Decent drama neglects its core subject...

Rating: 5/10 (22 August 2008)

First, lets get the obvious out of the way: several people have noticed they have "seen this movie before". Indeed, a small budget Canadian movie called "The Last Casino" was released a few years before this one, with much of the same plot. But 21 is not a "ripoff" of The Last Casino. As a matter of fact, both appear to be based on a book called "Bringing Down the House" although only 21 properly credits the book. It would thus appear that it's the Last Casino which is technically the ripoff. I have seen both movies but it's been a long time since I saw Last Casino and will not compare them here.
Now that this is cleared, it's time to look at 21 on its own merits, which are unfortunately few. The movie is competently directed, rather luscious and features a pretty impressive cast. The premise is rather interesting and Jim Sturgess, whom I had never noticed before, pulls an engrossing lead performance as Ben Campbell, a poor but extremely promising young man looking for a way ($$$) to get to Harvard. He gets the opportunity of a life time when a group of students led by a teacher offer him to be in on a counting card scheme to "beat the system" and get rich quick. Naturally, Ben is portrayed as a decent guy who becomes conflicted between following the straight path or becoming caught in the high life of Vegas and quick bucks, not to mention his feelings for one of his partners in crime. And the script flows smoothly and the frames are pretty and everything is hip... but there are problems with the movies nonetheless and they start with expectations one might have.
The movie is called 21 and the entire plot capsule revolves around Blackjack and casinos... yet you never get much of a feel for the game. It's brushed off by a script and direction which seem totally uninterested in that aspect. Instead, we seem content to follow young and ambitious Ben on his journey, where the director highlights how pretty and fast and tempting and easy everything gets in Vegas. Now, I do respect wanting to illustrate and emphasize that, but not at the expense of the actual game of cards and the science that goes around it. And that's where 21 fails most. Another rather important (and somewhat related) aspect is that of choices and decisions, or lack thereof. In 21, our protagonist almost never makes decisions. Be it at the game table or his personal life. The whole movie screams for decisions to be made, it revolves around the weight of choices. When to bet. When to stop. When to resist temptation. When to confide in close friends or family members. Yet these important elements are ignored, or handled off screen in the most bland way. As a result, the thrill we would (should) feel for Ben, the tension that should exist, is never there. We as an audience never feel any indecision, we never question what is going to happen as Ben goes from plot point A to B to C and so on... this ends up being a catastrophic failure.
I really feel director Robert Luketic's previous experiences (his resume is filled with bland, vanilla romantic comedies that require a railroading script) put him as a disadvantage because 21 falls flat on its face. Kevin Spacey, as a sort of flawed mentor is wasted as his character only seem to further the plot and equally, Laurence Fishburne as a main antagonist with shades of gray is a non-factor for the story. The movie (much like Kate Bosworth) is pretty enough that you won't skip parts but it all feels remote and lacking in realism or real sense of drama. It's a tremendous idea but left unfinished and sketchy. How can an action-thriller with a super-heroic icon and a busy plot like Casino Royale succeed in highlighting both the romance, the gambling aspect and a fulfilling story while the much more straightforward 21 fails at highlighting anything? Poor story and direction.
Watch The Cincinnati Kid or Rounders instead.