free counter with statistics 21 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

211.jpg

Busted

21 / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | March 28, 2008 | Comments (63)


I’m stunned at the amount of skill, determination, and plain hard work it must have taken to transform the real story of a group of kids who scam Las Vegas for millions of dollars into something as dull, trite, and uninvolving as 21. I mean, it’s based, however loosely, on things that really happened at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where a long-running group of current and former students pooled their mental firepower in a team-based ploy to count cards at blackjack. And they won. A lot. How do you make that boring? I can do nothing else but tip my hat to screenwriters Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb, who have taken a unique story and beaten it until it fit easily into a boring and predictable mold. But they also share the blame with director Robert Luketic, best known for Legally Blonde and Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! and whose marginal talents as a romantic comedy helmer melt away completely when faced with anything resembling drama, suspense, or characterization. Everything about 21 is a little too easy, even the ungainly double-crosses and change-ups that are tacked onto the screenplay as it makes its labored way across the finish line.

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is a handsome and affable kid who somehow wound up a nerd: He attends MIT, he usually wears plaid or what appears to be a Members Only jacket, and he hangs out with geeky best friends sent straight over from central casting, including the overweight, curly-haired kid with glasses who makes masturbation jokes. (It’s not that that character can’t be funny, just that he seems to have wandered in from a completely different movie.) Ben’s relationship with his friends is perfunctory and lifeless, existing simply because it does, with no underlying sense of chemistry or common desire or anything that would bring two people together; basically, it’s a mirror for the rest of the film. Ben’s mom works hard and wants to help support him, but Ben makes do with the meager salary he gets from working at a men’s clothing store. Ben and his friends spend their time hanging out, working on their robot for a contest, and wondering what it would be like to date Jill Taylor (Kate Bosworth), the pretty but inexplicably single girl who’s apparently saving herself for someone like Ben.

Ben’s also in a financial pickle: He’s been accepted to Harvard Medical School but has no idea how he’s going to come up with the $300,000 he’ll need to attend. But after impressing one of his professors, Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), he gets tapped to attend a secret meeting of a club Mickey leads where the students learn how to count cards at blackjack. Mickey offers Ben the hard sell, and the tone of seduction in his voice almost gets Ben on board, but he balks. Mickey is weirdly forthcoming about the club’s nature: They practice counting cards, then take weekend trips to Las Vegas to put their skills to use. It’s unthinkable that Mickey would expose himself to the danger of recruiting Ben without knowing what his answer will be, especially since Mickey teaches entire courses devoted to variables and change, but that’s just the kind of movie 21 is: Hopeful that you don’t stop to think about how dumb most of it is.

However, Jill’s also on the blackjack team, and she pays Ben a visit and winds up persuading him to join the group after all. Aside from Mickey and Jill, there’s Choi (Aaron Yoo), the wacky one; Kianna (Liza Lapira), the other beautiful girl; and Fisher (Jacob Pitts), the current hotshot who will come to view Ben as competition before too long. Ben’s initiation consists of a lengthy training montage, but the fun of it all is lost in the fact that the system the team uses to count cards is never explained. Every card is given a rank of +1, -1, or 0, and it’s the player’s job to keep track of where the count is at, but Ben’s ever-present voice-over never bothers to explain whether a low or high count is good, or how the bets are increased or decreased, or what makes for favorable conditions, or really anything you would expect to be covered with even a modicum of attention. The rules of blackjack are mentioned briefly, and Luketic takes his time going over the various hand signals the team used to communicate table status to each other in the casino. But no one ever talks about how they made the money. They just used the system, somehow, and it worked.

On the other side of the equation is Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne), an enforcer who works in “loss prevention” for various casinos and starts sniffing around the MIT team after noticing Ben on a winning streak. The script attempts to give Williams a kind of deadline meant to tighten up the drama in his subplot, in this case making Williams and his men compete with the encroachment of face-recognition software that would render them obsolete, but too little attention is given to the angle to make it meaningful. It’s worse than if Williams were just some two-dimensional bruiser out to stop the kids. He’s been fleshed out just enough to make it clear how little effort was made to make him or his story interesting.

