| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 04/19/2008 : 22:39:07
|
21
My fans  will recall that in my review of Across the Universe I predicted major stardom for Jim Sturgess. 21 proves my point.
He simply transcends the film, which is not without the occasional moment of charm. But whatever its pros and cons, whatever else is in the frame, Sturgess simply blasts it all away.
Of course he's got the looks - that combo of macho depth beneath the cheeky innocence. But he's also got a sizzling talent that's all the more powerful because it's down-played.
But most of all he fulfills the numero uno requirement of a screen star, which is that he inhabits separate characters without losing the searing identity of self.
You instinctly believe him and you keep wishing him well, whatever twists and turns the plot has to offer. In 21 - though it's based on a true story of MIT math geniuses blacking-the-jack in Vegas - I kept wishing there were a few more dramatic twists of equal intelligence to the characters.
Masterminding the entirely legal casino rip-offs is the talented Mr Spacey ... sadly falling back on his Mr Smug, Mr I'm-so-better-than-you screen persona. Well, it's a choice. But I know from other of his performances he's capable of much more interesting ones.
Or perhaps he wasn't particularly inspired by Steinfield and Loeb's screenplay adapted from a book of the real deal. And, it's true, this is not a particularly inspiring script.
It lacks the wit of say another scam movie like Catch Me If You Can. A matter of pace, a matter of crisp dialogue. 21 is too easily caught and feels soggy. It's also a matter of creating real relationships.
This feels throughout as though the characterizations were glued together in the kindergarten of plot devices. Which is why we never really believe in the rapport between the students, and therefore can't really care when the bonds between them are threatened. We can't really believe Spacey's hold over the kids, which is why we need to suppress a giggle when he flounces off, instead of feeling bereft.
But most of all we don't believe in the central romance. And that's got nothing to do with Sturgess and the creditable Kate Bosworth. They're acting their socks off, and, as noted, Sturgess is pushing all the right buttons.
But it all starts with the script, and at its best it's merely workmanlike. Pity director Robert Luketic couldn't find ways to fill in the emotional gaps. Because as a semi-comic semi-heist film, he's run out of chips.
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 03:04:21
|
Favorite parts of 21
* The Blackjack Team isn't doing anything illegal, so why the need for secrecy?
* Why exactly does the guy not just get a safety-deposit box for his gigantic stash of money? Why does he need to hide it at all? The implication is that he's hiding it from the IRS, but really, is he planning on paying his $40,000 a year tuition in cash?
* Speaking of tuition: Student loans! Ever hear of them?
* "I can lead this team! I just lost a whopping six-digit figure of money! Follow me, I'll be a great leader!"
* Wow, the Game Show Problem. I first heard the Game Show Problem in tenth grade. I think a math major at M.I.T. might have moved on to something more complicated.
* So, is this supposed to be a morality tale? If so, what's the moral? Don't win lots of money? Or is it, If you do something quasi-illegal, make sure you include your dork friends?
* Okay, counting cards is legal, and pounding on card counters is definitely not. So why is Laurence Fishburne supposed to be the sympathetic antagonist again?
* Kevin Spacey breaks into his dorm and steals his money. Seriously? Seriously?
* I hereby declare "You Can't Always Get What You Want" to be banned from any movie whatsoever, including Rolling Stones concert videos.
* So he writes his scholarship essay about his criminal behavior, his partying with strippers and his gambling addiction? This is supposed to impress them how? |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 04/20/2008 03:04:42 |
 |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 17:32:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
* I hereby declare "You Can't Always Get What You Want" to be banned from any movie whatsoever, including Rolling Stones concert videos.
I don't have a problem with the song appearing in films... just not the God-awful 'remix' there was on this film. Seriously, I thought the sound system was knacked. (And it probably was after blasting out this monstrosity for 5 minutes) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 18:48:23
|
21
Continuing spoilers from Mr.B.I.:
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
* The Blackjack Team isn't doing anything illegal, so why the need for secrecy?
Because casinos can still disallow anyone from playing as they wish.
quote:
* Why exactly does the guy not just get a safety-deposit box for his gigantic stash of money? Why does he need to hide it at all? The implication is that he's hiding it from the IRS, but really, is he planning on paying his $40,000 a year tuition in cash?
Yep, that's the single thing that bugged me the most. I was glad when it was stolen - served him right. And the same cash point struck me too - it's going to need to be in a bank account in order to pay the tuition fees, so why not put it in there now? And even someone stupid enough to keep cash and not in a safety deposit box would surely hide it in a selection of places rather than the single easiest place to find.
quote:
* Wow, the Game Show Problem. I first heard the Game Show Problem in tenth grade. I think a math major at M.I.T. might have moved on to something more complicated.
Yep, I thought the same again, especially as it was not really presented properly (with regard to the host's knowledge). The spelling out of statistical/mathematical things like this and the Fibonacci series on the cake is also extremely grating.
quote:
* Okay, counting cards is legal, and pounding on card counters is definitely not. So why is Laurence Fishburne supposed to be the sympathetic antagonist again?
