21

In the process of learning to write decent movie reviews, I’ve read a lot of movie reviews written by other people. And in the process of reading those reviews, I’ve come across certain terms used often by movie critics that don’t mean anything to me. I have no idea what a critic means when he says a movie is “richly textured.” Or “the tone was off” – what is that? Maybe someday I’ll learn what they’re talking about, and be admitted in to the elite Critic’s Club where they hang out. Until then, I’m committed to only write things that make sense not only to me, but also to you, dear reader.

“21” is a pretty awful movie, but I’m thankful now that I’ve watched it, because I can hereby add some terms to my Critic’s Lexicon. This movie was flat. It lacked energy. What ought to be an exciting story – about MIT students, led by a ruthless professor, develop a card-counting strategy and take it to Vegas, where they make gobs of money before double-crossing each other – never really gets going. It feels like whoever is telling this story (director Robert Luketic) has told it at too many cocktail parties, and now is a little bored with it himself. If you want to know what “flat” means, watch 21. If you want to know how a movie that ought to be loads of fun can somehow lack energy (unlike, you know, Victorian period dramas, which are just born lacking energy) watch 21. If you want to see a good movie, watch something else.

Luketic relies heavily on two of my least favorite movie tricks – the montage and the voiceover. Both are shortcuts directors take when they don’t really know how to tell a story efficiently and well. I’d say roughly half of “21” is either montage of voiceover. The rest – well, there are a lot of underwhelming slow-mo shots of casinos, and an awful lot of bad acting (Kevin Spacey looks particularly anxious to get on to his next picture – almost every scene he’s in feels rushed, like he’s getting it over with as quickly as possible.) There are, just for fun, some absolutely ridiculous costumes and an alarming amount of really bad advice on how to cheat a casino. (Tip to the attentive: if you don’t want the security guys to know you’re a team of students working together to cheat the casino, you may not want to a. walk into the casino together, b. regularly gather in each other’s hotel rooms, or c. hang out in the restaurant together, celebrating your winnings) Oh yes, and some of the worst dialogue this side of Bollywood. “Our window of opportunity is closing in on us,” our hero confides to his mentor at one point, in all seriousness. Seriously.

“21” is based on the nonfiction book “Bringing Down the House,” by Ben Mezrich. A little research yields some fascinating facts — the card counting team actually pulled from several different schools, involved competing teams, brought in outside investors, and operated for over twenty years. It sounds like a fascinating story, and it ought to make a great movie – or even a series of movies. Too bad “21” is what we get instead. How long before someone else – someone with a real artistic sense, as well as knowledge of Vegas, maybe even someone who read “Bringing Down the House — can make a different movie from the same source material? What’s the statute of limitations on remakes?

Recommended

• if you know absolutely nothing about Vegas or Blackjack, and next to nothing about storytelling, good filmmaking, or human nature.
• If you want to know what a movie critic means when she says a movie is “flat” or “lacks energy.” “21” could be used in film class to define the terms.

Not Recommended

• if there’s anything else available.
• If you’re looking for “Blackjack Cheater’s Guide to Vegas.” Please, please don’t try anything you see in this movie.