The rest of the film unfolds as it almost must: Ben and Fisher butt heads, Ben makes a lot of money, Ben loses a lot of money, Ben questions the life he’s leading and the friends he’s abandoning even though it means getting rich and getting the girl. Sturgess and Bosworth do exactly what they were hired to do: Look good and give mildly dramatic line readings. They’re not bad actors, they just have nothing to work with. Even Spacey, a commanding performer, is dragged down a level by the story. What’s more, Luketic never seems sure of his footing, and the story’s weak attempts to impart a moral on Ben come across as empty because Ben manages to skirt any real danger, even if he doesn’t always come out financially ahead. A truer, more dramatic film would have seen Ben’s growing flirtation with greed and power and the price he would eventually pay for it, but the character’s arc remains flat because the filmmakers themselves never seem to get over the lure of Las Vegas, and the attraction of getting something for nothing. I’m doing my damnedest to resist the kind of atrocious pun that the film seems to demand, but here’s just one: 21 could have added up to something special, but it just wasn’t in the cards.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Wedding Singer | Pajiba Love 03/28/08



Comments

Okay...so why did they get Jim Sturgess to play the main character? That's been my question since I first saw the trailer for this because even in those weensy snippets of dialogue, it was readily apparent that his American accent is crap. I assumed he was hired for "Across the Universe" because he's not a half-bad singer and he's wan and moppety in that inimitable British way, but I'm going to be annoyed if he starts trying to make movies over here; let's just wait till Freddie Highmore grows up a bit.

Posted by: Geetch at March 28, 2008 6:33 PM

Yeah...even as interested as I was in the original story about the MIT students, I couldn't really get excited about this movie. Even as much of a hardon I have for Spacey. It did seem lazy, and honestly...a love interest...there has to be a love interest in every. fucking. movie now. It could be a film about three males ducks on an epic trek to South Dakota to find a lost pile of gold their swan mentor gave them...two of them will turn out to be gay and start a love interest. Goddamn, I'm sick of that shit. No, really.

And how do you have a movie about gambling not discussing the gambling, the rise and fall of power, or Wayne Newton? I mean, c'mon!

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at March 28, 2008 6:40 PM

You mean a movie that revolves around math and sitting at tables playing a card game was NOT GOOD? Boring, even?

How is that possible?

Posted by: Jerce at March 28, 2008 6:51 PM

Nonsense, Jerce....next you'll be saying that an accurate representation of computer programming and hacking made onscreen would be borin....

Wait...

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at March 28, 2008 7:02 PM

That's what's really interesting: it can go wrong in more than one way!

When I saw the trailer last year I thought "is this 'Bringing Down The House'? How do you make the tense, sexy, exciting narrative this trailer seems to badly want to convey out of that?.......Oh! By making it *this* story apparently?" At first I thought it could be interesting if it was a sort of period piece, if you will, actually telling the story, but I saw that wasn't quite what was happening a few seconds later. Yikes.

Posted by: Jay at March 28, 2008 7:04 PM

I'll watch it when it shows up on cable for Laurence Fishburne. What? The gap between his two front teeth amuses me.

Posted by: greer at March 28, 2008 7:15 PM

"21 could have added up to something special, but it just wasn't in the cards."

Daniel, man... I cannot believe you wrote that. I mean, jesus... Tsk, TSK!

I remember being really intrigued by this story when I first heard about it on the news. And the beauty of it was, if I remember correctly, is that card counting isn't illegal. It's just that the casino happens to frown upon losing assloads of cash... Go figure. Anyhow, I read an interview with the Japanese (was it Japanese?) kid that was involved with it and it seemed like this could have been a great caper/heist flick. Poop.

I read another two reviews of this flick, and they pretty much mirrored this one. Sad, because I really had my hopes up for "Superhero Movie", and this was gonna be my "Plan-B". Guess it's another weekend in Methsville...