I know. But perhaps he's a bit sympathetic as the second theft also serves the dumbass kid right?! |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/20/2008 18:50:37 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 19:45:00
|
quote:
Because casinos can still disallow anyone from playing as they wish.
Not from the casinos, I meant from their friends and family. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 20:44:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Not from the casinos, I meant from their friends and family.
Ah, I see. Hhmmm, good point - at least in terms of one or two close ones. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 20:47:14
|
Because card counting carries the stigma of cheating.
And given the amount of time and effort one must put into developing the skill, it conveys the message to everyone around that the counters are shiftless bungholes who thinks they can get over in life by "taking advantage" of casinos instead of studying, learning something useful and WORKING FOR A FREAKIN LIVING LIKE THE REST OF US! 
GET A JOB!!!!!! |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 21:04:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Because card counting carries the stigma of cheating.
And given the amount of time and effort one must put into developing the skill, it conveys the message to everyone around that the counters are shiftless bungholes who thinks they can get over in life by "taking advantage" of casinos instead of studying, learning something useful and WORKING FOR A FREAKIN LIVING LIKE THE REST OF US!
GET A JOB!!!!!!
Are you being serious? Honestly?
What makes them shiftless buttholes exactly? They're not cheating, they're just paying close attention to the cards and being very good at the game. Card counting is, in fact, studying, learning something useful and working for a living -- how is it not exactly? I don't think you have a real idea of what card counting is.
Matter of fact, that's my least favorite thing about this movie -- not the ridiculous inconsistencies and gaps in logic (casinos make you declare your winnings to the IRS, idiots), but that the movie treats them like they're bank robbers while making explicitly clear that they've done nothing wrong. The writers force the screenplay into a morality tale format, even though there isn't really a moral. At the end, the protagonist hasn't really gained anything nor learned anything from the experience. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 04/20/2008 21:08:55 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 22:47:02
|
How could you think for one minute that MguyX meant a word he was saying?
Don't you know he's a lawyer?
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 00:05:59
|
I�m going to stop making facetious rants if people are just going to take me seriously.
I�m not making an actual value judgment, just an implied one. Mainly because I think it�s mostly idiots who actually believe they can make millions of dollars while stuffing envelopes at home. I also don�t hold out too much hope for people who pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to others who promise to show them how to get rich quick. Not that they aren�t loveable people who look like you or me (or even people who may be you and me), but just that the promise of something for nothing doesn�t inspire great confidence in the eyes of the wise.
An entrepreneur who sells goods for a profit, who competes fairly for the market, who even gives discounts and at times free goods to customers, and who makes millions of dollars in the process is doubtless an industrious person. Does the fact that he is successful insulate him from moral judgment? For some, it may. Does it make a difference in our perception if our entrepreneur makes shunts for angioplasty operations, or if he sells crack cocaine?
Professional gambling is not an occupation that people generally hold in high esteem. Gambling in general is not a pastime that people generally hold in high esteem. I�ll go so far as to say that when my daughter tells me what she wants to be when she grows up, I�d better not hear her say she wants to be a professional gambler. People make choices at the risk of various competing options; and you can consider that �gambling.� That�s not what I�m talking about. What I�m talking about is making a pursuit out of mastering games of chance.
Switch gears. Casino operators sell goods for a profit (e.g., the thrill). Given regulation, there�s an argument that they compete fairly for the market (of gamblers and thrill-seekers). Shit, they even give discounts and at times free goods to customers (e.g., complementary rooms and free chips). And they make millions of dollars in the process. They are, doubtless, industrious people. On a scale of cardiac shunt maker to crack dealer, which would you say they are closer to? Does the fact that many, many people cannot control their urge to gamble influence your selection? Hey: but it�s legal (unlike crack).
I�d say the casinos are creating an illusion: that you have a good chance of making money, even though the odds are against you. That�s why there are the one or two �green� spots along the roulette wheel: to skew the otherwise 50/50 odds against you if you bet either black or red. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that rakes in money hand-over-fist based on the �general� unwillingness of certain people to avoid extremely adverse risks in favor of more reasonable risks. For example, I have probably a 95% chance of getting my paycheck after a week of work. I can�t duplicate those odds at any of the casino games of chance (legally). But if I tell you that I�m going to quit my job and take all of my savings to Las Vegas and parlay it into a million dollars, I have a 99.9% chance that you�ll probably not think too highly of my prospects.
So what�s so fucking admirable about a person who�s �occupation� is professional gambling? My shunt seller is saving lives, my crack dealer is destroying them but making a profit. Where�s the uplifting part about playing blackjack for a living? Do they �still� give out degrees for that? And what�s so goddamned brilliant about mastering the card-counting system? It skews the odds in your favor, but nowhere near my paycheck odds. HOW MANY FUCKING LIVES DOES IT SAVE? I'm supposed to look up to that?
