business. But, what is it that makes this such entertaining viewing? Well, for one; the constant reference to the protagonist BY the protagonist is fascinating. We're well aware of his writers block by now and as he narrates everything he does, we get the feeling he's basically narrating his book. This means he's chopping and changing between 1st and 3rd person referencing, another thing to suggest he's disconnected. This connected very well with the story telling method the film got across.

The fact that early on, his father calls to tell him he's supposedly moving into a new business is not in the slight bit interesting to Jack (Owen) and this also suggests a lack of interest and communication skills with people, most noticeably this time his family. Oddly enough, this little item comes back to bite him and the viewer and acts as the twist in the end. What's also interesting is the general things about this film. The script contains constant references to 'luck' and 'chance' as well as quips like 'what are the odds?' I found this knitted in nicely with the general dialogue and there wasn't too much of it, either. Other such things include the way we see a conflict towards the end at a gambling table, yet we don't cut away to the following situation in the office where the offender was taken to by the management, like we would've done in films such as 'The Cooler' (2003).

There are very few disappointing things with Croupier but one I can't forgive is the scene that the final third of the film builds towards; the actual robbery. It was quick, chaotic and just plain bad. I had no clue as to what happened and had to wait for the characters to tell me if it had been a success or not as the images didn't tell the story at all. Oddly enough, the entire cast seem to be pretty fed up. In fact it's pretty dull, yet effective acting from all concerned and this added to the film and its atmosphere it had going on.

With most of the good principals Croupier has and very few flaws, the film ends up being a stylish, dark and close to depressing noir tale that delivers.

Black Jack

[paul2001sw-1 · 9/10 · 19 May 2004]

Mike Hodges' film 'Croupier' tells the stark story of Jack Manfred, a writer who sells his soul to work in a casino. As might be expected from the director of 'Get Carter', the acting is deadpan throughout, and the plot is likewise understated: the point is less what happens than the fact that Jack can deal with it. Yet this (short) film is oddly compelling: although we actually get only a brief insight into the workings of the casino, there's something very addictive about the way it is presented, the film has the smack of authenticity and one watches transfixed, as if one was being shown it all for real. Also effectively communicated is the mixture of alienation and exhilaration that comes to possess and drive an increasingly dehumanised Jack. 'Croupier' is not the best film ever made, but it never oversells itself and holds one's attention throughout. A highly effective and distinctive thriller.

Crime and duplicity with endless restraint--not bad!!

[secondtake · 7/10 · 18 September 2012]

The Croupier (1998)

Take a steady, steely very young Clive Owen and give him a mysterious past in the gambling dens of South Africa. Then have him need a job in London--at a casino.

That's the movie, and all the almost inevitable pressures on him to eventually either cheat of get involved in a crime. But he gives the appearance of having been there and done that and he's cool as a cucumber. And very effective. This is one of this first really movie roles (after years of British t.v.) and you can see how he is a whole level above his peers. There isn't really a bad performance in the bunch, but lots of just serviceable stuff that lets him do his thing.

The plot builds nicely, with some subtle twists and decent writing. The ending is a weirdly flat experience--meant to be shocking and open-ended no doubt--which makes you re-evaluate the climax right before that. Owes plays it all as if nothing mattered, though he does on the inside seem affected.

The other twist here, almost unnecessary but it works, is that Owen is also writing a book about it all, and he sometimes (through voice-over narration) confuses and conflates the lead character in the book with himself. They are of course the same, sort of, but not too closely or he'd get caught.

At doing whatever he is really doing. Never mind all the possible flaws in the plot, it clicks overall and it's intriguing. It also has a nice, if a bit brightly illuminated (t.v. style) filming. Solid, low budget stuff. And an entry into the life of a mega-actor to be.

Oh, and I wouldn't call it a noir (or neo-noir) even with all the voiceovers and the alienated lead male--it lacks the other element of pure style, which this functional movie avoids too well.

A Thrilling Journey in the Underworld of Gambling

[jcanettis · 8/10 · 31 December 2005]

In the "Croupier", Mike Hodges takes us in a thrilling journey in the underworld of gambling. We are introduced to Jack (Owen), an average guy who tries (unsuccessfully) to make a living as a writer. He lives a with his girlfriend Marion (McKee), an ex-cop who is deeply in love with him (while he is quite more reserved in his feelings). However, after his father arranges for him a job offer as a croupier in a casino, his life gets completely transformed: His new world and the creatures that live in it begin to devour him, and his character gets gradually reshaped. He is faced with corruption, lust, and ultimately, crime, and Marion does not seem to have the ability to bring him back.

