|
21 (2008) | 
| Director: Robert Luketic
Actors: Jim Sturgess, Kevin Spacey, Kate Bosworth, Aaron Yoo, Liza Lapira
Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Buy New: $3.99
Rating:  87 reviews
Sales Rank: 77
Genre: Drama - Crime
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Media: Video On Demand
Running Time: 123 Minutes
ASIN: B001EMXS1Q
Theatrical Release Date: March 28, 2008
Release Date: October 20, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Synopsis:
Inspired by the true story of MIT students who mastered the art of card counting and took Vegas casinos for millions in winnings. Looking for a way to pay for tuition, Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) finds himself quietly recruited by MIT's most gifted students in a daring plot to break Vegas. With the help of a brilliant statistics professor (Kevin Spacey) and armed with fake IDs, intelligence and a complicated system of counting cards, Ben and his friends succeed in breaking the impenetrable casinos. Now, his challenge is keeping the numbers straight and staying one step ahead of the casinos before it all spirals out of control. |
| Similar Items:
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 82 more reviews...
You can always count on emotions July 25, 2008
Luca Graziuso (NYC)
35 out of 45 found this review helpful
Many critics have found the movie distressed and compromised by the lack of vitality that should be excited by any movie that has Vegas as its stage. Indeed they do not overdraw from a tale that rehearses the usual rut of a good guy forced by circumstances to use his talents to an immoral strain so as to keep up with the rest of the world. The story is based on the book "Bringing Down the House", about the experiences of MIT student Jeff Ma and his team of gambling buddies, yet it deals with situations that both add and detract from the truth and the fiction alike. In the process of translating the narrative as a movie script the story absorbs qualities that feel jaded and ordinary by Hollywood standards, and the sensationalism of the story is depressed by the memory of Ocean's 11 and Casino, movies that have raised the stakes so high 21 flops by comparison. Not to mention the radically simplified version of the "cheating" strategy employed by the students, which seems to be so arithmatically feasible that one wonders why it does not happen more often. And by the way it does happen but to say that it is possible is not saying anything beyond the dreamy subtitle of a Vegas trip.
The movie does have numerous redemptive qualities, some of which have been so indiscreetly dealt with by most critics it gives credit to the theatregoers who simply discuss movies for fun and not as a professional happenstance. The movie has a subpolt filthy rich with a wealth of psychology that it is unfortunate the leading role went to Jim Sturgess. The star of the team of brains that "plays" the casinos is frightful to watch. This is undoubtedly the worst acting in a leading role in a long time. Emotionally he is a dud; his intelligence never shines through; his panache is invisible; his anxiety mechanical; and his attraction for Jill is melodramatic without the hint of affection and as if it were not enough, his supposed timidity is something we deduce more so by hearsay than by any true acting merit. If reminded of another Boston genius played by Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting" we realize how bad the performance is. And he stands alongside Kevin Spacey, who is in top form as a math professor that recruits the students and schools them on how to take down the house. The wry sarcasm, the coiled irony and the implacable cynicism we have come to admire is delivered with taste as always. He elicits well the emotional farce of a stigmatized, pulverizing, insensitive, crass, demoniacal soulless leader that corrupts and avenges without any notion of a limit ever being entertained. Spacey is fabulous and Laurence Fishburne is far too good for the role dealt him, but as all great actors have time and again reminded us, there is no such thing as a small role. He practically takes over the movie. His struggles and fears, the demons of the past that haunt him and the vengence he craves as a anodyne to a tarrying heartache is impressive. His psychosis is balanced just enough to climax with irresistable loathsomeness, all the while rendered so vitally sympathethic we end up siding with him, to some extent, only to be reminded by the plot that we should not have according to script. And what about Jill? yes the genius gal who is second shafted because of gender by the math prof, she seduces the audience, even Ben (although the acting made us wonder quite a bit). Kate Bosworth emotionally composed performance fits well with the directive of her role. This film reunites her with co-star/director Kevin Spacey and director Robert Luketic. She demonstrates the maturity of an actress scintillatingly beyond the clammy classless fixture of her romantic counterpart. She admonishes Ben on several occassions thereby functioning as a alloy to his instinct and as a monition of conscience, which all american movies must support in some way so as to be rated PG-13, as this one is. Not a scene where she becomes sexy merely by physical disclosure, rather she is sensual because of her aloof poignant approach to rational stirrings. She evades close-ups, she dashes through frames as if by impetus and never loses the momentum claimed from the moment she enters the intricacies of the drama. She deserves a better mate, but the role of Ben is an excessively demanding character to do justice to.
