21 (Two-Disc Special Edition) Reviews

• You can always count on emotions

  
  By ABF9TML1GLCJ6 on 2008-07-25
  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

  
  By A3NH7PYU4AD5GA on 2008-06-13
  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

  
  By AW99SBGWEXP0J on 2008-04-09
  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

  
  By A18G7GG53G2X8A on 2008-03-29
  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

  
  By A3VYFARE1OIF06 on 2008-05-20
  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!"
  
  
  
  
• Over-Fictionalized Eye Candy that Only Wants Your Money
  By A34D4KCP94ACJZ on 2008-04-09
  21 is loosely based on the book Bringing Down The House. A book recommended to me time and time again by some friends of mine who like to gamble. I never got around to reading it but the idea of counting cards to outsmart and exploit some of the greatest of all exploiters certainly interests the old corporation-hating punk still lurking deep in my soul. So when some of those same friends wanted to see this movie, I reluctantly went along. I say reluctantly because I'm tired of these cliché twenty-something party movies with the primary goal of looking 'cool' first and foremost. Not to mention, at this point I'm actually tired of seeing Kevin Spacey reprise his role as Lester Burnham again and again. Another once great actor descending to one-dimensional self-parody. Anyway, sometimes I walk into a movie thinking it will suck and I'm pleasantly surprised that it only sucks a little, and other times I walk into a movie thinking it will suck and it still sucks. A day later and 21 still sucks.
  
  To go over briefly, this is a fictionalized adaptation of the card counting scheme put together by a real-life MIT blackjack "team". When I say fictionalized, I think it is to the point where the story was merely inspired by this group, as enough liberties are taken that the film becomes a Hollywood cliché-ridden formulaic blockbuster. And I really mean that in the worst way possible. All fictional elements added are clichés; from the twists and casino thugs to the shallow and extremely unlikely characters and events. Spacey is made to be a fool and Fishburne does his very best De Niro. Both actors are clearly not interested in anything but going through the motions. Kate Bosworth is a monotonous mannequin and the very talented young British actor Jim Sturgess (great in last year's Across the Universe) works hard but unlike Fishburne and Spacey he is probably too young to realize that his performance means nothing. Overall so much acting talent wasting their time here, slumming it in Hollywood's over-stylized shallow end. Still, the first half of the film focused enough on the actual scheme that it worked a little bit, and from what I hear the first half was consistent with the book (other than the cast being mostly white people while the real-life MIT students were mostly Asian, why is that anyway?). I wanted to understand more about the game they exploited and I really wanted to root for them as they take these casinos for a ride, but in the end the film turns into a weak heist film with unlikely and unbelievable twists.
  
  The thing that perplexes me most is the money this film is making. I even heard applause from the nearly full theater after the movie ended. Young Australian director Robert Luketic (Legally Blonde and Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!) has style, I will give him that. He understands what a mass audience wants and he gives them the fancy zooms and quick edits along with the loud and trendy soundtrack. He gives them the pretty people and the cheap twists. He makes people money and for that he isn't going anywhere for a long time, that's for sure. I think I've seen too many films not to find this trite and worn out but maybe you haven't. If that's the case then give it a look but otherwise this is definitely not recommended.
  
  
• This is not bringing down the house
  By A3O3YL89M4R7W1 on 2008-08-23
  If your expecting a movie about the book 'Bringing Down the House' you will not be happy about your rental/purchase. I didn't believe the poor reviews at first and so I rented it...I wish I had listened.
  
  The story is narrated by our main character throughout the film and it is horrible to listen to for both content and the annoyance of his voice.
  
  They really Hollywooded up the plot, with all the predictable twists and happy-ending everything-is-ok-in-the-end and we-have-learned-our-lesson bull-s...There was just nothing at all that stood out about this movie. They could have replaced BlackJack with any other activity, like skydiving, tennis, or working at a McDonalds and they could have reused much of the script and the plot lines. The second star is because I didn't shut it off part way through.
  
  Wait until this one makes it to HBO.
  
