Sunday, May 11, 2008

Movie Review: "21"

When I was in college, a few of my fraternity brothers and I took a spring break trip to Las Vegas. One of us brought along a copy of Ben Mezrich's book Bringing Down the House, his account of the version of the MIT blackjack team that operated in the 1990s. The story, like Vegas itself, was fast-paced and filled with glittering lights, impossible riches, and danger around every corner. Best of all, the protagonists who won these impossible riches were 21-or-22-year-olds, just like us (except that none of us can do math to save our lives - I'm handy at figuring out poker percentages and betting odds, but my eyes glaze over whenever I consider anything past freshman year algebra).

Naturally, I was very excited to watch 21, the movie adaptation of the story. For the most part, the movie delivers, but there are a few annoying plot modifications and twists that didn't seem to add to the story. Cinematography, editing, and sound are all top-notch and add to the glittering, flashing feel of Vegas, but the screenplay could have used another polish or two. Acting was largely good, although - as I'll get to in a minute - I still do not understand the appeal of Kate Bosworth.

Basic plot summary: Ben (Jim Sturgess) is a senior about to graduate from MIT and go off to Harvard Medical School. Unfortunately, he cannot afford the $300K it will apparently cost to attend there, and since there do not seem to be any student loans in this universe (annoying plot point # 1), Ben must find another way to pay for it. Enter Professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), who operates a team of math-whiz-cum-card-counting students. The team wreaks havoc in Vegas with security expert Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) hot on their trail. Ben gets into a romance with Jill (Kate Bosworth) along the way, numerous bad things happen to Ben, and then the resolution happens.

For those of you who haven't seen the movie or read the book, the card-counting strategy is deceptively simple. In blackjack, if a casino is using a shoe with multiple decks (just nod your head and pretend you know what I'm talking about - all it means is that you use 5 or 6 decks of cards at a time), your odds of drawing a good hand will be better if more low cards have already come and gone from the shoe. The team would assign a "spotter" who would sit at a table and play the minimum, all the while counting cards. Low cards (2-5, I think) would receive a -1, 6-8 would receive no number at all, and 9-A would receive +1. (Apologies if I have reversed this or gotten the groupings wrong). If you reach a point where you are halfway through the deck and your count is extremely high (+15, for example), the deck is primed to have very, very good odds for players. At that point, the spotter would signal in another team member as the "big player" - usually posing as the heir to an oil fortune or a dot-com bazillionaire or something similar - who would then bet the big bucks and (usually) win. When the deck ran cold, they would stop playing, get up, and walk away.

The film does an excellent job describing and explaining actual blackjack play, which was probably crucial to a movie like this. As a Vegas-phile (is that the correct term?), I was pleased to see that Las Vegas in all its glory does receive a fitting treatment with overhead shots and the obligatory hey-everybody-let's-drive-in-a-limo-through-Vegas-and-see-the-sights (although that scene does have the Thirteen Days Problem* wherein they drive by landmarks that are in no way connected to each other, nor that they would have driven by en route from McCarran Airport to their final destination).

One note on the acting: Jim Sturgess was surprisingly good as Ben, going from a stammering, stuttering, unsure-of-himself clothing salesman to a high-roller in Vegas with ease. Kevin Spacey is actually good in this one, too. The other team members are quite good as well, except for the guy who plays Fisher (Jacob Pitts), who couldn't seem to put together a decent scene. Unfortunately, all this is trumped by the presence of Kate Bosworth, who was remarkably terrible. She had zero on-screen chemistry with Ben, wore the exact same expression for the entire movie, and generally added nothing to the film. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been able to stand Kate Bosworth - something about her just annoys me. Possibly it's residual annoyance over the fact that she was in Remember the Titans, a movie I absolutely hated, although I don't have that same problem with Denzel. It's probably just her, then.