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at March 28, 2008 7:16 PM

Why would anyone cast Kate Bosworth as the hot girl/love interest? She looks like a broomstick with a wig - didn't they learn anything from Superman Returns?

Also this movie has already been made hasn't it? I'm sure I saw a Canadian film with this same story... Thank you IMDB - The Last Casino. That one wasn't too bad but it also wasn't a big studio picture so they can actually focus on some story.

Posted by: popsi_zen at March 28, 2008 7:21 PM

Please, for the love of Godtupus, tell me that there are good movies coming out. My movie-going buddy is coming home from Baghdad next month and if there is nothing good in the theatres I might cry.

Posted by: Nicole at March 28, 2008 7:25 PM

Wait, can anyone tell me what the name is of the book this was based on? I'm interested in the real story because it does sound like it could be a fun read. (and also, weren't ALL the kids in on it actually Asian?)

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at March 28, 2008 7:26 PM

Why would anyone cast Kate Bosworth as the hot girl/love interest? She looks like a broomstick with a wig - didn't they learn anything from Superman Returns?

THANK you. I've been trying to figure this out for years

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantamonolmonomo Bay - April 25th

The Forbidden Kingdom - April 18th.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at March 28, 2008 7:32 PM

My god you people take the words "based on a true story" seriously.

Not adding a random romantic subplot? Accurately representing the ethnicities of the primary players? Next you'll be insisting we stop putting glasses and dorky T-shirts on models to communicate the concept of "geek."

You jus

Posted by: SpazzyMcGee at March 28, 2008 7:39 PM

Anne, the book was "Bringing Down The House"

Wikipedia says that the title was changed so people wouldn't confuse it with the Martin/Latifah movie. Funny old world, eh?

Best just to watch the Ocean's movies again, I suppose. At least they explain exactly what happened.

Posted by: Jay at March 28, 2008 7:39 PM

Hey, wait you goddamn computer!

. . . t make me laugh sometimes.

Posted by: SpazzyMcGee at March 28, 2008 7:40 PM

Yep, the kids were primarily Asian/mixed-race. This was actually important in real life because they used that racial stereotyping to their advantage, as nobody expected them to be scamming the casino.

Thanks, Hollywood, you fucking assholes.

Posted by: Anonoguy at March 28, 2008 7:52 PM

I saw a documentary about this story a couple of years ago on The History Channel. It was totally fascinating, and I was mildly interested in the movie until I saw that they glitzed it up and stuck Kate frickin' Bosworth in there. Goodbye story, hello cookie-cutter crap.

Posted by: Skeggjold at March 28, 2008 7:56 PM

I saw a documentary about this story a couple of years ago on The History Channel. It was totally fascinating, and I was mildly interested in the movie until I saw that they glitzed it up and stuck Kate frickin' Bosworth in there. Goodbye story, hello cookie-cutter crap.

No, you racist, the group was predominantly white.

Posted by: Skeggjold at March 28, 2008 7:56 PM

Skeggold: "During the talk, Mezrich mentioned the stereotypical Hollywood casting process -- though most of the actual blackjack team was composed of Asian males, a studio executive involved in the casting process said that most of the film's actors would be white, with perhaps an Asian female. Even as Asian actors are entering more mainstream films, such as "Better Luck Tomorrow" and the upcoming "Memoirs of a Geisha," these stereotypes still exist, Mezrich said."

I don't know what you "saw", but you are wrong.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V125/N43/43vegas.html

Posted by: Anonoguy at March 28, 2008 8:05 PM

I went to a lecture on card counting and the probabilities involved in various card games that was put on by the Math Society at my uni last year, and some of tha math involved can be pretty complicated and counter-intuitive. Perhaps they just didn't want to overcomplicate the movie with something that can't be adequately explained during a 3 minute montage.

I'm sad that this movie turned out so badly, it really looked to have potential.

Posted by: Chugga at March 28, 2008 8:29 PM

I'm surprised this movie didn't do as well as expected, seeing as that half a fluffy kitten Spacey is in it.