  
• ex-professional card counter checking in
  By AGX2K0FMS0IVL on 2008-07-19
  I counted cards in Las Vegas, Reno, and Nassau during the 70's and 80's and made a good living at it. Rule changes and casino procedures now in place to thwart all the but the very best counters, make doing the same now difficult unless one wants to play forty or fifty hours a week with about a $300,000 bannkroll. This movie, although riddled with procedural BS, manages to catch some of the spirit and excitement of card counting. Several casinos, primarily in downtown Vegas, had no problem taking counters behind closed doors and roughing them up. Check out 21 history on www.bj21.com if you have the time to do so. This movie is a keeper and I highly recommend it.
  
  
• Insulting to the informed viewer
  By A1MYIORB82TGT9 on 2008-08-14
  From the outset of this farce it is clear that the creators of this film did not do their homework. Granted, as a private school alum with a math degree who has also spent many an hour playing blackjack and counting cards, who also has a passing knowledge of the russian language, I was in a unique position to either tear this film apart or thoroughly enjoy the rich nuances one would expect about a movie that appealed to me on so many levels. Massive run-on sentences aside, this movie fails on many levels. If you are hoping to find in this film Bringing Down the House brought to life, you will sadly have to wait 20 years for the inevitable remake. This movie is for laypeople who want to envision winning lots and lots of money and screwing the casinos. In the interest of retaining the few readers who have read this far, I will now list the many lapses:
  1. When the protagonist (PROT) is first introduced to the secret card counting society, watch the cards that Spacey deals. Keep your eye on them as the camera cuts back and forth to PROT. The number of and orientation of the cards is different each time we cut back to Spacey, though he is clearly just chatting the entire time and has not manipulated the deck at his side.
  2. PROT devises a new method for solving equations on the first homework assignment of an undergraduate math class? Sorry, that's absurd. Also absurd is that Spacey doesn't even call any attention to it until PROT has reasoned through the silly variable change problem. Further, the lecture material would seem more appropriate for a 100 or perhaps 200 level course and not MIT seniors.
  3. The name on the fake russian id is mispronounced. The pronunciation they use transposes the actual letters of the last name on the id. How convincing of a con can you be if you can't even pronounce your own name?
  4. The movie goes to elaborate lengths to demonstrate that PROT is an ungodly genius among men. Such intelligence is not necessary for card counting.
  5. Einstein reincarnate would not need signals from his cohorts after having sat at the table and played. The signals and code words inform him of the count at the time of his entry, whereupon he presumably would commence counting for himself.
  6. An MIT valedictorian of limited financial means who finds new solutions to age old problems, which have previously been slogged through by generations of students, professors, and scientists, would find himself with a generous scholarship to Harvard. If nothing else, it would be easy for him to borrow money. I'd speculate he's already had to borrow plenty to get through MIT, but the coffers do not tend to dry up for students of his ilk. He would have no problem getting the money he needs legitimately, even if he fails to win the prestigious full ride.
  7. Does the PROT intend to pay for Harvard Med in cash? Why else would he stash hundreds of thousands of dollars in the rafters of his dorm room? The money should have been deposited in interest bearing accounts and later claimed as gambling winnings.
  8. There's an "intense" scene early on where PROT is forced to fill his pants up with cash in the airport bathroom before he boards his first plane to Vegas. From Boston. No one cares if you are carrying large sums of money on a domestic flight. It would be more problematic to be found with money in your pants during a random security check or to appear as if you're smuggling a bomb under your sweatshirt. The scene seems to be an ignorant homage to the great movie I recommend in the next sentence.
  
  
  If you want to watch an awesome movie about true to life gambling, check out Owning Mahowny.
  
  
• Fiction Isn't Always More Interesting Than Reality
  By A5DXP7QPGR5A0 on 2008-04-02
  The mistaken presumption behind this film is that fiction is more compelling than the truth, a flaw that haunts so many well-intentioned "biopics" and "based-on-a-true-story" shams. The real-life Dr. John Nash, for instance, is such a more complex human being than the bland composite of stereotypes Ron Howard served up in "Beautiful Mind." The film "Coach Carter"--and perhaps "Blow"--are the only "true story" flicks in recent memory that didn't grope for a fairytale ribbon to wrap reality in--the magical team ends up losing in the first round in "Coach Carter" (in the movie as they did in real life), and "Blow" dares to leave audiences unappeased as we watch poor Johnny Depp pursue his greed all the way to a life sentence in prison and permanent dissociation from his beloved daughter.
  
