"21" bets that it can build on the excitement of the book upon which it is based but busts by going over the top.
Here's how bad this movie was: "Jumper" was more entertaining. 'Nuff said. Need more explanation? OK, here goes but there are lots of spoilers ahead.
The movie is based on the book "Bringing Down The House" by Ben Mezrich. The book is a quick read with a detailed and captivating explanation about how a group of college students, led by their professor, beat the system in Blackjack using knowledge of statistics, memorization techniques, and teamwork. That is, they had a really successful system for counting cards. I found the book compelling.
However, as I read it, I realized it wouldn't translate well into a movie because there just wasn't a lot of action in the traditional sense and it didn't have a "Hollywood" ending; the card-counting team just kind of fell apart and each member went his or her own way. So I was very curious to see how the filmmakers would try to jazz up the story.
Here's the irony: They embellished the story significantly and still managed to produce a tedious, predictable movie that didn't do justice to the characters, setting or tone of the book. I recommend reading the book and skipping the movie.
Here are some of the differences I remember between the movie and the book. Caveat: my memory might be a bit fuzzy here - I read the book a few months ago.
In the movie, there is a scene where a jealous card-counting teammate practically rats out his buddy at the Blackjack table, likening him to the Dustin Hoffman character from Rain Man. This scene is awkward and unbelievable and a far cry from anything in the book. In the book, the tension and dynamics between the teammates were much more subtle, but I guess subtle doesn't work on the big screen.
Apparently, the inexplicable popularity of "Superbad" means there now has to be an incredibly nerdy, weight-challenged, wannabe stand-up comedian in every major studio release. That's a shame. He wasn't funny in "Superbad" and he wasn't funny in "21" (yeah, I know it's not the same actor). Nothing against the weight-challenged, just the blatantly unfunny.
You know a screenplay is weak when the big confrontation between the college student with the double life and his techno-geek buddies occurs because he puts an 8K chip in their science project instead of a 16K chip. Who writes this stuff?
I don't remember the "Ben abandons his nerd buddies" subplot being in the book, but I could be wrong about that. It's pretty trite regardless.
In the book, the team kind of just falls apart, primarily as a result of too many close calls with casino staff and a particular loss prevention specialist. The team also corrodes from within due to jealousy, disillusionment from a few big losses, and resentment that the organizing professor doesn't seem to be taking any of the risk while collecting his reward. Some of the money gets stolen but they're never sure who did it and so the team just kind of dissolves. They try to regroup in various configurations but it doesn't last. Financially, everybody still makes out reasonably well in the end.
In the movie, Ben gets beaten up by the loss prevention consultant (played by Laurence Fishburne), gets all of his money stolen by his professor (played by Kevin Spacey), exacts revenge on the thief by improbably teaming up with LF (who has a personal vendetta against KS), then loses it all again to LF's five-finger pension plan and six-shot revolver. But don't worry, he'll probably get a scholarship to Harvard by wowing the administrator with tales of his wild experiences. I haven't seen a college administrator that wowed by irresponsible behavior since Richard Masur in "Risky Business" (and he had a much better reason). Then again, I guess it's not much different than scoring big by writing a book about it, which actually did happen.
So far, you might be thinking the movie sounds a lot more exciting than the book and I'd have to agree. But somehow it still manages to fall flat on screen.
The book emphasized the team's use of disguises and alternate personalities very well. This was an element of the movie, to be sure, but it seemed very underdeveloped and I was surprised how much more entertaining it was on the printed page than the big screen. Same thing with the initiation scene, Ben's transformation into a "player", his enjoyment of the Vegas VIP life, etc.
In the book, the pursuit by the loss prevention consultant was much more dogged. It wasn't confined to just one or two casinos but went nationwide. The film really didn't capture the determination of the pursuit very well or the number of casinos the team hit.
I could go on and on but, thankfully, IMDb's word limit won't let me. So I'll just mention a few bad things about the movie that have nothing to do with it being based on a book:
1) At 2 hours long, the movie seems very drawn out given its rather shallow treatment of the subject matter.
2) Kevin Spacey seems to have a trademark style. It is menacing yet monotonous - as contrasted with Jack Nicholson's style of menacing and maniacal. Jack's style usually works, sometimes in spite of itself. Kevin's style doesn't seem to be producing memorable performances lately. He's made some great movies, to be sure, but after "21" and "Superman Returns" I'd say he's officially due for a comeback.
Many movies that have strayed from their literary inspirations have been entertaining and worthy in their own right. "21" is most definitely not one of those movies.
