| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
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.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 21:39:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
quote:
I also think George Lucas missed a trick not to release Star Wars films on the 4th of May.
"May Fourth be with you?" Is that what you're getting at?
I don't think I can blame Lucas for avoiding that one! 
Zigactly- and I don't know why he wouldn't. He's sold out on so many levels, I'm surprised there isn't a 'George Lucas's Mum' action figure. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 20:08:15
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
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 don't know anything about the true story. It's based on someone Asian?! I find that change really rather unsavoury then. (The Association's stance is of course ridiculous.)
The "Ben Campbell" character was named "Kevin Lewis" in the book, and is based on Jeff Ma, who's on record saying he really doesn't care one way or the other if the character based on him is Chinese or not. For the book, he asked that his identity be concealed as much as possible which is how he became "Kevin Lewis," who isn't Asian. Ma was a consultant for the movie, and reportedly thought that Jim Sturgess was a great choice for Campbell/Lewis.
None of the other characters from the book and movie are directly based on real people, the rest are all composite characters. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 19:31:36
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
"May Fourth be with you?" Is that what you're getting at?
Well, one would write "May the 4th be with you", to make the most of it. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 19:21:54
quote:
I also think George Lucas missed a trick not to release Star Wars films on the 4th of May.
"May Fourth be with you?" Is that what you're getting at?
I don't think I can blame Lucas for avoiding that one! |
| benj clews |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 18:14:05
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
if you're changing the title to "21," it's REALLY STUPID to release the film on Friday, March 28th. Think about it...
Definitely. I also think George Lucas missed a trick not to release Star Wars films on the 4th of May.
Oh... and why didn't they hold off a couple of months on Casino Royale and release it in 2007? (Now they have to wait another millennium before they can pull that trick again) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 17:14:35
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
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 don't know anything about the true story. It's based on someone Asian?! I find that change really rather unsavoury then. (The Association's stance is of course ridiculous.)
quote:
if you're changing the title to "21," it's REALLY STUPID to release the film on Friday, March 28th.
That is indeed idiotic.  |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 04/23/2008 : 07:00:02
I'm not saying we should kill the gamblers or prevent them from gambling, and I'm not saying that professional gamblers are necessarily bad people, or that they are bad people at all. I hear ya, DT: there are jerks in all kinds of professions.
But the financial markets are quite a different animal. That's a very key indicator and component of the national economy. It has a very big gambling-like component, but it has a very real economic effect on the society at large. It creates and destroys jobs. Interst rates and inflation adjustments depend on the activity in the financial markets, and traders actively facilitate those markets. Gambling on roullette or blackjack doesn't have that kind of effect.
But, hey: I'm not trying to crap on gamblers. I was really just following up on the idea that card counting carries the stigma of cheating because, if it were used in a game between uninformed friends, it would be cheating. And then I was saying something about how I prefer smart people to aspire to significant goals. But heavens to betsy, I would certainly agree that they have the right to be gamblers too. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 22:10:13
MguyX, it seems as though you're being very arbitrary in your feelings about professional gamblers. Wall Street traders also produce nothing of value whatsoever. All they do is buy, sell, and trade pieces of companies built by and commodities produced by other people, and make shitloads of money in the process if they're good at it. You may recall Gordon Gekko was actually bragging about this in "Wall Street." But we look up to people like that...until they do something we find inconvenient, like taking over and liquidating the company we happen to work for or quadrupling the price of crude oil with rampant speculation. |
| Downtown |
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... |
| MguyXXV |
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. |
| MisterBadIdea |
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 |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 06:34:00
Slacker. 
 |
| Demisemicenturian |
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. |
| MguyXXV |
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.  ) |
| MguyXXV |
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. |
|
|