Mike Hodges gives us an excellent account of Jack's world, with the characters being vividly and convincingly portrayed. A small plot twist in the end adds up to the overall excitement.

Clive Owen is simply superb as the icy croupier, who although he tries to be detached, he simply cannot (and probably does not want to) escape from his downhill path. We also enjoy very good performances by all the other actors involved.

8/10.

Quality low-budget low-life film comes up trumps

[huggybear-2 · 7/10 · 29 June 2001]

Croupier centres around Clive Owen and his character, Jack, a frustrated author who takes a job at a casino arranged by his father. Jack slowly morphs into Jake, the central character in the book he is finally able to write based on his own experiences at the casino.

Owen is in virtually every scene and carries the film well, showing he can make the jump from small screen to big screen. His character is cold and detached, a perfect contrast to the players at the casino who show their emotions with every turn of the card and his romantic girlfriend Monica.

You are left guessing at Jack's past and the plot develops nicely, each new chapter presenting itself with ease. The pacing and script are efficient and the supporting roles, such as Alex Kingston's gambler with a motive (and yes, she does get her kit off), are fine.

However, the film simply lacks the killer punch that differentiates between the good and the great. The ending is pat and weak and does not deliver the crescendo the rest of the film demands.

It works, but what was the intention?

[dhahn · 5/10 · 17 April 1999]

Croupier is one of those films that you probably never wanted to see, but which are still worth the money should you get in by accident.

Take an incredibly cool guy (you know, the type where you expect ice crystals to form on the forehead) and give him a job as a croupier, to allow him to act out that severe superiority complex he got.

Then add some women who hang around for a chance to be mistreaded by said jerk, as well as some other people to act as props. Give them incredibly braindead dialogues, which sound like the characters have been fed on bad philosophical textbooks for too long.

After that, all you have to do is to write a storyline that won't get boring and add a good amount of dark humor to the setting.

"Croupier" managed to do all that. If you like satire, you will most likely like this movie. Nevertheless, you will always wonder if the makers genuinely tried to force some deeper meaning into their dialogues and narration. If that was the intention, it failed gloriosly, but in a satirical way. The pseudo-philosophical statements from the off are so shallow that it hurts to even consider them as serious. On the other hand the whole thing may be created as a satire in the first place, so there would be some meaning on a different level...

Nevertheless, I'm quite certain that there will be people who are going to beat some sense into those senseless lines - even at the cost of mental sanity. It'll be great fun to see what those people will come up with.

Owen delivers the goods in this nifty neo-noir flick

[george.schmidt · 28 April 2004]

CROUPIER (2000) *** Clive Owen, Gina McKee, Alex Kingston, Kate Hardie, Nicholas Ball. British director Mike Hodges returns with his trademark hands-on film noir twisting with Owen – part Connery/part Gibson – as a contemptuous struggling novelist who takes a job as a casino croupier with much disdain for its clientele and the razor's edge trundling of enjoying the afterhours lifestyle while struggling to maintain his identity from his story's semi-autobiographical character. Smartly written by Paul Mayersberg with its pulp fiction heart and soul on display works well until its unfortunately false ending. Owen gives a silky smooth enhancing performance of a man at odds with his life and makes it all look effortless.

A short in-depth review

[shivers · 7/10 · 18 June 2001]

Croupier acts to portray a seemingly dark and sometimes perverse dimension of the British casino underworld. Its' plot revolves around a humble stalwart of the Croupiers' who refuses to be corrupted and, so it seems, just wants to get on with life and his eventual aim to be a best-selling author.

The film plays a very interesting method of twisting through elements of Jack Carter (Clive Owen) life exploring his relationship between his girlfriend, the casino and more spectacularly, the aftermath when the two combine.

As a low-budget film, Mike Hodges uses very surreal atmospheric scenery and mood projections to add a very experienced touch of class. Although this might be considered overdone in places, this film does serve to give young and inspiration-seeking directors a good taste of how a simple story can be transcribed into an effective projection on the big screen.

It is a real shame this piece of work was only given a limited release but this should not dissuade the movie buff to get out and see this film at some time. Given its successful opening in the USA and it's ever increasing stature on the British screen, it deserves a full re-release however impossible this may be.

Short and snappy at just 89 minutes, it is guaranteed to give the viewer something to think about upon exit from the auditorium. Well worth the money to see and something I will definitely complement my DVD collection with on home release.

