21

Rating:

By Willie Krischke – July 22, 2008

In the process of learning to write decent movie reviews, I read a lot of reviews. And I’ve come across certain terms used often by movie critics that don’t mean anything to me. When a critic says a movie is “richly textured,” I’m lost.  Or “the tone was off” – what is that? Maybe someday I’ll learn be admitted in to the elite Critic’s Club where they hang out, and there on the ornate shelf will be the Critic’s Lexicon. Until then, I’ll just have to use plain English.

“21” is a pretty awful movie, but I’m thankful now that I’ve watched it, because I can hereby add a terms to my homemade copy of the Critic’s Lexicon.   Flat. This is what you call a movie that ought to be exciting but isn’t.  ”21″ is flat. It’s got a great plot, featuring genius MIT students, a ruthless professor, card-counting, Vegas, gobs of money, double-crosses…yet somehow it never really gets going. It feels like director Robert Luketic has told this story at too many cocktail parties, and now is a little bored with it himself. If you’re a wannabe movie critic, and you want to know what “flat” means, watch “21.”

Luketic relies heavily on two of my least favorite movie tricks – the montage and the voiceover. Both are shortcuts lazy directors take when they can’t be bothered 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.

“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.