Geez, all that brain power and nowhere to go.
Take a mnemonic and trend-predicting genius like Stewie Ungar. This guy could predict the cards in your hands while playing gin rummy; and arguably, he was the best ever. He went on to win two world series of poker championships (about nine years apart, due to a little hard luck and stupidity in the middle). People who watched him play generally remarked that he had an uncanny ability � �if only he could have used it for ....� For what? He won a million dollars didn�t he? I think the point is that most people just don�t view chance gamesmanship as a primarily laudable profession. Don�t get me wrong: there are people who see it as the cat�s pajamas, as my grand-dad might say (�23 skiddoo!�). But they are nowhere near in the majority.
Is crack dealing legal? No. But I am somewhat intrigued by the young hoods who turned it into a multi-million dollar business for themselves with relatively little education. Is card-counting legal? Yes. But somehow, even though it involves some high-level brain function � and perhaps precisely because it does � those guys don�t impress me as much. With all that brain power, I�d expect something ... more. Like inventing shunts for angioplasty instead of being greedy little shits who lack the inventiveness to use that mental power for something more useful. Especially since the world of professional gamblers generally involves philosophical lectures, philanthropy, and social/political action, right?
But then again, maybe card-counters intend to use their winnings to fund cancer research. I tend to think otherwise, but I could be wrong.
It's popular perception I'm talking about. There's always exceptions - but those are just exceptions. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 04/21/2008 00:21:16 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 00:37:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
At the end, the protagonist hasn't really gained anything nor learned anything from the experience.
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT! "NOT USING YOUR SPECIAL GIFTS PRODUCTIVELY MAKES YOU AN ASSHOLE WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT!"
(I'm sorry: was I yelling? Excuse me.  ) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 17:00:06
|
| Anyone who makes their money against casinos (as opposed to directly against weaker gamblers) has my backing. Good for them. Who'd work for a living if they didn't have to? One can do worthwhile things with one's life that aren't one's source of income. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/22/2008 15:22:19 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 06:34:00
|
Slacker.
 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 07:17:21
|
I am lucky enough that I have a job which I consider both important and fulfilling, but many more do not. And though that work may be useful to society, it's often times not in any particular way that makes one swell up with pride. Those floors need to be swept, those papers need to be pushed, but so what? I think it's safe to say that plenty of people didn't choose their professions because of their contributions to society. For many, it's just a paycheck.
Being a successful gambler is also a paycheck. It's fun and it's immensely profitable. I don't know a single person who would turn down a job that was fun, profitable, and legal, even if it didn't contribute to society. In the movie and in real life, there is no indication that the gamblers ever expected to turn pro, make it their main occupation in life, so I don't see how it's germane to the conversation in the first place.
Is gambling looked down upon as a profession? I don't see it. In the same way that "rock star" and "ballerina" are looked down on as a profession, I suppose, in that they're all difficult and unrealistic goals to set, or perhaps because they work in what is usually looked at a sleazy milieu (like strip joint owners), but not because they don't contribute to society. I don't see people sneering at successful day traders.
And for the record, crack dealers? Most of them actually make less than squat -- in many cases, below the minimum wage. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 20:38:33
|
Good points.
Ballerinas are living works of art (at least the good ones). And, while I will admit that I discouraged my brother from becoming an actor, vociferously, he did so anyway and is doing quite well (people of Ireland: look for the Sprite commercials with the "Quench" character! He's great, isn't he?!) But those occupations, however muddy might be the milieu of their exploitation, serve the interest of art. And we all love art. Unless we don't. (I do.)
Card counting is not art. I�ll pay to see ballet or a movie. A card counter? Not so much. The house can neutralize even the best card counters by shuffling the deck after each hand � which I assume they don�t do because they want to encourage the crappy card counters who are still losing money. In fact, the MIT crew was successful because of weak dealers: a sharp dealer recognizes the betting pattern and shuffles repeatedly.
Look at it this way: if you had some friends over for some blackjack � for money � would you feel cheated if one of them was an expert card counter but no one else at the table knew? I would. But then again, I�d feel cheated in a good way if one of them was a master violinist and no one else at the table knew.
P.S. I was talking about the crack kingpins of the 80s. Intriguing as they were, most of them got what they had coming for peddling that crap. Still, there was something impressive in their urban-educated industriousness. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 04/22/2008 20:39:56 |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 21:58:06
|
The real person that the starring role is based on is being denounced by the Asian Student Association at MIT as a traitor to his race. I find that HILARIOUS.
I haven't seen this and don't intend to...the ads made it look pretty stupid to me, and I read (and enjoyed) the book. I might have at least respected it if they hadn't changed the title to "21" (it's not as if anybody would have confused it with that other movie titled "Bringing Down The House"), or if they'd at least had the common sense to realize that if you're changing the title to "21," it's REALLY STUPID to release the film on Friday, March 28th. Think about it... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
21