OK Character Study

[kenjha · 7/10 · 17 November 2009]

A struggling writer takes a job as a croupier (card dealer) at a casino, using his experiences to write a book. It seems that there is a lot going on in this film but there isn't really much of a plot - just a lot of little episodes reflecting on the central character. Owen is always interesting to watch and he's the main attraction here in one of his earliest starring roles, providing an edginess and sense of mystery to his character. Veteral British director Hodges, best known for "Get Carter," manages to create a brooding, threatening atmosphere. As such, the film never becomes boring despite the weak storyline, although ultimately it's not very satisfying either.

Too many holes in this story

[muscato · 6/10 · 3 June 2000]

While I may agree with many of the comments about this being a stylish, well acted independent film; in the end this story just doesn't hold up. I won't go into too much detail since it would spoil the story for those who haven't seen it, but at the end of the movie there are all sorts of loose ends and unexplained or inconsistent relationships. It's a movie that holds your attention while you're watching it but just can't stand up to close scrutiny.

Stylish and clever

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 28 June 2000]

I liked some things in this movie. One was that it was narrated in the 3rd person by the star (usually it's someone else who narrates in the third person), another is that I saw a world I didn't know about before. Sure, I know about casinos and bosses and workers, but I didn't know how it worked in Britain. In fact, I saw this as a British version of Casino (except without the mob and violence, though there is some violence). Also, Clive Owen makes a great lead as Jack, who goes through changes in his careers as a writer and a croupier. Possibly the best film to come from Britain this year (so far).

"Hi Jack, Welcome To The Cesspit"

[seymourblack-1 · 7/10 · 11 August 2018]

On the face of it, the character who features most prominently in this psychological drama is a cold, laconic and emotionless individual who appears to have undergone a charisma bypass. What makes him so interesting, however, is his voiceover narration that runs through the entire film and provides a full and fascinating insight into his thoughts, attitudes and aspirations. Because his motivations, reasoning and opinions of the people around him are all made so transparent, it becomes impossible not to be gripped by his story and intrigued by how it will play out.

Jack Manfred (Clive Owen) who lives in London, is an unpublished novelist who's suffering from writer's block and has bills to pay. Fortunately, his live-in girlfriend Marion (Gina McKee) is very understanding as she's a romantic who's deeply in love with him and relishes the idea of living with a writer. Jack was brought up in South Africa and an opportunity to get over his immediate difficulties arises when his father, who still lives there, sets him up with a job at a casino. During his interview for the job, Jack displays his considerable speed and dexterity in dealing cards and stacking the chips at a roulette table and is informed about the strict rules of the establishment. These stipulate that croupiers must remain aloof at all times from both clients and fellow employees and must report any form of cheating that they see. Because he'd previously worked as a croupier in South Africa where he'd learned that the house always wins, Jack never gambles and is very confident about his ability to do the job

Jack conducts himself impeccably in his work and impresses the manager with his professionalism and apparent honesty. He also gets to indulge in his own addiction which is the enjoyment he derives from watching other people lose money. The late hours he works have a detrimental impact on his relationship with Marion and he breaks his first casino rule when he has a one night stand with Bella (Kate Hardie) who's also a croupier at the "Golden Lion". Another rule gets broken when he chooses not to report that he's seen fellow croupier Matt (Paul Reynolds) cheating the house and then takes to socialising with him.

Unexpectedly, the most significant turning point in his new job arrives in the form of Jani de Villiers (Alex Kingston) who's also South African. She's a sexy, sophisticated and seasoned gambler who befriends him and persuades him to participate in a planned robbery of the casino. With a £10,000 payment as an immediate inducement, Jack finds this offer impossible to resist and then has to deal with the numerous surprising consequences that follow.

Jack is a deeply cynical man who hates cheats, thinks he's smarter than everyone else and has a sneering attitude to gamblers. He habitually works out the odds on various issues before taking decisions and despises the sleaze that he's surrounded by in his place of employment (which Bella refers to as "the cesspit"). He loses his moral superiority when he gets tempted by Jani but also benefits from his experience by using his job and Matt as inspirations for a successful book and its main protagonist. Clive Owen is exceptionally good as Jack, especially as his character is so dead-pan for most of the time.

The seedy nature of casinos as places of legalised theft where money is routinely laundered and the proceeds of crime finance the gambling is very convincingly recreated here and provides a wonderful backdrop to Jack Manfred's unusual story.