Posted by: Pookie at March 28, 2008 8:47 PM

Didn't the learn from the lack of success of 'Rounders' with Ed Norton? If Edward can't make counting cards fun, then young Bosworth (who is not believable as a girl going to MIT, btw) & Sturgess never had a f-ing chance.

Posted by: Teresa at March 28, 2008 8:59 PM

Bosworth as an MIT student is as believable as Reid as a scientist.

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at March 28, 2008 9:05 PM

Kate Bosworth sucked all of the joy of my ogling Superman. She does have insanely interesting eyes though.

Posted by: Julie at March 28, 2008 9:09 PM

I feel like they stole this idea from the little canadian movie "the last casino"-- that movie if your interested, is very engaging and much less trite from what i guess this movie is going to be.

Posted by: saras at March 28, 2008 9:25 PM

For the couple of you who have brought it up above, card counting is not illegal. In most casinos it isn't even against the house rules--probably because it'd be impossible for the house to prove such an allegation. (Also, most of the people who attempt to count cards are terrible at it, and it doesn't really affect their odds.)

However, all the casinos I've ever played at* have a simple policy: They can ask anyone to leave the casino floor, at any time, without giving any reason. As I understand it, that policy is a direct result of the shenanigans of the MIT kids portrayed in this film.

*Yes, I play blackjack. And I still have zero interest in seeing this movie.

Posted by: Jerce at March 28, 2008 9:38 PM

Thank you Jerce for that fascinating tale about your days as a riverboat gambler.

Posted by: Pookie at March 28, 2008 9:44 PM

i don't care if this movie sucks...i'm going for the eye-candy: fucking jim sturgess!!!

Posted by: maxpurr9 at March 28, 2008 9:44 PM

Don't read the book. You'll be further amazed at how they turned such a great book into such a fluff story.

Posted by: Collins at March 28, 2008 9:57 PM

I was looking forward to this movie!! But what Collins just said gave me light at the end of the tunnel, because I haven't read the book yet but intend to. So, here's the plan: Watch the movie then read the book.

Right, and KB looks a little old to be the love interest of someone who looks like they just graduated high scool. Look at the two of them in the image, the contrast makes her look old.

Posted by: Kay at March 28, 2008 11:25 PM

I recall this as one of the episodes of "Breaking Vegas" on the History Channel. That was interesing.

This looks like crap.

And as Shadows put it, you just can't have a movie without a love interest. I first noticed it with the Spielberg abomination that was Jurrasic park.

No fucking way was the prof and his assistant supposed to be "love interests".

Guess you just can't do without them.

Posted by: Uncle JR at March 28, 2008 11:51 PM

Okay, so I've been a lurker since the Pajiban inception. I have cyber-literary-mind-boned socalledcousins, insertclevernamehere, Julie, Skittimus Maximus, and Barbado Slim in obscene, bisexual (thank you Julie) fits of amusement-induced passion. I have accessed most, in not all, of the options in my emotional database from reading reviews and comments alike. If Daniel ever decided to recap all of my favorite shows, I would immediately and indefinitely suspend television watching in my household. If Pajiba came to my doorstep with a contingent of armor-clad Nazi elephants herded by Dustin, TK, and Shadows of Dakaron and shot me in the armpits with a M870 Remington, I would still find a way to drag myself to my computer and reconcile my pain with the idea that they only did it so I could further understand the vaginaphobic idiocy of torture porn. During a recent argument, I called my boyfriend a cancerous skank. And meant it.

Pajiba can do no wrong. None.

With all this said, Daniel...

"21 could have added up to something special, but it just wasn't in the cards."

Really? Like, really?

Posted by: J_Capri at March 29, 2008 12:11 AM

Oh, wait, Shadows beat me to it.

Sorry, Shadows. I kind of just squinted my eyes, cocked my head to the side, and scrolled.

