Movie 154: 21

21 (2008) by Robert Luketic

starring Jim Burgess and Kevin Spacey

In a nutshell: I had issues reconciling the final product with the book on which it was supposedly based, but if you let it stand independently then its an acceptible, if predictable, Hollywood gambling movie

Quick synopsis: A team of MIT students devise a card counting strategy to beat the house at blackjack, and begin making a killing in Vegas. Things predictably go downhill from there.

Content: By popular request the blog is coming back to life after a lengthy 4th of July vacation. I expected the worst from 21. I had once seen the beginning on a plane before dozing off and my first impression was not a good one. But for some reason I decided to finally finish it.

21 is based on Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrich, a non-fiction book. If you want a faithful adaptation of the book, stay far away from 21. It has been given the Hollywood treatment. The drama has been ramped up tenfold, with lots of confrontations between Rosa (Spacey) and Ben (Jim Sturgess). A pointless love story is even added for good measure. God forbid a movie about blackjack is absent a love story. The nameless casino security teams hot on their tale in the book is given not only a name, but a face as well. That of Larry Fishburne. And finally, twists are added at the end that has absolutely nothing to do with real life.

So we've established that 21 fails as an adaptation, but let's try to review it on its own merits. The verdict is that its really not as bad as I feared it would be. There are cliches galore. My favorite cliche used was the old "guy ditches his old nerdy friends for cool new friends, but the old friends eventually confront him about it." Off the top of my head, I remember this being used in Rookie of the Year and The Skulls, and I'm sure those weren't the only instances.

The movie is actually well made. It does a good job with Vegas and kept me on the edge of my seat a bit after I realized that we weren't following the book anymore. And believe it or not, I actually didn't see the final twist coming and found myself actually taking a side as far as who I wanted to come out on top. Maybe I'd call it a guilty pleasure, but it kinda worked for me.

Spacey is good as the morally corrupt prof, Fishburne is intimidating as an old-school Vegas enforcer, and Jim Sturgess is average looking enough for a role as an MIT whiz kid. Thank goodness they didn't cast a better looking guy cuz that probably would have drov me nuts. Sturgess's aw-shucks demeanor allowed me to buy into the humble genius he was selling to me. I also like Josh Gad who plays the small role of Ben's geeky best friend. I've seen this guy on Numb3rs and The Daily Show and he really has something original going for him. The weakest like was EASILY Kate Bosworth. The love story between her and Ben was the worst part of the entire movie. It was completely unneccessary in every way. There was no chemistry between the two actors and all their flirting seemed forced.

Another thing that bugged me was the movie's use of the famous "Monty Hall problem". For those of you who have never taken statistics, the problem is set on a game show (hosted by Mr. Hall) where there are three doors, one of which has a prize behind it. The contestant selects a door and Monty then reveals one of the two incorrect doors and gives the contestant an opportunity to switch between the two remaining doors in search of the prize. The question is: should the contestant switch?

Anybody worth their weight in graphing calculators knows that by switching, the contestant raises his odds of winning from 1/3 to 2/3. If you want to know why, write me an email. This is a movie blog, not a stats class.

So anyway, my problem with its use was that it's clearly meant to be something that gets the audience's attention when Ben gives the counterintuitive correct answer and then pulls them into this world of crazy math when he briefly explains its solution. But the problem is that it's a fairly common question to encounter in school. I have probably come across it at least 3 times in my academic career, so all it did was make me groan and feel like I was being patronized. I'm sure the writer was not a statitician and thought that he had found a really flashy, cool problem to use, but it's not.

So, don't rush out and rent 21, but don't be afraid to leave it on if you encounter it on cable. It's fine but it's not good. I didn't appreciate the way it was marketed to me as being based on the book when in reality the only thing they had in common were MIT students playing blackjack, but if you can look past the false advertising (or if you haven't even read the book) then by all means check 21 out.

My last complaint is about the book itself. As I said before, it is called Bringing Down the House, but after this movie came out, I saw a new edition of the book rebranded as 21! Shameless.