Impressive British neo-noir

[Tweekums · 9/10 · 21 November 2019]

Jack Manfred is an aspiring writer who can't think what to write about. His father, a gambler, tells him he has managed to get him an interview at a London casino. He takes the job and it is immediately clear that he is familiar with the way casinos work. The casino discourages friendships between staff, bans relationships and has a rule about not interacting with customers outside work. These are rules that are inevitably broken without initially effecting his work. Then one day a female client he has befriended asks him to do something to help facilitate a robbery at the casino. All the while Jack is providing a third-person narration that could come from a book inspired by his experience in the casino.

I found this film surprisingly gripping despite the fact that for the most part we are just seeing Jack going about his life and working at the casino. This was largely down to Clive Owen's commanding performance as Jack; he makes the character utterly believable. Rather than feeling cliché his narration provides a vital insight into what he is thinking and explain certain details of a croupier's job that might not be obvious to non-gamblers. The rest of the cast impress too, even the very minor characters who populate the casino add to the realistic feel. There is a small amount of violence and action but this is short and fairly matter of fact. There is a bit of a twist at the end that some viewers might find a little irritating but I enjoyed it. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to somebody looking for something rather different.

pleasant surprise

[rupie · 7/10 · 16 March 2004]

I had read the excellent reviews of this flick when it came out in 1998 but never had a chance to catch it (it was an "art house" release) so was pleased to find it in the video store recently, and happy to relate that the reviews were right. I have no personal experience with gambling so I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the casino scenes, but I can say that they are very convincing, especially from the standpoint of the human dramas that unfold there. Clive Owen is just superb as the hard-edged and terminally cynical Jack Manfred. I, like another reviewer here, usually dislike voiceovers but in this case I find they are an effective and often humorous commentary to the proceedings. The surprising development at the end provides a nice twist to the effective story that has preceded it, and fits in well with the theme of the movie. As tough as he is, we can't help liking Jack. This movie was a welcome relief from the run-of-the-mill Hollywood "product" that is churned out by the mile nowadays.

Belated praise.

[paulcreeden · 10/10 · 4 April 2007]

I recently watched this film for the sixth or seventh time. When referring to the IMDb file, I noticed that I had never voted or commented on it. I have given it an extremely rare (for me) 10 vote. Clive Owen is now big news, but his talent has never shown more brilliantly than in this film. His subtle use of gesture and eye movement is masterful. I find him riveting in this character. The rest of the cast is also evenly talented. I especially enjoy Kate Hardie as Bella. This is one of the moodiest films I have ever seen. It sucks you in and holds you. The beauty of it for me is that the arc of Jack's character is not in the least bit flat, despite the blunt darkness of the film. It is the closest thing in quality to Michael Caine's early angry-young-man flicks. Mike Hodges directed Caine in "Get Carter", which was retooled by Hodges with Clive Owen as "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", another wonderfully moody film. Clive Owen has the potential to be one of the very few male superstars of our age.

Okay but not as gripping as I was led to believe

[mmunies · 7/10 · 20 August 2000]

I read this movie was the "sleeper hit of the summer season". It appealed to me since it was a smaller film with an interesting story premise.

I enjoyed this film due to the several mysteries about it and the interesting way it unfolded. It was not a gripping film and did not keep me entranced but just merely interested. There were a lot of loose ends in this film that may or may not have been answered.

MINOR SPOILER WARNING - My biggest question is who killed one of the main characters? What was the motive? Was it an accident?

I can normally deal pretty well with ambiguity but this left a big question mark for me.

I can see why this movie was compared to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It was a good film but not quite as exciting as Lock, Stock is. I'm also almost getting the feeling that this type of movie is getting a familiar type feel to it. There are lots of Brit films out there with shady characters and the inevitable narration that goes with it. I just hope these films don't get dull after a while

Still - a heck of a lot better than some of the junk that has been playing this summer with a lot less hype and less overblown budget too.

Arthouse thriller? It is neither art, nor thrilling.

[tomdowns · 1/10 · 14 August 2001]

This was one of the most contrived, tedious and clichéd films I have ever seen... and, yes, I've seen Pearl Harbour. Even the likes of Gina McKee couldn't act their way out of the appalling dialogue. It has been described as 'art-house', this can only be a euphemism for dull, dreadful and, quite frankly, artless. Why is it that when a film is devoid of plot, critics feel it deserves to be called art? But far more baffling, why did America love it? Without you, this film would have remained on the shelf where, perhaps, it belonged.