Posted by: J_Capri at March 29, 2008 12:19 AM

I don't know anything about the real story but wouldn't taking out a loan to go to medical school have been .. I don't know ... logical? Scholarships are good too. I mean it's not as dangerous or stupid as trying to pull one over on a casino (they are run by nice people right? What? The whole Vegas thing was started and run by the mafia? Uh oh) but you know the whole loan thing can work too. I know it's anal but that just bugged me so much I couldn't even fathom watching this movie.

Posted by: LittleDead at March 29, 2008 12:46 AM

J_Capri...happy to bring out your inner perv. I'm currently showing this site to my brother so he can understand my love, and he's quite proud that his big sister has such a sordid reputation. :p

Posted by: Julie at March 29, 2008 1:18 AM

Yet another trite movie that doesn't adhere to the book and fails on all counts.

Posted by: Dev at March 29, 2008 1:23 AM

Aww, J_Capri, you had me at "Pajiba can do no wrong. None.". Beautifully written, eloquent, and if this is your first post, I'm looking forward toward your decent into The Bog of Eternal Pajiba. Allow me to quote high-school era Megadeth, "As you are now, so once was I - As I am now, so you will be - Prepare my friend, to follow me."

Yeah, I was a lurker too. Then I figured"WWMD*"? The answer? Toss out a post or two, see if I can carve a nice little niche for myself, and move on in a month or so... And yet the fine folk marching in this well-written filth parade continue to entertain...


*What Would Minimus Do?

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at March 29, 2008 1:44 AM

Saw this today. Actually a decent film. This movie was Vegas: Glitz without the substance. Bosworth was not attractive at all. She's turning into Skeletor. Liza Lapira on the other hand... The beginning seemed like a cross between Spiderman and Rounders. Re: "The best friend" character, apparently Jonah Hill wasn't available. I didn't understand why "Ben" couldn't go to medical school by just taking out loans like everyone else. He's accepted to Harvard Medical, but can't figure out how to apply for a Stafford loan?
As for this review, do we really need 5 minutes added to the film to explain in detail how counting cards works? Really? Or should they have added ten minutes of black jack play? Now that would have been riveting. Would we really like this movie more if there was a fleshed-out explanation as to Fishburne's motivation to catch the card counters? Answer: He runs a consulting firm that gets paid to catch cheats and card counters. The real story is these MIT kids made a crap load of money, got caught, and then moved on with their lives making the money MIT grads make (I think one became a doctor and another a big time Boston lawyer). Same thing in the movie.

Posted by: JP at March 29, 2008 2:21 AM

I'm so disappointed. This was a great book and I've been waiting for the movie for a while (I even tried to get on as an extra when they were filming at Planet Hollywood).
And changing the lead character to a white kid pisses me off not just because of the racism of it. I work for a strip casino and I can confirm as people mentioned above and Mezrich made very clear in his book, a white kid in his twenties dropping $1000 a hand on blackjack would be incredibly suspicious, but an Asian or Middle Eastern kid dropping $10,000 a hand wouldn't get a second glance.
Oh well, I guess I'll wait a little longer for the DVD.

Posted by: Chad at March 29, 2008 2:47 AM

J_Capri...sniff...I'm so proud...Bravo, my friend...bravo...

But just to let you know...simply by stating his name, you may have put yourself on TK's list...just warning ya...

Julie...what, he didn't know before?

Posted by: Shadows of Dakaron at March 29, 2008 3:39 AM

The kimono is open...spacey blows

Posted by: seth at March 29, 2008 3:57 AM

"21 could have added up to something special, but it just wasn't in the cards."

Fluffy kitten.

Posted by: Bastard Ray at March 29, 2008 4:56 AM

JP, you can't start by saying "Actually a decent film" and then rag on it for the same reasons everyone else did. If it's decent, prove the point. If it sucks, those same points have already been made. Which was it?

Posted by: divinityblue at March 29, 2008 8:39 AM

What's quite sad is that I'm currently sitting on my bed, and across the room from me is the reason that this movie was made.