  Here, though, we have a contorted plot so deeply implausible it's almost condescending. There was no crooked professor's guiding hand in Ben Mezrich's life luring him into a foreign terrain of adventure, no Bobby Knight halftime tirades in a Bellagio suite between hands, and that is exactly the thing that makes Mr. Mezrich's story, and the book upon which the film is based, so much more interesting. Furthermore, the real MIT wiz-kids began by failing--miserably, repeatedly, and hugely. Not until the fourth or fifth incarnation of the band of wiz-kids from Cambridge did the money actually start to come in.
  
  Once again, a film with potential misses a golden opportunity at great story-telling--why not expose the MIT Team for the flawed novices they were, confronted and humbled by their own disastrous arrogance before they mustered the determination, courage and skill to overcome great adversity and rake in the dough? Curiously, the real-life ending is actually happier than the one we get in "21," an opportunity that seems to have eluded the director. Instead we're spoon-fed a formula-fiction fantasy passed off as fact that oddly turns out to be monumentally less entertaining than the real story. Stick with the book--Ben Mezrich's "Bringing Down the House." Find it on Amazon here: Bringing Down the House. Once again, "the book is better."
  
  Visit my blog at culturespill.com
  
  
  
• Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner....
  By ASIJDQ2D879XD on 2008-06-24
  This movie started off slow but then started to get more and more interesting.
  
  We begin with young, barely-21 Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) - he's brilliant, can do complex math in his head, and has just been accepted early decision to Harvard Law pending his graduation from MIT. Too bad there's a huge roadblock standing in his way - the $300,000 tuition that he can't afford to pay. He's working a tiny corner clothing store making 8 dollars an hour, and apparently his albeit impressive resume is not enough to grab him a full ride.
  
  Then he makes a mark on one of his professors (Kevin Spacey) and gets invited to join an elite club - one that can make over a hundred grand in a weekend by counting cards in Vegas.
  
  The scheme seems foolproof until they attract the attention of a paranoid, crafty casino guard (Laurence Fishburne) who is just looking for an excuse to beat them up and run them out of town.
  
  This movie becomes compelling and it's definitely an interesting idea based on a true story of a group of MIT students counting cards in Vegas.
  
  
• Blackjack!
  By A27VY7BUVD09I2 on 2008-07-08
  The following is quoted directly from the MIT website concerning the release of "21":
  
  "The movie "21" , a fictional work loosely based on the story of the MIT blackjack team..."
  
  "Their story became Ben Mezrich's book "Bringing Down the House", which is served as the basis for the fictional "21."
  
  So what's with the quotes? Audiences, as well as directors know that if you put a History channel documentary on the big screen, nobody will want to go see it. So as a warning, this movie is loosely based on a book that was written about a true story and was spiced up a bit for entertainment purposes.
  
  A group of MIT students led by Ben (Jim Sturgess) and their teacher Mickey Ross (Kevin Spacey) go to Vegas every weekend to count cards and come away with thousands of dollars in profit. After several successful weekends, their card counting plot is no longer unnoticed. Overly thorough casino security guard Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) vows to put an end to their card counting days.
  
  "21" is a highly entertaining film. Spacey and Fishburne are nothing short of exceptional. Just keep in mind that this is loosely based on a true story, so what you are getting from this film did not exactly happen in that fashion. Instead, watch it for entertainment. So, hit or stay. I'd choose to stay, because with this movie, you've got blackjack.
  
  
• Entertaining enough on a Friday night.
  By A1TY21OW6XAJ7C on 2008-04-27
  I saw this about a week ago because everything else in theatres looked totally lame. It was this or Horton Hears a Who or Forbidden Kingdom, so 21 it was. I actually liked it a lot. I've never seen Across the Universe but after seeing Jim Sturgess in this I want to see it.
  The simple point of this movie: stay away from casinos. In the movie Ben, a freaky-brilliant college kid, wants to go to Harvard Med but doesn't have the money, so he falls in with a group of students who is learning from a teacher how to count cards to cheat at blackjack. He agrees to join them and rake in the dough from Vegas ONLY until he has the money he needs for Harvard. Well as you can imagine it all goes fine at first and then he gets all greedy and forgets all about Harvard and his endearingly nerdy friends, and things go from bad to worse, but by the end of the 2-hour movie it's all good. I liked it ok. Entertaining on an otherwise-boring friday night.
  