Rolling rankings:

1. Punch-Drunk Love (#147)

2. In Bruges(#153)

3. Star Trek (#146)

4. Up (#149)

5. I.O.U.S.A. (#150)

6. Burn After Reading (#152)

7. The Da Vinci Code (#151)

8. 21 (#154)

9. Star Trek: Generations (#148)

10. Bottle Shock (#145)

key:

masterpiece

excellent

good

mixed bag

more bad than good

garbage

Movie 153: In Bruges

In Bruges (2008) by Martin McDonagh

starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson

In a nutshell: A work of uncompromising creativity from a newcomer who will probably be around for a long time

Quick synopsis: After a job goes wrong, two hitmen are sent to lay low in Belgium and are told to enjoy the medieval city of Bruges while awaiting further instructions

Content: It took me a long time to finally see In Bruges, one of 2008's buzzworthy under-the-radar films, even though I was sure that I would like it. Turns out it was worth the wait. In Bruges was written and directed by Martin McDonagh, a successful playwright who made his motion picture debut a year or two earlier with the Oscar-nominated short film, Six Shooter. In 'In Bruges' McDonagh once again proves himself to be a worthy writer, while also proving himself to be surprisingly capable behind the camera as well.

Heading into In Bruges, I was expecting something a little different than what I got. I was expecting a flashy, European crime caper along the lines of Snatch or Layer Cake. And although the guns eventually come out (after all, it is about hitmen), it actually a very character driven script. Our two main characters question their calling, the meaning of events that have transpired and even hell and purgatory. The closest thing I can think to compare it to is Grosse Point Blank, except darker and with less overt comedy.

The acting is very good. Brendan Gleeson is his usual solid self and Colin Farrell turns out to be very entertaining when he isn't taking himself too seriously. My favorite, though, was Ralph Fiennes who doesn't show up until towards the end of the film. But he explodes onto the scene and puts on a sociopathic show worthy of Gary Oldman or William Hurt's character in A History of Violence.

The relationship between the two hitmen (Gleeson and Farrell) is where all the meat is. Gleeson appears to be somewhat of a mentor to Farrell from the start, but McDonagh expertly reveals the depth of their relationship gradually throughout the film until he is forced to make the ultimate decision. Farrell acts tough, taking every chance he gets to put down both the city of Bruges and the tourists that populate it. But in moments of weakness, usually facilitated by substances, he reveals a soul tortured by a single tragic event that is causing him to question everything. His character has serious depth to him. His fascination with midgets could have come across SO badly with even the slightest misstep, but as it is, it just seems like some bizarre yet realistic quirk.

Some people I've spoken to don't like the ending of In Bruges, but I will defend it. The last 15 minutes are dramatically different than the rest of the movie and that really bothered some people. But I simply viewed as a release of all the pressure that had been building up during the first 2 hours. It was necessary. I even like the somewhat vague ending narrated by a character as if he is watching his own possible demise play out from a third person point of view.

The greatest advantage that In Bruges has over other recent crime movie that are trying to come from a similar place (see: Lucky Number Slevin, etc.) is that Martin McDonagh is a writer first and foremost. And it really pays off. In many other movies, we aren't paying that close of attention to the script the first time through because of the eye candy, and when we do pay more attention the second time through, we realize that script was actually simpler than we believed and that we have nothing more to gain from it. But with In Bruges, I am actually excited to rewatch the film and pay closer attention to the meaty script. There's no doubt that I will learn more about these two complex characters by doing so.

I hope In Bruges leads to bigger things for Martin McDonagh. 10 years from now, we could easily be calling In Bruges his Reservoir Dogs.

Rolling rankings:

1. Punch-Drunk Love (#147)

2. In Bruges(#153)

3. Star Trek (#146)

4. Up (#149)

5. I.O.U.S.A. (#150)

6. Role Models (#144)

7. Burn After Reading (#152)

8. The Da Vinci Code (#151)

9. Star Trek: Generations (#148)

10. Bottle Shock (#145)

key:

masterpiece

excellent

good

mixed bag

more bad than good

garbage

Random Thoughts

Just wanted to stick in a few random thoughts between movies:

Went to two concerts in the past week at the Bowery Ballroom. What a nice venue. It's not in the best area of the city, but it's "intimate" and it still attracts some significant acts. We were told that the capacity is 600 and it seems like they could squeeze in several hundred more. But I am very glad that they don't because I actually have some personal space which lets me enjoy the music more. I can't stand being packed in like sardines, so I really appreciate that they stick to 600 (even though it is most likely the fire department I should be thanking for assigning that number).

