|Page 19 of 28:||              |
|Index||274 reviews in total|
killed this film. too bad though. it's a really good story, too bad it
hasn't been told in a better way
a man would thought that Kevin spacey would carry out this film on his own back, but he's not that good in it too. not to mention a young star which i can't say is really a good actor. Laurence is OK, but i don't get what his story of a retiring counter-catchers has to do with anything. and what's with the long beginning, and his mother and friends? i mean, com'on man, we're here to see a big-shot gambling story, not his emotional path trough it all.. and again, all this things, including Laurence, could work out if they where directed in a better way, with better dialog and some original humor, not all the corny stuff everybody expects, like 'sir?' long pause, he turns slowly 'you forgot your bag' terrible! oh well.
p.s. now when i think about it, spacey is actually most disappointing.
If this film has given me any good experiences its that I now have a
proper strategy to count cards.
The lines given by the characters are brilliant and the characters are brilliant. Despite the lack of famous-ness of the actors I found each of them to be perfect for the part and gave each of them there own individuality.
A nice plot that really mimes the tone of Oceans 13, one of my favourite films with the team bantering like the other 11.
The nice location and music were pretty good and a final twist at the end meant a very good ending.
All in all very nice.
Whilst knowing broadly the story on which this film is based, I hadn't
read the book, nor am I a gambling expert. My wife, who watched it with
me, has never stepped inside a casino. Despite all this lack of inside
knowledge, we were both royally entertained for two hours.
The minimum of profanity, the sharpness of the script, and the lavish production values made this an unusually enjoyable tale. I can live with a bit of "bad guy" violence and the obligatory chase scene as they did add some spice to proceedings.
Jim Sturgess is a competent male lead, carrying the part of Ben Campbell well, part geek,part super -smart con man.Kate Bosworth as love interest Jill Taylor convinces as both equally smart, and drop dead gorgeous. The imperious Kevin Spacey dominates each scene in which he is in.
The film is not without its flaws, the nerdy comedy duo best friends of Ben are formula writing at its most basic, and several roles (Bens mother and the "Loss Prevention" Casino Team)are caricatures.Also, the background music at the start is mystifyingly loud and anonymous with no attempt to contemporise the story with a period soundtrack.
However, the film is well acted, pacey after an inevitably slow scene setting start, and lavish on the eye with some glamorous Las Vegas sets, and some hedonistic living.Accepting it as a story, rather than a documentary is the key to enjoying this film. Critics seem to focus on what it might have been, pleasure comes from enjoying it for what it is.
This movie was the best I have seen in a long time. It was riveting,
and was actually a breath of fresh air from the extremely lame videos
that have been coming out lately. The only thing that I didn't like was
the confusing bit of a love story that seemed off center with the rest
of the flick. Everything else flowed really nicely, and wasn't too
predictable. I give it nine out of ten.
I suggest going to see this movie to anyone of age. At least give it a shot. I was expecting to literally be sleeping through the whole thing because I had gotten three hours of sleep the night before, and yet the movie kept me fully entertained.
I had above-average expectations of this movie (that is to say I was
hoping it would do more than just entertain me!) and to begin with I
was afraid it would be a massive disappointment. I'm not sure of the
timescale exactly, but the first 'section' seemed very slow-moving and
frankly rather dull. But credit to the whole crew: it picked up very
nicely in line with the excitement of the college students and their
professor heading for Vegas, and his descent into 'insanity' certainly
stirred feelings of frustration from me.
Beyond the quality of the story and its realisation, Spacey is in fine form, as is a rather menacing Laurence Fishburne. The younger actors are unquestionably good, and a semi-naked Kate Bosworth is always worth a look! Hang on in through the initial brush-strokes: the outline is boring, but the colours are dazzling.