  
• 21
  By A2Z3KAN228J1W1 on 2008-07-11
  Overall, I though the movie was very good. They did a good job at putting the story together and the actors worked pretty well with eachother. It's a new story line than other casino movies I've seen (although there may be many other card counting movies I just haven't heard of) and takes a different view on the casino 'heist'.
  
  If you watch movies simply for entertainment then it's a great movie. If you need to watch a movie that's %100 based on reality in order to enjoy it, Hollywood isn't where you should be looking for movies, stick to the Discovery channel.
  
  
• 21
  By A34JCA9ASGT806 on 2008-07-12
  fun film to watch
  nothing screams oscars but its a good movie for whenever you need something to watch
  -kind of predictable but a sick ending twist
  -gambling scenes are fun to watch
  -genius envy for the characters that graduate MIT with a 4.0
  -dont have to be a genius to count cards
  all in all a good flick
  
  
• 5 star film.....
  By A328547P5BGZC on 2008-07-27
  "21" is a good movie!
  
  Don't listen to the bad reviews here. Wow, so many of them. Apparently they are out to pick movies apart and point out all the minor flaws.
  
  "21" is based off the book, "Bringing Down the House" by Ben Mezrich. Yes, it is a true story. No, the movie obviously doesnt follow the book exactly. They want to make money like everyone else. The movie is all "hollywood" with cons, set ups, snappy lines and hot chicks! Yes, alot of the movie is made up, who cares, its a movie and a good one.
  
  I've read the first 100 pages of "Bringing Down the House", its similar to the movie, but not as much fun. In the book, the teacher and most if not all the students are Asian! The book couldnt keep my attention, but the movie is alot of fun.
  
  Dont pass up "21" based on the bad reviews, Kevin Spacey is great, Laurence Fishburne is well Laurence Fishburne and Jim Sturgess is excellent!
  
  
• Awful
  By A2HW172XXT0Z6R on 2008-08-13
  Terribly disapointing movie. Kevin Spacey mails it in, playing the same likable villain he played in The Client, minus the southern accent. Choopy, uneven, inplausible script. No character development. Just a waste of time.
  
  
• "21" is great!
  By A3LZBOBV9H1HDV on 2008-03-30
  "21" is great! This is how the story goes: The true story of the very brightest young minds in the country - and how they took Vegas for millions. Ben Campbell is a shy, brilliant M.I.T. student who -- needing to pay school tuition -- finds the answers in the cards. He is recruited to join a group of the school's most gifted students that heads to Vegas every weekend armed with fake identities and the know-how to turn the odds at blackjack in their favor. With unorthodox math professor and stats genius Micky Rosa leading the way, they've cracked the code. By counting cards and employing an intricate system of signals, the team can beat the casinos big time. Seduced by the money, the Vegas lifestyle, and by his smart and sexy teammate, Jill Taylor, Ben begins to push the limits. Though counting cards isn't illegal, the stakes are high, and the challenge becomes not only keeping the numbers straight, but staying one step ahead of the casinos' menacing enforcer: Cole Williams. The cast led by Jim Sturgess (as Ben Campbell), Kate Bosworth (as Jill Taylor), Laurence Fishburne (as Cole Williams), and Kevin Spacey (as Micky Rosa) is great! The directing by Robert Luketic (who also directed "Monster-In-Law" (2005), "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!" (2004), which also starred Bosworth, & "Legally Blonde" (2001) is great! The screenplay (which is based on Ben Mezrich's novel "Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions") by Allan Loeb (who also wrote the story and screenplay to "Things We Lost In The Fire" (2007) & Peter Steinfield (who also did the screenplay to "Be Cool" (2005) is great! The music by David Sardy is great! The cinematography by Russell Carpenter (who also did the cinematography to Luketic's "Monster-In-Law" (2005) & "Titanic" (1997) is excellent! The film editing by Elliot Graham (who also did the film editing to the upcoming "Milk" (2008) & "Superman Returns" (2006), which also starred Bosworth and Spacey) is great! The casting by Francine Maisler (who also did the casting to the upcoming "Quantum Of Solace" (2008), "The Road" (2008), "The Soloist" (2008), "Milk", "Tropic Thunder" (2008), & "Hancock" (2008) is excellent! The production design by Missy Stewart (who also did the production design to Luketic's "Monster-In-Law", "Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!", & "Legally Blonde") is excellent! The art direction by James F. Truesdale (who also did the art direction to "Superhero Movie" (2008), which came out the same day as "21") & Christina Ann Wilson (who also did the art direction to "Righteous Kill" (2008) is excellent! The set decoration by Tracey A. Doyle is excellent! The costume design by Luca Mosca (who also did the costume design to "Vantage Point" (2008) & "Step Up 2 The Streets" (2008) is great! This is a great drama that is based on a true story. This is a different movie from the director of "Legally Blonde".
  