It's asleep, which is why I can observe it so closely. It may indeed be passed out due to massive quantities of alcohol consumption last night. It might not be wearing any pants, but the potential reaction if I check is too dreadful to imagine. Next to its bed is a small Ziploc baggie, which yesterday contained shrooms.

This is the elusive studentus unculturus, and I live with one-- a female of the species. She will go see any film with a bright, flashy trailer and someone she has seen before in the leading role-- in this case, someone she has obsessed over since he appeared in Across the Universe.

She and all of her species will flock to the theaters. They will buy tickets. Movies like this will continue to be made.

She stirs, awakened by her cell phone alarm! She looks in my direction! She has seen me observing! I can't s

Posted by: That Girl at March 29, 2008 10:20 AM

I went and saw this yesterday. Big mistake...oh well, I spent some quality time with my daughter.

What really irked me (along with all the other comments here) was the whole "crime doesn't pay" angle. First off, as others have noted, counting cards isn't illegal but the implication in the movie is that they are engaging in illegal activity. Second, they racheted down the money, just so none of us get tempted to actually try this. In real life, the MIT kids made something like $6 million. In the movie, Ben made $315,000 and Rosa (Kevin Spacey) lost his top when Ben lost $200,000. Oh, come on...

And who ever had the bright idea that the Dean of Harvard Medical School is an idiot-doofus?

The book was great, though.

L

Posted by: LHN at March 29, 2008 11:51 AM

I do appreciate the welcome.
After an extended period of observing my victim from afar, it was time for me to graduate to inappropriate, unsolicited contact.

Posted by: J_Capri at March 29, 2008 3:36 PM

Personally, I was just happy about the use of 'Break on Through' in the trailer. I love that damn song so much.

What is with Bosworth and Spacey being in so many movies together? Are they pals?

Posted by: Mimi at March 29, 2008 4:54 PM

*sigh*

While I am often a willing victim of Hollywood commercialism (Flashy? Yay!! Unecessary love interest? Bring it on!), I do have SOME standards, and from the sound of it this movie meets none of them. Yes, give me the glitz, suspend my reality and make me temporarily believe that I, too, am cool, but give it a good story PUH-Lease! Not much of a rant, since a.) I haven't seen it, and b.) doing shit for your wedding is like, totally draining but Pajiba reviews are always a welcome respite, and so here I am. The bottom line is that this looked like fun, I'm sad it's not, and now I'm going to crawl back to doing my save-the-dates and further contemplation of eloping (which I won't, bc I love presents)

Posted by: KHA at March 29, 2008 5:18 PM

There WAS a Discovery Channel..or History Channel Docu called "Beating Vegas" or some such nonsense about these math nerds. It was bOring, there's no amount of fake tension or quick shots to make math exciting folks IT. JUST. ...AIN'T.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 29, 2008 5:44 PM

BarbadoSlim, I thought you said 'Beating Vages'and thought that would make a very interesting docu indeed.

Posted by: sleepinduceddislexia at March 29, 2008 5:55 PM

Beating Vages?

hehehehehehehe......yeah keep moving, take it outside, pervert.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 29, 2008 6:03 PM

Ew...gross! But I'm with you BS, math is damn boring no matter how you look at it. Which is why I find the fact that they don't focus on the math/strategy in this movie a plus. It would just drag it down further. I could see me sleeping through the documentary.

Er...the Vegas documentary, not the Vages documentary...

Posted by: Kay at March 29, 2008 7:24 PM

Isn't the Vages documentary a behind-the-scenes look into the making of the "Vagina Monologues"?

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa.... Off to drink...

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at March 29, 2008 9:19 PM

Hey divinityblue, I think JP was being sarcastic in response to some of the questions in Daniel's review. As in, thank goodness they DIDN'T go into boring detail about how cards are counted, why Fishbourne's character exists, etc.

Posted by: lucy at March 29, 2008 11:34 PM

The movie seemed really predictable and a little long. I thought it was entertaining, but it could have been a lot better.

Posted by: Lebowski Podcast at March 30, 2008 12:46 AM

Do yourself a favor and get your hands on The Last Casino.