The biggest reason people will flock to this movie is because Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne are in it. Fine actors whose talents are wasted in this predictable, boring, canned Hollywood movie. Spacey's character is schizophrenic. . .apparently motivated by the intellectual challenge of beating the system in the beginning of the movie, then becoming nothing but a selfish, greedy criminal in the end. "Ben's" character goes 360 degrees from meek geek to raging Maxim playboy and back to meek geek only after losing a few hundred grand twice. . . and tells his story hoping to impress an admissions officer. Boring! Don't waste your time.
Kevin Spacey has been a fine actor through his career with some stellar
performances under his belt. In this movie he has decided to star in
this adaption of a book based on a true story of a university mentor
who takes a group of MIT maths prodigies to Vegas to make money big
time. How do they do it? They are picking away at the weak point of
BlackJack ("21") by card counting.
Basic story is that one graduate is desperate to fund his way through Harvard Med (not cheap!) and gets noticed by a university mentor (Spacey)for his arithmetic ability, so gets roped into the Blackjack group. They then go on romps to Vegas to cash in while they can, hammering away at the BlackJack tables.
As per other films in a similar vein it follows standard certain routes: a will-they-won't-they with a good looking girl, jealousy from a fellow player, rise and fall of the whole plans, damage to previous friendship, being consumed by the money/lifestyle etc etc. Regardless, the story still comes together.
Direction is pacey and the settings in Vegas are fun. The film is nothing special, and at heart is really a simple general feel good movie. An enjoyable romp and ride with a likable cast.
So, even though Ebert rated this movie low, I enjoyed it for what it
was. It had all the elements of the heist movie with a little after
school special mixed in. 21 is not destined to be a classic movie by
any means. But how can you not enjoy a movie about a group of good
looking kids making loads and loads of cash? In 21, the main character
is a nerdy guy who rides around on his bike with one pant leg hiked up.
He hangs out with two equally nerdy guys. The three of them are
designing a car that runs by itself. They hang out at bars and drool
Ben is all ready to start Harvard Medical School, if only he had enough cash. He is spotted by one of his teachers and covertly ushered to an underground room where said teacher forces the kids to play blackjack until they learn to play the game well enough to win loads of dough. They are MIT geniuses and can count cards.
On the weekends they hit Vegas and play blackjack. Then, for Ben, everything falls apart. Will it stay that way? The rules of the after school special say no. The movie was predictable and should have been forgettable if it weren't for a math problem.
I can't get this movie out of my mind because of the math problem suggested by the teacher (Kevin Spacey) towards the beginning about the 3 doors.
Why does such a smart young man hide his two hundred thousand in the
ceiling above his dorm bed? There were too many suspensions of
disbelief for me to get my head around.
Thematically, it appeals to the notion that if you think big and take the calculated risks then you'll achieve big if you are smart enough, have a system and, most importantly, have the capital investment.
I found the study of the dichotomy between logic and emotion in making decisions interesting and wished there had been more than the perfunctory formula treatment of that dichotomy.
Could we say that life is a deck of cards and variable change can either make you a winner or a loser in the game of life?
I went to see the movie because Kevin Spacey was in it. It was mildly entertaining. It was a predictable formula movie replete with worn-out plot devices, superficial development and unimaginative dialog.
Sorry, Mr. Steinfeld and Mr. Loeb, you did not dazzle me.
This movie is by no means a waste of time. You'll have fun, tighten a
little bit, call the direction of the movie 20 minutes in advance, and
walk away feeling neither overly satisfied nor overly disappointed.
It was a satisfying movie. I enjoyed the characters, the story (the wee element of truth made it fun) was passable. However, the acting, save Kate Bosworth, was spot on. All in all, you can have a good night at the movies without feeling that you've been cheated or that you have to write a philosophical dissertation. While the artistic and deep films are enjoyable and further the art of cinema and the fluff makes some (like me) want to burn my DVD collection and call the industry catatonic, these are the movies that lie in between that make the movies fun again.
I'd recommend it. Go have fun, turn off the mind, enjoy it for what it is and walk away with out wanting to stab your eyeballs out.
|Page 19 of 28:||              |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|