  
• skulls play black jack
  By A2YBSWFGP3YLD4 on 2008-03-31
  the movie was decent no movie of the year though. part of this, not all but parts especially kevin spacy charecture reminded me of a movie in the 90s called skulls a private group of people in collage one of them groups once you in you cant get out and they are watching you , and you may think you have it made but make certian error, mistake your in trouble. kevin spacy reminded me of the person who plaid in the shwo coach" he was really tick on them kid in the skull movie and here kevin spacey was really stick make it look liekyou make it big but he will be really stick rough, rude, and cornolling. so part of this again just part remind me of how the group in skulls were treated
  that why i said skulls play black jack
  not the hoel movie just part of it reminded me of that
  
  
• gambling glamor made boring film
  By AQ990HW13DP08 on 2008-08-06
  This film is "inspired by" a true story told in the book Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions (2003). In real life, the MIT Blackjack Team devised a complex scheme of card-counting, disguises, and hand signals to win four million dollars in Vegas before the heavy hand of casino security gave them the boot. This film follows that outline, but it's a pale imitation of a genuinely interesting tale of greed, intellect, and emotion. Kevin Spacey stars as the MIT professor Micky Rosa who bullies, badgers, and betrays his six students in venial Vegas. The dialogue is horrible and at points entirely predictable. There's no character development. The sub-plots about friendship and parents hold little interest. The plot does take some unexpected twists, but even this resolves in a cheesy ending. It's quite a feat to make a boring movie about the glitz and glamor of Vegas gambling. Skip the film, and read the book.
  
  
• you can bet on this movie to provide you with much-needed entertainment
  By A319Y83RT0MRVR on 2008-06-07
  An entertaining romp on the old rock-and-roll genre style of movies. This film isn't as entertaining as Ocean's Eleven, but Vegas is always a fun place to visit. 21 is a smart film that is more about character development and voice-over narration than the heist itself. Although this isn't the most compelling film of the genre, it is still a lot of fun and, in the end, isn't that why we all go to the movies?
  
  
• Put up or shut up
  By A1UEIAIRVH070I on 2008-07-04
  I've read most of the reviews of this movie I have also seen. Yes it is certainly very predictable for something based on the true story. My life isn't as predictable as this was and I doubt most other people's lives are less predictable too. What you reviewers might think, I THINK the negative remarks should be aimed soley at the director. The actors afterall, no matter how talented, have too choices, follow direction or lose a paycheck and not take the job.
  
  Not every actor can be as choosy as Jodie Foster, etc. Maybe her financial situation is different, maybe like many other actors Spacey and Fishburne just like making movies and the money that goes with it? I'm a musician by trade and if I took that approach in my line of work, I wouldn't play for anyone except the walls of my house which I would have for very long without the money I would not make by being so choosy. Kinda like the majority of us out here in the real world, right?
  
  I certainly agree this could have been much better in many ways, but for what it is, it was entertaining enough to take me away from the reality of day to day life. For me, that is good enough not to bash a movie or it's actors.
  
  
• Count me out
  By ABEGKTYG85ZSP on 2008-07-24
  Starts slow, gets leaden. Saw this with a group of friends of various ages, none of whom found it less than annoying. I laughed out loud in an early scene where student Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) impresses professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey) by answering a probability question about a car and two goats behind three doors. Apparently the screenwriter and the director don't realize he got the answer exactly wrong.
  I'm all in favor of poetic license to make an entertainment film more interesting. And nobody takes very seriously a film or book claim of "based on a true story".
  But nothing about this film rewards you for the suspension of disbelief required to sit through it.
  
