I’ve never read the book Bringing Down the House, which I’ve heard that the film, 21, is “loosely” based on. When I watched the trailer, I was able to grasp the basic premise of the plot. The movie is structured around a true story about a group of M.I.T. students who attempt to make a profit on the game of Blackjack by counting cards. Ben Campbell, played by Jim Sturgess, must find a way to pay for his lofty tuition bill if he wants to get into Harvard medical school and turns to his college professor who promises him more money than he’s ever dreamed of. All seems well, but now he’s faced with a dilemma and must reevaluate his priorities. The lavish Vegas lifestyle begins to consume him. Will he continue to play the money game or focus on his education? Based on what I observed from the trailer, it looked like an intriguing film.
Another thing I noticed while watching the trailer is that I didn’t really recognize much of the cast. One of the names I knew was Kevin Spacey, who has also played as the star of K-Pax, a witty film about a man in a mental institution. Spacey appears in the cast as a college professor who secretly trains a small, select group of students in the game of Blackjack. The scene moves to Las Vegas, where his collegiate team of players helps him operate his lucrative business endeavor. According to what I’ve heard from some of my friends, his character was written into the story for the movie. Despite this fact receiving critics’ disapproval, I thought his role in this film was played well. Another name I knew was Lawrence Fishburne, or Morpheus, in the Matrix trilogy. Actor Lawrence Fishburne plays the role of the antagonist in this film, whose job is to ensure the casino business’s survival and success, as well as looking after his own vested reward. Conflict arises in the movie after the casino begins to be suspicious of the losses they are sustaining as a result of the new high rollers with extraordinary luck. Although I frequent the movie theaters now and then, I had little insight into any of the other actors and actresses.
Having never read the book, I was under the impression that the film’s director, Robert Luketic, who has also done other films such as Legally Blonde, had taken some creative liberty and glamorized the story with the addition of classic Hollywood teasers like the money, girls and fame hinted at in the trailer. The movie 21’s trailer is full of crisp cinematography, showcasing some visually impressing motion graphics. We see a quality-produced trailer, and we would expect to find an equally engaging film. The trailer had done its job: I wanted to see 21.
I headed down to the theater to go check out the movie. I didn’t expect the theater would be too packed on a cold and rainy Sunday evening, but I was surprised to see a fairly large turnout. I was surprised that there weren’t many high school students at this showing, considering that this particular movie theater serves as the local hang out for this type of crowd on most normal nights, especially at the start of spring break. When the movie started, the audience drew silent, offering their undivided attention to the enticing lures the trailer promised with its hip motion titles.
I was curious to see how they would use their mathematical skills to turn the tables in their favor in the casino, especially considering the fact that it was based on a true story. Prior to watching this film, I knew of counting cards, but it was interesting to see this idea turned into a type of illicit business. Of course, the threat of being caught is imminent and you’re just waiting for something to go wrong. I enjoyed watching the movie unfold, as the innocent college student becomes transformed into someone completely different as his secret life begins to change him slowly. Toward the end of the film, there were a few unexpected turns in the plot, which I feel were the film’s strengths.
Along with the rest of the crowd, I felt that the film was successfully engaging, keeping everyone involved in the plot, added with the action sequences and sporadic humor that grabbed people’s attention. I was impressed; I found it interesting from beginning to end. My friend who accompanied me to see this movie agreed that this was a good one. We nodded in agreement that the filmmakers pulled this one off successfully, although I probably wouldn’t draft this one to the top of my movie favorites list. Having such stiff competition with such films as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and Star Wars, I wouldn’t say that 21 really stands a fair chance against those titles. I don’t think it will see as much success as the filmmakers planned, even though I consider it to be a good movie. It will get shot down by either the book readers or the critics before it has a chance to rise to the level of success they hoped for.
21 seemed to get some rather harsh reviews, being called such things as “boring” or “ordinary.” The critics’ main issue with the film was the unoriginality, saying we’ve seen this too many times before in other films. They felt that it becomes lost in the midst of the number of films in the action genre. I understand what they are talking about, I didn’t really feel the same way about 21, in fact, I thought that it was uncovering some new ground. The film was predictable to a certain extent, but it has some twists in the plot that kept me watching. I disagreed with a lot of things the reviewers said, mainly because they were attacking it from the standpoint that we’ve seen this type of film before and that it doesn’t match up to the book. It makes me wonder how many people have actually read the book, though, as that might give us a better picture of the film’s success verses the critics’ issues with it. While I see their standpoint, I think it deserves more credit than has been given to it. As a standalone film, I didn’t feel like it was overtly unoriginal, rather I felt as though it was something fresh, at least in my film viewing experiences.
I agreed with a few points made in the reviews. The New York times reviewer suggests that the creators of 21 embellish the idea that anything can be bought for the right price. He concludes that it is “either a very cynical or a very smart take on the power elite,” and that “they turn his desire to attend Harvard into something tantamount to an inalienable right, one that’s impervious to ethical standards or personal morals,” (Dargis). Maybe our filmmaking industry needs to consider the implications of presenting a sugarcoated message that alludes to the mindset that we should do whatever-it-takes regardless of our actions. Brad Peterson, who also reviewed the movie, thought that Fishburne’s character was the most developed, but was starved of screen time, appearing in only two or three scenes. I would also have liked to see more of his character throughout the movie.
In sum, I would say that I enjoyed my experience; I thought that it was a good movie, one that I would suggest for others to watch. If you have already read the book, then it might be more difficult to appease your expectations, but for those of us who haven’t read the book, it was a good flick.