The outstanding quality of the movie resides in its exploration of the reason/emotion dichotomy. The two spheres seem to be mutually-exclusive until we do indeed approach Shakespearean heights that defy any such garbled psychology. We are brought to economize the sentimental pragmatism that is required of such a narrative by tracing the vulnerability that such a distinction isolates. Please watch the movie again, those of you who've failed to illuminate this aspect of a trajectory that takes us card after card unto a universe where rational dictates are full force countermanded by emotional traces, and the two domains clash and clang to a barely audible cacophany that goes beyond the moral lithanies we often impose on the ethics of a movie. Here there is no such thing. We see Lady MacBeth, we see Iago, we see Othello. There have been few movies that have been able to unearth the benumbing force that these separate universes betray. 21 succeeds in this, more so than the book on which it is based. And the performances of Spacey, Fishburne, Bosworth, and not least Jacob Pitts in the role of Fisher make it a flick worth viewing. The last actor in the aforementioned list, Jacob Pitts, sidled into a minor role that is played flawlessly that storms about with thunderous energy.
21 has fertile layers, that if one is willing to explore, will yield a chill and lead to question the intellectual quality of emotion and vice versa as a proverbial Shakespearean drama has the stealth to do. And yes Jim Sturgess was legitimate in "Across the Universe", but here we have a star that drags the movies down while everyone else tries to salvage what it may.
 Infertile hybrid June 13, 2008
H. Schneider (wechselhaft)
15 out of 38 found this review helpful
I normally don't like movies about college students and their problems very much, they make me feel too nostalgic. I normally don't like movies about gambling very much, not even when they are dressed up as thrillers. (Exceptions possible, eg Casino Royal)
What possessed me when I tried out whether a cross breed of the two genres might work, I can't remember. The answer is a straightforward 'no'. However, at the same time, this movie here is so incompetent in its execution, while at the same time it does seem to contain the nucleus for a viable thriller, that I felt continuously thinking about how one might have saved it. Don't bother, let it rot.
Watching Spacey as diabolic math professor made me nostalgic for Kayser Soze. Fishburn is possibly the only character here with a trace element of human interest: the security consultant to the casinos in process of being replaced by computers.
 21 April 9, 2008
Michael Zuffa (Racine, WI United States)
13 out of 17 found this review helpful
Ben Campbell (Sturgess) has a problem. He is graduating from MIT and has been accepted to Harvard Med School, but he doesn't have the $300,000 it will cost him to attend. Then, along comes Professor Micky Ross (Spacey). Mickey offers him a place on his "team". This team visits Las Vegas on weekends, and by counting cards makes a lot of money. After initially refusing, Ben is swayed by the need for money and the affections of Jill Taylor (Bosworth), a member of the team. In Vegas, Cole Williams (Fishburne), the head of security of one of the casinos is about to figure out the team's scheme. Ben may be in for more than he bargained for.
"21" is the fictionalized account of college kids who really did beat one of the most sophisticated anti-crime systems in Las Vegas. The story is interesting, even if it has been Hollywoodized. The plot points toward the end are predictable, but the fact that these kids were able to get away with this for so long sustains the interest for the majority of the movie. Kevin Spacey is good as always, radiating intenseness. Sturgess and Bosworth get the job done, while not providing memorable performances. "21" is an interesting, enjoyable film.
 All Bets Are Off March 29, 2008
Chris Pandolfi (Los Angeles, CA)
12 out of 17 found this review helpful
There are so many misfires in the plot of "21," you'd think the filmmakers would be too embarrassed to advertise it as being inspired by a true story. I didn't believe this movie for one second, and this is only partly because it tells such an implausible tale--anyone gifted with the ability to count cards would never involve themselves in a scheme this obvious, and they certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to repeatedly go to the same two or three casinos. And yet five students and a teacher from MIT do exactly that every weekend in Las Vegas playing Blackjack, a game that can easily be won, mathematically speaking. I know little about Ben Mezrich's book "Bringing Down the House," and I know even less about Blackjack; all I can say is that, even if there was an MIT team that won millions by counting cards, I seriously doubt the characters in this film accurately represent the real-life members.
Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is an MIT student hoping to be accepted into Harvard Medical. But he has two problems: (1) tuition and boarding alone would cost around $300,000, an amount his managerial job at an upscale clothing store would not provide; (2) despite his excellent grades, a scholarship cannot be guaranteed. He soon meets math professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), who immediately picks up on Ben's superior intelligence. Almost immediately, Ben is lured into joining a secret Blackjack club led by Mickey and teamed with four other math geniuses: Jill (Kate Bosworth), Choi (Aaron Yoo), Kianna (Liza Lapira), and Fisher (Jacob Pitts). Because they're all able to count cards, they know they can beat any casino and walk away with bundles of money. Besides, it's not as if card counting is illegal. Ben reluctantly agrees to join the club, making it clear that he's only doing it to pay for his stay at Harvard.
After training him thoroughly, Ben, Mickey, and the team begin a weekend-only regiment of flying to Vegas with fake IDs and winning lots of money. Here's something I don't understand, and I mean this of both the film characters and the real life MIT Blackjack team: Why would students from Massachusetts travel all the way to Vegas when Atlantic City is much easier to get to? Never mind--let's just focus on the film. Once in the casino, the team uses a very precise system of hand signals and code words: coupling your hands behind your back means the table is hot; touching the corner of your eye means, "We need to talk"; running your fingers through your hair is a signal to get out as fast as you can. Even words are used: "sweet" means that the cards are at plus sixteen; "eggs" means that they're at plus twelve; and so on and so forth. Every game scene actually makes the entire scheme look more obvious than clever. Even math geniuses would know to stir up the routine by employing different hand signals each and every time.
Incidentally, I've been calling these characters "math geniuses" only because the film tells us that that's what they are. Had we not been given this information, it would be hard to tell--the actors, while capable, never once made me believe they were any more academically well off than the average Joe. Not even Oscar winner Kevin Spacey could convince me, probably because I could focus on nothing other than how unlikable his character is; Mickey uses these students for his own financial gain, and this is for doing nothing besides "managing" the team. Eventually, the thrill of winning goes to Ben's head, making him unable to stop even after reaching his $300,000 goal. But as Mickey explained early on, they're in it to count, not to gamble. Ben doesn't care. At a certain point, he doesn't feel he needs Mickey anymore (for reasons I won't reveal). The rest of the team cautiously goes along with Ben, knowing that card counting is a very high-stakes game.
And this brings me to Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne), a menacing casino enforcer who will gladly beat card counters in dark rooms. Maybe he's cranky because he's just about out of a job; a new image detection system is quickly making him obsolete. Or maybe he doesn't understand the uncanny ability to watch the MIT team via surveillance when they supposedly stay in different hotels each time. I certainly didn't understand it; maybe I missed something along the way. Whatever the case, Williams is on to them soon enough, meaning that Ben has to find some other way to count cards if he wants the money he feels he deserves.
This is the kind of plot that sounds a lot better than it actually is. But "21" works in much the same way a casino does: it blindsides you with bright lights and loud noises, ultimately leaving you poorer than when you first entered. I didn't buy any of it, not the circumstances, not the developing relationship between Ben and Jill, not the relationship between Ben and his MIT friends Miles (Josh Gad) and Cam (Sam Golzari), who are nothing more than nerdy stereotypes. I certainly didn't buy the ending, and while I can't describe it in detail, I can say that it's so implausible and silly it's a wonder no one forced the filmmakers to re-shoot it. True story or not, "21" is a film no one can buy into, and that's a shame because the idea behind it is actually very interesting. Card counting is a calculated system, yet the film miscalculates from start to finish. Go figure.
Busted May 20, 2008
Reid Sheftall M.D.
10 out of 15 found this review helpful
I am the author of
Striking It Rich: Golf in the Kingdom with Generals, Patients and Pros
As someone who generally reviews things I like (I reviewed "Rushmore" but passed on "I Heart Huchabees" and "Lost in Translation") I am a little uncomfortable doing this review.
I was a physics major at MIT and spent 2 years counting cards in Vegas and Reno after graduation. I was 21 when I started; the same age as the protagonist. I eventually tired of the card-counting lifestyle and went on to medical school. Chapter 3 in my book is entitled "The World's Biggest ATM". Its all about card-counting and my time at MIT. So I consider myself to be something of an expert on the subject matter in "21".