  
• No Answers in These Cards
  By A1JV4QKTEB7QBL on 2008-07-25
  The formula used in Robert Luketic's, 2008 film, "21," breaks down to the least common denominator when it comes to this version of the super-savant geek college student flouting and triumphing over the establishment genre of cinema. Like its predecessors, "21" boasts of the usually plastically attractive cast--Jim Sturgess Across the Universe (Two-Disc Special Edition), Kate Bosworth Superman Returns (Two-Disc Special Edition)--in a glitter fest featuring enough labels and high life to rival this summer's fashionista's dream film, Sex and the City (Movie) [Theatrical Release].
  
  Unfortunately, the plot fails on numerous levels; the most blatant being its lack of skill in retelling an old tale from a new and upbeat perspective. The lame stereotypical characters under-whelm, leaving as the only vaguely intriguing scenes those where main character Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) masters the card counting strategy and eases through its first on-site beta testing. Enter the `duh' factor as the relatively easy scope of the technique as scantily explained and the excellence of each team member's brainpower simply does not gel and the film breaks down into a routine display of pretty twenty year olds wearing expensive clothing, surrounded by Vegas materialism that advances the theme of consumerism above everything else. Obviously, more is not more in this moral fable. Professor Rosa (Kevin Spacey) could have recruited a group of community college dropouts for this stint rather than wasting the time and wits of America's finest. And none of them needed to be attractive--indeed, I would say the more nondescript the better.
  
  Personally, I don't see what all the hoopla over Kate Bosworth is about anyway. As the object of all of Superman's desires in `Superman Returns,' I had to wonder whether or not after all his cinematic reincarnations, the man-of-steel had finally reached a myopic middle age where his one-time stellar standards had degenerated along with his in-need-of-Lasik vision. Clearly, Kate Bosworth, as the quintessence of some niche of womanhood that only a frat boy would pedestal-ize, repeats the same performance in "21" as a blank-staring Miss Emotionless that hangs around in bars featuring pole dancers (how does that nonchalance suggest anyone's dream woman?) and indulges in the requisite sex scene amidst the lights of the Strip as a backdrop with the same vapidity (not the sex appeal or drive) of the Natasha Henstridge's character hunting for mates in the film Species [Blu-ray].
  
  Sadly, my opinion does not alter much with regard to Jim Sturgess, an elfin 20-something Paul McCartney look-alike whose previous appearance as the gender-confused George Boleyn in The Other Boleyn Girl works far better than his role here as the baby-faced, barely-shaving superior savant who struggles morally with taking a check from his mother for $67K to help pay the $300K bill for Harvard Medical School but has little problem flimflamming as a card shark and lying to fellow geek squad-ers when after multiple all-nighter weekends in Vegas counting cards and winning thousands, he has trouble focusing on their robotically-themed science project. As in all such cautionary tales whose main characters boast the `great expectations' a la Charles Dickens, we are expected to marvel at the transformation from meek and almost socially insipid shoe-shuffling haberdashery clerk to a Vegas mini-whale wielding designer sunglasses and specially tailored suits. However, it does not take a glittering neon-infused marquee with the blasé needlepoint inscription, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall," nor a GPS system to pinpoint the direction this film heads from the get-go. Indeed, our MIT Pip gets way too big for his handmade britches, eventually getting caught in the crossfire between the angry Lawrence Fishburne, as a casino security expert about to be downsized by a computerized system and cocky Kevin Spacey as the math professor with a get-rich agenda who masterminds the card-counting scheme.
  
