Review of "21"

'21" is a movie out of its time. The public craze of gambling-poker, five card stud and the like-which started (and arguably stopped) in the earlier part of this decade is the central theme. More specifically, how to cheat at the card games in a casino. Had the film, based on a true story, been released before the last star crossed gambling film (2007´s oft-delayed and much criticized "Lucky You"), it may have stood a chance. But even with household names like Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne to anchor the cast of relative newcomers, it is a story trying to recapture a fad. Almost like the net effect of a movie based on the 1990´s collectible dolls called Trolls. It preys on our (presumably good) memories about "Celebrity Poker Showdown" and "Rounders" while reinforcing a negative message about cheating.
Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) has a problem. While he´s a veritable genius, he wants to get into Harvard Medical School. The problem? The estimated $300,000 for admittance. So he falls into a card counting "club" headed by Professor Micky Rosa (Spacey). When the group initially scores big in Vegas, a security officer (Laurence Fishburne) starts to notice Ben in particular. Then, the game is afoot.
There is an episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" which handles this basic premise with more flair, fun and stakes than "21" can ever hope to. In that installment, the senior staff of the space station play along in a holographic simulation of Las Vegas in order to "steal" money and prevent a holographic friend from being "killed." It sets up the science fiction plot and runs the audience through the entire scheme using video montage with a voiceover. In essence, we see the way the "theft" is supposed to go down before the crew attempts it, thereby allowing us to see where it goes wrong. "21" attempts a similar filmmaking construct using salt and pepper shakers, not to mention a mustard container, in a restaurant. The issue? This explanation relies on the audience to remember which of our newly introduced (and poorly drawn) characters corresponds to each of the jars on the table. Without that basic knowledge-to be fair, after the second successful Vegas trip, we pretty much know the drill-the movie becomes stagnant, maybe just a little bit boring.
About those poorly drawn characters: we know why Ben and, to a certain extent, his love interest Jill (Kate Bosworth) are involved in the gang. But the other three members? No idea. Presumably it´s to cover tuition and living expense, not to mention keep them all from working menial jobs. But there´s no "there" to them. Choi (Aaron Yoo), Kianna (Liza Lapira) and Fisher (Jacob Pitts) serve no function in the story other than to be glorified background extras for the blackjack scenes. Why have any of them signed on for this endeavor? The pull of a large pay day not withstanding, what is their individual motivation?
The story doesn´t seem to care about them, instead content to give them all single lines designed to flesh out the character. Choi gets drunk after their first win with Ben; Fisher meets up with a stripper or two. Then they recede into the background again. It´s a curious thing, to boot. A rather large development occurs with Fisher halfway through the film, suggesting a course of action for him. We expect to see it, based on all the conventions of the genre and films in general. Yet the adapted screenplay (from the book by Ben Mezrich) doesn´t go there, to its credit. Where it does go, as the final "twist," is quite obvious based on other information within the movie.
In Sturgess´ very first scene, I found myself cringing over the acting-or, rather, non-acting. As he talks to the dean of admissions, there is a scene the actor is doing nothing more than reciting lines with no emotion behind them. His face barely changes expression while the words coming out of his mouth fall harmlessly onto the floor. Perhaps that was the direction for the scene to show his progress from "nerd" to "cool guy." Thankfully, he gets much better quickly and the acting generally isn´t a problem.
Fishburne´s character Cole Williams is a problem, though. We´re given small drops of a subplot indicating his company is down to one client in Vegas since every security outfit is upgrading to facial recognition software. A worthwhile idea to explore, yet it falls completely by the wayside. The premise can´t sustain a film by itself, so it would need to be included in an existing concept, but the idea of man being pushed out by computers can be compelling. Williams as a character never is. He´s the obligatory bad guy, cigarette chomping and doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how illegal it may be.
Card counting is not illegal. That point is made several times, quite pointedly. So when Ben eventually gets found out (please, it´s not a spoiler…anyone who´s seen a movie knows it´s going to happen) and subsequently gets beaten up, a thought ran through my head: how is this legal? It can´t be, quite simply. A law suit would boil down to "he said, she said" most likely and bring undue media attention to the participants; as the movie tells us, though, it´s not illegal to count cards. Holding someone against their will, not to mention beating them up, has to be. It´s really the one false note in the film.
Side plots preaching the power of friendship and not letting friends down are ham-handed at best, clichéd at worst. Of course a guy who looks like Sturgess hangs around with a Jonah Hill-wannabe, lamenting his lack of luck with women. Cue rolling the eyes. If a film wants us to believe a character has a problem-say, blindness-don´t put said character in the drivers seat of a car. If you want to convey a virgin college student, then cast an actor we can buy in the role. Not Jim Sturgess.
(One comment on the ending: Ben is told he needs to dazzle Harvard Med to get the scholarship he needs. Specifically, the dean has to understand how far he´ll go to acquire the money. Now, in the final scene, we see Ben retelling his story in an attempt to "dazzle." If, for the sake of argument, Ben gets in, what does that say? Cheating is rewarded in the long run? It´s a message I don´t like, considering the way the movie is left. Sure, he gets beat up and loses a lot of money…but he gets a free ride to Harvard Med and gets the girl? Not the moral anyone wants to be projecting, I think.)
Despite all my misgivings (particularly thanks to unending advertising during "Big Brother"), "21" doesn´t fail nearly as much as it could have. Aside from being a couple years too late and a few character issues, it engages and never lets go, even when we think we´re one step ahead of the story. Is it great? Not even close. But it provides entertainment between the dog days of winter and the summer blockbusters. A 6 out of 10.