Katharine Isabelle is a hundred times prettier than Kate Bosworth. Jim Sturgess looks like a dwarf compared to the neverending-hotness-here-we-go-i'm-drooling-again
Kris Lemche. And guess what? The asian student in the last casino isn't just some sort asian person being asian and being good at math. He actually speaks. He also has feelings and stuff.

There's also this awesome Stefie Shock cameo. He's playing the Security Assistant. Who the fuck is Stefie Shock, you'll ask. He's the guy that makes Julian Richings look like Angelina fucking Jolie.

Je Combats Le Spleen

Posted by: roulotte verte at March 30, 2008 2:03 PM

It's already been pointed out twice on here, but Last Casino is a much better Canadian version of this movie from a few years ago. (I don't know how much they're actually related though...did someone get the rights to this? Or was it just "borrowed"?)

Posted by: hannah at March 30, 2008 2:45 PM

I count cards. I am successful at it to a modest degree. (I don't have a team of players or a bankroll backing me up.) I'm bitter about this movie because the last thing I need is more visibility for card-counting. The casinos have already changed too many of the rules for the worse over the last ten years as it is.

For the record, Edward Norton's and Matt Damon's characters do not employ card-counting in Rounders. Card-counting won't help you in that variety of poker. And I actually enjoyed that movie.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at March 31, 2008 2:31 AM

lol. had to fall for the pun, didja?

Posted by: becky at March 31, 2008 4:19 PM

Gosh, to the poster, somewhere up above, who said that Kate Bosworth looks way too old compared to the dude in the picture...

well, that dude, a Mr. Jim Sturgess, is actually a couple years older than Ms. Bosworth. I'm touchy about comments that bear the slightest resemblance to ageism.

Speaking of casinos, as someone who has only ever been to the ones here in Detroit...yuck.

Posted by: Mik at April 1, 2008 8:36 PM

Mik,
Being from Toledo and visiting the casinos in Detroit, you are correct, yuk. But thankfully, most casinos are quite nice.
Yes, I play blackjack, yes, I count, yes it works and yes the casions don't like it. I was able to undertand the references to the system they use (same one I do), and they touch on Basic Strategy. But I can't imagine they aimed this movie at me. Without knowledge of the system, this movie makes no sense. WITH knowledge of the system, the characters make no sense.
The casinos have changed the rules so much to remove counting and Basic Strategy advantages that I play poker exclusively now. Thank God they haven't made a poker playing movie yet!
Oh - wait....

Posted by: PsiDefect at April 3, 2008 1:01 PM

this movie was beyond bad.the counting system involved adding and subtracting by one. this was portrayed as a real challenge for the mit genius who outnewtoned isaac. the final chase scene was a joke. i mean that it must have been intended as a joke because noone could take it seriously. the casinos are depicted as stupid. they are not. this movie is.

Posted by: snake at April 4, 2008 12:29 AM

I was confused and dumbfounded at Laurence Fishburne's role. Doesn't each casino have their own surveillance personnel? And face-recognition software is coming in NOW??? You mean it hasn't been around for years and years already? Or have I been watching too much Las Vegas (the series)? I always wondered if the degree of technology that Danny McCoy and Mike Cannon were using was really as sophisticated as what the casinos use. But I always figured it was to SOME degree computerized, for the TV show to even suggest what they were presenting. Laurence Fishburne's room, job, and character reminds me in so many ways of a '70s movie. Oh, and one more thing: Too bad the gang didn't play blackjack at the Mirage - once Jim Sturgess saw all that Beatles Love paraphenelia around, maybe it would have inspired him to break out into Beatles songs!

Posted by: Beau Hajavitch at April 10, 2008 9:00 PM

Saw this movie tonight, and yes it is crap. Too much contrivance, too much melodrama, and Sturgess and Bosworth are dull. Made for the MTV set...lots of flash and little substance. It's like "Real World Vegas" but with card counting. Avoid.

Posted by: DJ at April 13, 2008 1:55 AM