Nothing is portrayed even close to reality in this movie. First of all, card counting itself is not that hard. Any student who can get into MIT can learn to count cards. Its not that mathematical either (in the Thorpe tens/non-tens system you have to do some quick division in your head but they were using a -1, 0, +1- type of system where you only have to add -1, 0 or +1 as each card is played). OK You have to have a good memory and be able to focus intensely without anyone noticing what you are doing. I happen to have a good memory. You probably do too. It took me three weeks of learning the tables and practicing to become enough of an expert to be able to play in the casino for hours on end without making a mistake. And in case you're wondering...YES it works,
But it is a job. With the systems now available, you can get an advantage of 2 or 3 percent over the house (the casino). It doesn't sound like much but if you play 100 hands per 60 minute hour at an average of $100 per hand, you have created $10,000 of "action". 3 % of that is $300.
Per hour.
And that's about how it works. To get $3,000 per day (more than $ 1 million per year) you have to play 10 hours; or you have to bet more. I played with my own money and needed to play with less at the beginning because you need enough of a bankroll (about 200 x your minimum bet) to make sure an unfortunate run of cards doesn't wipe you out. And unfortunate runs you do get at times. You only average $300 per hour in my example; sometimes you make more, sometimes less. It's a fairly tedious undertaking that pays off gradually with time, time and more time at the tables.
I wanted to love this movie- both subjects are near and dear to my heart- but I had heard that the book wasn't accurate either and I wasn't expecting too much. Even so, the movie (and book too- I eventually read it) fell far short of my low expectations . MIT wasn't portrayed accurately at all, starting with the two idiotic friends. That may be the characarture of MIT but it isn't anything like MIT. In my time there I never met anyone like that. The protagonist was pretty typical, nothing unusual in his abilities or background as MIT standards go. The Kevin Spacey character could never exist; talking to another professor to get the kid out of an exam and give him an A. What!? And the casino scenes; oh the casino scenes... Those idiotic hand signals? C'mon, the cocktail waitresses would've picked up on those... Lawrence Fishbourne beating the tar out of people he caught counting!? I don't think so. The Nevada State Gaming Commission would shut `em down, pronto. (Getting caught cheating the casino with a dealer or by marking the cards, etc.- that might be different). But counting cards ISN'T ILLEGAL. Its not against the rules to use your brain.
In 2 years of playing on a regular basis (the casinos even pay for your flights and hotel rooms!) and sporadically after that- it really is addictive- nobody ever caught me counting; except once. That time, they just asked us to leave. They said we were disturbing the patrons. "Gladly", we said, and just walked down the street to the next casino. Part of the problem with the movie is that its hard to make an entire movie about counting. There's just not enough material for a theatrical full-length feature film. (Its much more ideally-suited to a one hour documentary.) Ok, so what to do? Enter the two stupid friends and the side show about the 2.09 contest, the strip-joint girls cashing in the chips, ( I don't think so- a few of them might slip into the ladies room never to be seen again), the sob story about needing the money for medical school, etc. "Excuse me Mr. Future Doctor Millionaire, MIT math genius, Harvard Med Graduate, don't take your mom's life savings, don't lie about the scholarship, just apply for a student loan like everyone else who's going to medical school." That's why it occupies only one of thirty-six chapters in my book . There's just not that much to the mechanics of counting and making it work in the casinos. The magic in counting cards is in the realization that it is a free ticket to as much money as you will ever want and that you will never have to work again. A "free" ticket? Not exactly. It turns out to be a job like any other. I made that clear in "Striking It Rich" and I too eventually went to medical school and became a surgeon. Who wants to count cards all day when they could do something useful (and if it matters to you) make the same amount of money in the process? Counting cards, MIT math geniuses, the very pretty female protagonist, etc. are all potentially sexy subjects but their sexiness was utterly lost in this book/movie. Where were the consultants who knew something about MIT? Casinos? One of our fine actors, Kevin Spacey, was a producer on this film. How could he let this happen? What were Spacey and the writers thinking?
Nix the idiotic characterization of the kid who was making hundreds of thousands counting yet who insisted on stealing everything from bottles of booze to pens from the maid cart, and the entire team who was scared to try it without Spacey's corrupt professor at the helm... Uh, HELLO?- these are supposed to be our best and brightest, Mr. Producers...) A realistic portrayal of MIT students and of MIT, and of casino card counting could have been something very entertaining. As a lover of MIT, movies, card-counting, money, sexy, smart women, etc., all I could think was "What a waste!"
|
|
|
We'll be adding even more exciting features to assist you in the coming year.
Thank you for shopping at the Depot.com online shopping depot.
©2008 Depot.com | |
