What is it with Hollywood writers and gambling scenes? Along with the court case and the car chase the super casino scene is one of the film world’s stock clichés. When the card sharking or the table technique is central to the plot – think Rain Man, Casino, or Casino Royale – I have less of a beef. At least the producers in those cases were prepared to put their money where their mouths were. If you’re going for a cliché do it properly.

What I have a gripe against is those cheap little twists that set up a supposed mini drama within the wider plot – or even worse – where a trip to some sort of SuperCasino or a game of cards can somehow miraculously provide the means to drive the plot forwards on the basis of a spectacular win. Think Coupe de Ville for a horribly clunky example. It’s hardly a good example to the kids!

You can tell the extent of the casino as a cliché because there are so many scenes that reference earlier works. Austin Powers’ send up of the James Bond staple of a nerve stretching test of poise under pressure is an obvious example. Obviously, Mike Myers’ version – x-ray specs and all – punctures the pomposity of the original conceit. Ditto, the way that the excellent Hangover offers up an homage to Rain Man – think gay suit on an escalator. It’s not as though the film makers are unaware of what they’re doing.

From a cinematic perspective the appeal of a casino scene is obvious. Bright lights, static scenes and an all-too obvious excuse to glam up the extras make for an ideal opportunity to frame tight character close ups within an ostentatiously glamorous setting and to introduce a dramatic change of pace. Photographically and cinematically there is a lot to play with.

But that’s no excuse for cramming an inappropriate scene into the plot just for the heck of it. It’s the film equivalent of a cheat. There is a German film called Run Lola Run. The plot involves a girl who needs instant for funds to help out her boyfriend, in desperation she runs into a casino – like you do – and puts everything she has on 20 black on the roulette table. Whaddayaknow? 20 black comes good at odds of 1,296 to 1 and the plot moves on with barely a backwards glance. It’s just too schmaltzy to stomach.

Suspension of disbelief is all part of the package – 1000 to one shots are very much the staple of the Hollywood experience – but there really has to be a bit more imagination put into the plotting sometimes. Just dropping in an arbitrary and against-the-odds gambling win as a plot hinge just makes me cringe. It’s too easy.

I don’t suppose this stone in my shoe is going to go away. For all the artificiality that’s involved there are very good reasons why a casino scene is such a cinema staple. It works! In a business where the bottom line is giving audiences what they want, cliché is bound to be part of the package. As audiences we’re sometimes a bit too easily pleased. But it would be nice sometimes if that package was just a little bit more credible.