  Bottom line? Director Robert Luketic's film version of the Ben Mezrich expose, Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.i.t. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions [Audiobook] [Cd] attempts an updated morality play where the main character, overwhelmed by an influx of materialism, shirks his friends and his ethics until through the trial of tribulation he realizes that selling his soul leaves him with last season's designer shades and little else. Of course, he comes to grips with it all, but who really cares? If a moral lesson is wanting rent out or purchase the classic Great Expectations (1946) (Criterion Collection Spine #31) starring Sir John Mills for a far better movie-going experience. `21' is so poor, it bores. Not recommended.
  Diana Faillace Von Behren
  "reneofc"
  
  
  
• Hollywood Turns Math Geeks Into Idiots
  By A2W7WUVO0JA6LL on 2008-07-25
  Evidently, MIT teaches math geniuses to cheat Vegas as follows:
  1) Show up with, party with, and sit next to your cheating buddies at every casino every time you show up
  2) Never change your signals; use the same ones every week
  3) Pick hair styles and clothes to draw attention to yourself.
  4) Store your money in the ceiling (evidently MIT seniors have never heard of mutual funds or money markets....or maybe they just dont have those in Massachusetts yet).
  
  Or perhaps the more logical explanation is this: the screenwriters for this film have absolutely no clue as to what they are doing. Even Spacey's math lectures were idiotic. His topics featured concepts typical in an honors high school course, not in a senior MIT course. He also changed topics every couple of minutes and the new topic had NOTHING to do with the one he was just discussing (Newtons method for approximating roots to difficult non-linear equations led to the three door probability problem...huh?)
  And did anybody notice that everything the kids did was actually legal? The ONLY thing the casinos can do (and this is actually what the real casinos did) is force the kids to leave (with their earnings) and not come back.
  
  And Ive finally come to the conclusion that Spacey can only play one role. He has played the SAME character in nearly every movie he has done. And this one has career killer written all over it.
  
  
  
• HIT ME
  By A2DAHERP7HYJGO on 2008-07-26
  Films about gambling and Las Vegas in particular have always held a certain fascination with the public, culminating with perhaps the ultimate Vegas movie OCEAN'S ELEVEN. But this week we have a release of a film that takes the Vegas movie a whole new direction. Most stunning of all is that it is in part based on a true story.
  
  TWENTY ONE is the story of Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess), a struggling student at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) who has hopes of attending Harvard Med School. A grade A student with a 4.0 average, Ben is interviewed for a full ride scholarship. All he has to do is present an essay describing a life experience that sets him out above the other several hundred students applying. The problem is he has nearly no life experience.
  
  That all changes when he starts a class taught by Prof. Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). During the class, Rosa notices Ben's aptitude with numbers and mathematical equations. In turn, he invites him to join a select group of students Rosa has put together. The reason? Using the technique of counting cards, they plan to make a mint in Vegas at the blackjack tables.
  
  At first hesitant to do so, Ben finally comes around and joins the group which consists of Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth), Choi (Aaron Yoo), Kianna (Liza Lapira) and Fisher (Jacob Pitts). The group learns to not only count cards, they put together a set of signals to let the lead player know which tables are hot and when to move on. When they have it down, they become Vegas bound.
  
  It runs like clockwork. The tables return them all a tidy profit and back to school they go, only to return weekend after weekend. Along the way a romance develops between Ben and Jill, Choi continues to pilfer tiny items everywhere he goes and Fisher places the entire project in jeopardy with a drunken night at the tables. The result is Fisher gets booted and Ben becomes the big cheese.
  
  With money coming in like never before, the rush of taking on the tables in Vegas and finding love at last, Ben's life changes but not for the better. Grades become a thing of the past as do his friends. His focus becomes making more and more money until he takes a chance he can't come back from.
  
  A bad night at the tables results in Micky cutting Ben lose and leaving the team in their hotel room alone. Making the decision to go it alone, Ben gets caught by Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne), the head of security for the hotel casino. Not only does he get caught, Cole has a grudge against an old gambler he lost years ago...named Micky Rosa.
  
  The twists and turns at the end of the film along with the build up from the start make this a compelling movie that holds your attention from the starting gate. Ben's life riding a roller coaster of lows, highs and a return to the lows makes for an interesting tale that turned out much better than I expected.
  
  All performances seen in this flick are totally believable from the leads to the secondary characters. While Spacey may have been the "name above the title" in getting this movie made, he doesn't take center stage here, instead opting to work with the ensemble and that is to the benefit of the film.
  
  Based on the true story of a group of MIT students who actually did take Vegas for a ton of money, though not nearly in the same way shown here for dramatic effect, the film is certain to get the hopes up of gamblers seeking a way to beat the bank. Don't get caught up in that notion as the house is always the favorite. Instead, get caught up in the tale of a group of students led by a charismatic teacher who take a gamble and end up getting more than they bargained for.
  
