Movie review by
Brian Costello, Common Sense Media
Gambit Movie Poster Image
So-so remake of '60s caper has slapstick, brief nudity.
  • PG-13
  • 2013
  • 89 minutes

Parents say

No reviews yetAdd your rating

Kids say

age 13+
Based on 2 reviews

Did this review miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive, diverse representations in books, TV shows, and movies. Want to help us help them? Suggest a diversity update

A lot or a little?

The parents' guide to what's in this movie.

Positive Messages

As this is a slapstick romp of a movie, there isn't much in the way of positive messages.

Positive Role Models & Representations

None of the characters emerges in any way as a positive role model.


A man is punched in the face by his neighbor on two occasions. During a scene in a bar, a fight breaks out; punches and chairs are thrown, and bottles are broken.


In a dream sequence, a wealthy business executive is shown standing naked behind his desk, with the objects there placed in such a way to cover his private parts. This man's naked buttocks are later shown as he stares at a painting in his house. In a scene in a hotel, it sounds to the front desk clerks as if two characters are discussing prostitution.


Occasional profanity: "s--t," "s--tbag," "S--tburg, Texas," "s--tfaced," "bastard," "wanker," "fairy."


In a bar scene, characters are shown drinking from Coors cans as Coors signage is everywhere in the background.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Characters are shown drinking beer in a bar. They also are shown drinking wine at parties and at dinner, but no one acts intoxicated.

What parents need to know

Parents need to know that Gambit is the 2012 remake of a slapstick comedy from 1966. There's partial male nudity, and there's a fantasy sequence in which a wealthy business executive is shown standing and sitting behind his desk naked, with well-placed objects there covering his private parts. A character loses his pants, and it looks as if he peed in them. There's also the occasional swear word (lots of variations of "s--t"), and, in one scene, front desk clerks in a hotel are led to believe that two characters are openly discussing prostitution; one of the characters seems to be going from room to room and sleeping with guests. A character gets punched in the face on two occasions, and a woman in a hotel room passes gas, not knowing that someone else is in her room.

User Reviews

  • Parents say
  • Kids say
Adult Written byAhhhhhhhhhhhh August 16, 2020
Teen, 15 years old Written byRicky horror March 18, 2017
Teen, 15 years old Written byLiviLux01 February 26, 2015

What's the story?

Harry Deane (Colin Firth) is an art curator for media mogul Lord Lionel Shabandar (Alan Rickman). Tired of being bullied and belittled by the caustic Shabandar, Deane concocts a scheme to swindle him out of millions. Deane convinces Shabandar that a lost Monet painting has been discovered hanging in the living room of a double-wide trailer in Texas and that the owner of the trailer, a rodeo queen named PJ Puznowski (Cameron Diaz), must be flown to London and convinced to sell the fake painting. But when the original plan falls apart through a series of comic disasters and misunderstandings, Deane and Puznowski must come up with a new plan, even as their partnership is becoming increasingly at odds, and it seems the egocentric Shabandar will emerge victorious yet again.

Is it any good?

Despite having a screenplay written by the Coen Brothers, this remake of a 1966 slapstick farce tends to fall flat more often than it succeeds. The moments of slapstick might work better if any of the characters was especially likable and worthy of sympathy, but it all really boils down to which character one dislikes the least. Furthermore, Cameron Diaz's over-the-top Texas accent -- whether intentional or not -- gets very old, very quick.

Although the acting and the writing talent are certainly there, the parts don't quite add up to an entertaining whole. Whether it's a case of it being better to leave the original movie alone or whether there's simply not enough comedic material in the premise -- no matter how many pratfalls are thrown in -- the bottom line is that this movie probably should have been a lot more fun than it actually is.

Talk to your kids about ...

  • Families can talk about remakes. Why do you think this movie was remade? Do you think it works in a more modern setting, as compared to when it was originally made in 1966?

  • How is slapstick comedy employed throughout the movie? Is it funny?

  • What other styles of comedy are used in the movie?

Movie details

Our editors recommend

For kids who love to laugh

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

See how we rate

Streaming options powered by JustWatch

About these links

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit organization, earns a small affiliate fee from Amazon or iTunes when you use our links to make a purchase. Thank you for your support.

Read more

Our ratings are based on child development best practices. We display the minimum age for which content is developmentally appropriate. The star rating reflects overall quality.

Learn how we rate