MovieChat Forums > Rounders (1998) Discussion > Does anybody else think this movie has a...

Does anybody else think this movie has a tragic ending? *spoilers*


So spoilers throughout (you are warned):

So Mike is at least halfway through law school and most likely in the middle of his 4th semester when Worm gets out of prison and the events that follow (Mike said that grinding got him through "half of law school" and that doesn't even count the time he spends driving Kanish's truck).

Thus, Mike is around 1 year away from graduating from school. Unless he is an unbelievable card player, he probably has taken out at least some school loans since a legal education costs $150,000 these days (albeit this was back in 1998) and winning all of the 75 k it would take to get through half of law school is sort of doubtful.

This means he possibly owed money in loans, was at maximum a little over a year from graduation, and he threw it all away so he could go play poker in Vegas. Even though me, my friends, and everyone I've talked to see the ending as a "happy ending", I'm starting to change my mind and believe it's downright depressing. Furthermore, the first year of law school is supposed to be the hardest and he has already gotten through that.

You would think he should at just tough it out for one more year to graduate and go play cards then (he could always just take the bar later if he changed his mind). I'm not positive, but I don't think you can just leave law school for a couple of years and come back and start where you left off (like you could do in undergrad).

Anyways, I think it's kinda said he chose to become a poker player/ gambler/ semanticslol when he had so much going for him.

reply

I agree.

I actually thought this was a subtly subversive film which had you rooting for a degenerate gambler, celebrating his failure to overcome his addiction, and charmed by his best friend - a total loser criminal who constantly dragged down, lied to and used our ‘hero’ before abandoning him.

In fact, Norton’s character Worm wasn’t as frustrating as watching Mike constantly getting suckered by the selfish leech. Our hero is a gullible moron.

John Dahl is a clever writer-director of noir films, and I think he dressed up this dark tale about awful losers in a punch-the-air Matt Damon Hollywood movie and everybody fell for it 🤷🏻‍♂️

reply

Is it really addiction to make a living playing cards?

reply

If you’re playing for money, and therefore gambling, then yes.

reply

Don’t all professional card players play for money? Or at least sponsorships. Is it any different from day-trading?

reply

I don’t know about professional card players, and if they’re gambling with the money of sponsors then the sponsors would be doing the gambling.

Day trading certainly could be seen as gambling but I don’t know if that has the randomness of a card game - a competent trader might have good information on what is likely to go up or down, for example.

reply

Yes that makes sense, I suppose the first sign of addiction is gambling with what you cannot afford to lose. And the character of Mike was shown to bet his entire savings multiple times on one hand. Therefore, John Turturro’s character Kinesh was not an addict, but Mike was.

reply

Yah

reply