  
  
• There's Something About 21 That Just Doesn't Add Up.
  By A2BQBLCKJHP65G on 2008-08-05
  Yet another "probably wouldn't rent if it wasn't that it was free" title, 21 seemed pretty exciting on the trailer, but fell sorta flat fully seen. This film's about a "brilliant with numbers" MIT student joining a secret college club that has figured out how to never lose at Blackjack in Vegas and walk away with thousands, all the while led by their professor, played by favorite Kevin Spacey was decent, but I kept asking myself, where did I see this story on film before? The lead is played by Jim Sturgess, who impressed me in Across The Universe, but here I could hear his English accent bleed out with every other word. Kate Bosworth, who starred in Superman Returns with Spacey, plays the love interest, but just didn't seem all that interesting.
  
  In fact, the only thing interesting was how they got away with it, because the code-words, hand signals, and disguises seemed so transparent the film's ending should have happened when they first got off the plane! So if you're really big on Vegas Heist films, it's worth a view, but to most others, bet on another film and wait for cable.
  (RedSabbath Rating:6.5/10)
  
  
• Not a Bad Movie at All!
  By A3FAKX4TUUG9BB on 2008-08-12
  I thought this was a fun movie to watch. It was cool how they filmed at Planet Hollywood, Red Rock Resort and Hard Rock Casinos. Makes me want to go out to Vegas to try my luck!!!
  I have read the book Bringing Down the House and the movie doesn't follow the story exactly but what movie does? Just wondering why they didn't call the movie Bringing Down the House instead. This is a much better title than the bland 21.
  I agree with a previous poster that Kate Bosworth's hair was not very attractive in the film. I guess they are trying to say MIT girls aren't as pretty compared to schools like UCLA or Florida.
  
  
• Based on a true story?
  By A3W1JJGJHRPH4Y on 2008-10-14
  The movie is based on a true story, but the plot is changed so much from the book, it is hardly recognizeable. The movie captures the excitement of the team counting cards in Vegas, but the characters are unbelievable. Kevin Spacey plays a vindictive professor who organizes the team. Spacey does a competent job, but the character's motivations are so over the top that it is unbelievable he's never been caught or he can keep his job as a professor at MIT. Sturgess plays a very smart student trying to make some money because he was accepted into Havard Med. School. The timeline is very confusing. Is the whole story a flashback? However, I thought the essay is what kicked the plot off. The love story is not very convincing or interesting. Also, these Vegas trips were business trips for these students. According to the accounts I read, they did not regularly go to strip clubs. They went on overnight trips. They did not have time to for all the partying in the movie.
  
  The aspects of the movie I liked best was how they showed the signaling and card counting working. The gambling was done well. The scenes of college life were good.
  
  In summary, it is not a horrible movie, but it could have been so much better. The real story is fascinating. The movie only partially generates that excitement.
  
  
• Disappointing-Major Plot Holes!
  By A1ZAPT98SPNEA1 on 2008-03-30
  I LOVE Kevin Spacey, but, let's face it, long gone are the days of 'The Usual Suspects' and 'American Beauty'. He was one of the executive producers of the lackluster flick.
  First off, Ben Campbell, the main character, is off the charts brilliant, but with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Vegas winnings he hides them in his...dorm room. Are you kidding me?? I wouldn't have left my favorite CD's in my dorm room. Kevin Spacey's character clearly quit gambling for a reason...and Ben barely schmoozes him at all, and convinces him to get back in. Not believable!
  Zero originality. The old "optimist gets in over his head, compromises himself/his integrity/morals, then loses all he gained with some hard life lessons, but is much wiser" has been done a million times over. Hello, The Firm, Best Laid Plan, Shallow Grave, and A Simple Plan. Only those were really good movies.
  Whoever played the lead character (of Ben Campbell) did a good acting job, though. Kate Bosworth was underutilized.
  Definitley a rental. Don't waste your money at the cinema.
  
  

• Vantage Point (Single-Disc Edition)
• Iron Man (Single-Disc Edition)
• Jumper
• What Happens in Vegas (Widescreen Edition)
• The Bucket List