Here's how bad this movie was: "Jumper" was more entertaining. 'Nuff said. Need more explanation? OK, here goes but there are lots of spoilers ahead.
The movie is based on the book "Bringing Down The House" by Ben Mezrich. The book is a quick read with a detailed and captivating explanation about how a group of college students, led by their professor, beat the system in Blackjack using knowledge of statistics, memorization techniques, and teamwork. That is, they had a really successful system for counting cards. I found the book compelling.
However, as I read it, I realized it wouldn't translate well into a movie because there just wasn't a lot of action in the traditional sense and it didn't have a "Hollywood" ending; the card-counting team just kind of fell apart and each member went his or her own way. So I was very curious to see how the filmmakers would try to jazz up the story.
Here's the irony: They embellished the story significantly and still managed to produce a tedious, predictable movie that didn't do justice to the characters, setting or tone of the book. I recommend reading the book and skipping the movie.
Here are some of the differences I remember between the movie and the book. Caveat: my memory might be a bit fuzzy here - I read the book a few months ago.
In the movie, there is a scene where a jealous card-counting teammate practically rats out his buddy at the Blackjack table, likening him to the Dustin Hoffman character from Rain Man. This scene is awkward and unbelievable and a far cry from anything in the book. In the book, the tension and dynamics between the teammates were much more subtle, but I guess subtle doesn't work on the big screen.
Apparently, the inexplicable popularity of "Superbad" means there now has to be an incredibly nerdy, weight-challenged, wannabe stand-up comedian in every major studio release. That's a shame. He wasn't funny in "Superbad" and he wasn't funny in "21" (yeah, I know it's not the same actor). Nothing against the weight-challenged, just the blatantly unfunny.
You know a screenplay is weak when the big confrontation between the college student with the double life and his techno-geek buddies occurs because he puts an 8K chip in their science project instead of a 16K chip. Who writes this stuff?
I don't remember the "Ben abandons his nerd buddies" subplot being in the book, but I could be wrong about that. It's pretty trite regardless.
In the book, the team kind of just falls apart, primarily as a result of too many close calls with casino staff and a particular loss prevention specialist. The team also corrodes from within due to jealousy, disillusionment from a few big losses, and resentment that the organizing professor doesn't seem to be taking any of the risk while collecting his reward. Some of the money gets stolen but they're never sure who did it and so the team just kind of dissolves. They try to regroup in various configurations but it doesn't last. Financially, everybody still makes out reasonably well in the end.
In the movie, Ben gets beaten up by the loss prevention consultant (played by Laurence Fishburne), gets all of his money stolen by his professor (played by Kevin Spacey), exacts revenge on the thief by improbably teaming up with LF (who has a personal vendetta against KS), then loses it all again to LF's five-finger pension plan and six-shot revolver. But don't worry, he'll probably get a scholarship to Harvard by wowing the administrator with tales of his wild experiences. I haven't seen a college administrator that wowed by irresponsible behavior since Richard Masur in "Risky Business" (and he had a much better reason). Then again, I guess it's not much different than scoring big by writing a book about it, which actually did happen.
So far, you might be thinking the movie sounds a lot more exciting than the book and I'd have to agree. But somehow it still manages to fall flat on screen.
The book emphasized the team's use of disguises and alternate personalities very well. This was an element of the movie, to be sure, but it seemed very underdeveloped and I was surprised how much more entertaining it was on the printed page than the big screen. Same thing with the initiation scene, Ben's transformation into a "player", his enjoyment of the Vegas VIP life, etc.
In the book, the pursuit by the loss prevention consultant was much more dogged. It wasn't confined to just one or two casinos but went nationwide. The film really didn't capture the determination of the pursuit very well or the number of casinos the team hit.
I could go on and on but, thankfully, IMDb's word limit won't let me. So I'll just mention a few bad things about the movie that have nothing to do with it being based on a book:
1) At 2 hours long, the movie seems very drawn out given its rather shallow treatment of the subject matter.
2) Kevin Spacey seems to have a trademark style. It is menacing yet monotonous - as contrasted with Jack Nicholson's style of menacing and maniacal. Jack's style usually works, sometimes in spite of itself. Kevin's style doesn't seem to be producing memorable performances lately. He's made some great movies, to be sure, but after "21" and "Superman Returns" I'd say he's officially due for a comeback.
Many movies that have strayed from their literary inspirations have been entertaining and worthy in their own right. "21" is most definitely not one of those movies.