Super-Annoying Plot Aspects That Probably Only Annoyed Me

The following a several super-annoying plot aspects that probably only annoyed me. Being a Vegas-phile and a grad student, I think I had the exact same reaction I get (digression alert!)when I watch inaccurate historical movies as a history major: that is to say, I roll my eyes at every inaccuracy and eventually end up doing things like - for example - when I was watching the movie Troy and ended up yelling at the television that Achilles was using incorrect combat tactics and that if he wished to fight as the Greeks actually did, he should form a line with shields and spears and fight like a real hoplite. Achilles did not take my advice. (End digression alert)

Annoying Plot Point #1: Ben's Quest to Pay for Medical School

As the holder of six figures worth of student loans that I have incurred in law school, I have to ask: doesn't Harvard have student loan programs to pay for medical school? More to the point, Ben (as the son of a single-parent household who just graduated from college) wouldn't have qualified for need-based grants? Aren't there other scholarships beyond this "Robinson Scholarship", a MacGuffin Ben chases for the entire movie? Harvard's endowment was $25.9 billion in 2005 - can't they spare some loose change for Ben? Why did he need to find some external source of income? Did the producers assume that only rich people could afford Harvard?

Annoying Plot Point #2: Ben's Fear of Banks

At one point in the movie, Ben is keeping over $300K in the drop-down ceiling in his dorm room (doesn't anybody at MIT move off campus for their senior year?). While I understand that he may not wish to put all that money into a bank account for fear of incurring the wrath of the IRS (and as a budding lawyer, I urge Ben to pay his taxes now lest he incur their wrath), couldn't he at least have put it into a safety deposit box or hidden it behind a picture frame (like Matt Damon's character in Rounders) or buried it under a dog house (like Denzel Washington in American Gangster)? Really? You're gonna keep $300K in a dorm room and hope that it doesn't get stolen? I didn't like leaving my computer in my dorm room for fear that it would be stolen, for crying out loud. Unless Ben has a Great Depression-style fear of banks, I would recommend the safety deposit box. Here and here are two banks in the Cambridge area that seem to offer this service.

Annoying Plot Point #3: Oh-No-Laurence-Fishburne-Is-Being-Replaced-By-a-Computer

If the producers intended this plot point as a parody of Fishburne's role in the Matrix movies, then bravo. Remarkably clever. If not, then I have to take issue with the Luddite nature of this plot point. Fishburne's security agency is being shoved out in favor of security software that uses biometric analysis to examine faces and reactions for cheaters (there's an excellent example of this in Ocean's Thirteen). Fishburne, though, proves them wrong by recognizing the strategy and tactics of the MIT blackjack team. I just want to point out that this is not an either-or proposition, here: casinos use both facial-recognition software (and presumably biometric analysis) AND they employ security experts like Fishburne (including former card counters, as in the movie Casino). The casinos know that computers are not perfect, and they have actual humans who fill in the gaps. The software is a tool, nothing more.

Final Analysis

On the whole, I will give 21 my coveted "Wait For Video" status**. Despite the annoying plot points, it is still a rather entertaining movie - generally well acted despite Ms. Bosworth and one that is faithful to the game and city it describes.

*The "Thirteen Days Problem" stems from a scene in Thirteen Days in which Ken O'Donnell drives RFK from the White House to a meeting at the Justice Department, a distance of five or so blocks. Somehow, they drive far, far out of their way up into Georgetown/Embassy Row to look at the Soviet embassy along the way. Something similar happens in my all-time single favorite television episode, The West Wing's second season finale "Two Cathedrals". The president's motorcade drives from the White House to the State Department via the National Cathedral, which is about four or five miles out of the way on a one-mile drive in the opposite direction.

**The different movie rankings I award:
"Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Now" - obvious
"See It in the Theater" - usually reserved for movies with really cool special effects
"Wait for Video" - worth paying for, but you can wait for video
"Wait for Cable" - worth seeing if you're flipping channels
"If You Can Avoid Paying For It Go Ahead and Watch It" - the type of movie that you can watch if you're stuck on a long airplane ride and it won't make you gouge your eyeballs out
"Avoid at All Costs" - reserved for true stinkers like Christmas With the Kranks or Gone Fishin'

1 comment:

Liz said...

Haven't seen the movie, but just wanted to add that I have no idea why people think Kate Bosworth is a good actress. I think they just liked seeing her in a bikini in Blue Crush. But other than that, nothing.

(She does have two different colored eyes, which makes her appearance cool, but nothing to do with ability to act ...)