The first concert was The Hold Steady, a lively rock band originally from Minnesota and currently based in Brooklyn. Although I haven't encountered too many friends that are familiar with them, they have received a fair bit of national attention, especially in Rolling Stone. I really enjoyed their show. Their music is pretty raw to begin with, lending itself to being played live very well. Whether you hated him or loved him, the lead singer was definitely the main attraction. I have never seen anyone else in concert who seems to love what he is doing as much as this guy. The perpetual smile that he wears on-stage is infectious. I can understand how his voice and speech-like delivery might turn off some listeners, but I think it's what makes the band unique.

The best live songs were "Lord, I'm Discouraged", "Chips Ahoy" and "Most People Are DJs". These songs gave the talented guitarist the opportunity to shred a little. I only wish they let him solo a little more because he can really tear it up. He also needs to develop more of a personality, because that is something he sorely lacks, especially in comparison to the singer and keyboardist who have personality to spare.

The second show was Jonathan Richman. He is a cult hero from the 70's who, at times, has been credited for writing the first "proto-punk" song, "Roadrunner". The best word I can use to describe his show is enigmatic. He started off on fire, mixing humors and song in a few tunes he seemed to be improvising on the spot. Including one about the "air-conditioning man" who needed to turn off the AC in the ballroom. He did.

After the first thirty minutes, I thought the show was on track to be one of the best I have ever seen, despite the fact that I hadn't yet recognized a single song, assuming he was saving his classics for later. But then songthing odd happened. He played several songs in a row in other languages. One in French, on in Spanish and one in Italian. I was willing to let Jonathan indulge himself a bit, but then it started dragging on. The fans were noticeably growing restless and began yelling out in between songs, requesting their favorites (and the awesome songs that I know). But Richman steadfastly refused to accomodate his fans. Meanwhile it had started getting HOT without the AC running. At first, Richman laughed off the audiences requests for him to sing a sequel to his AC song, asking for it to be put back on. But then the next time it came up, he announced that he is "picky about sound and atmosphere and air conditioning screws up both".

So by the time he reached his final song, he still had yet to play any of his classics and the crowd was rather dismayed at the temperature. Song requests from the crowd once again went unanswered and he took his leave. They show ended anticlimactically, after he did not respond to the crowd's applause while waiting for an encore. A stage hand appeared and signaled the lighting guy to turn the lights on, and that was it. Thankfully the concert only cost $15, so I cannot consider it a waste. But I was extremely disappointed with his song choices and with the way he treated his supposedly cult following. What a shame. Perhaps he played all the songs I wanted him to play the following night, but I couldn't be bothered to find out.

With television season coming to an end in May, the recording being done by my DVR has ground to almost a complete halt. The only show that has kept going into June is a little series called "Harper's Island." It's ratings started strong, but have fallen off a cliff. However, since it was more of a minseries than an open-ended show, with its entire run filmed already, CBS has thankfully decided to keep going til the end (albeit on Saturday night), which I am very thankful for because I LOVE THIS SHOW.

Called it guilty pleasure I guess, but the show takes place on a small island in the pacific northwest. Years earlier, there was a series of grizzly murders on the island, but the memory of these event has slowly faded into history. That is, until many of the island's former residents return for a wedding. On this isolated island, the murders begin again, and the viewers are left trying to put together the clues in order to figure out the killer's identity before he (or she) is the only one left. It is equal parts Agatha Christie whodunit and cheesy teen slasher flick (think Final Destination or Scream). The characters are cliches and shallow, but that's how these types of things work. The production quality is top notch, and the lack of recognizable faces is a good thing because it feels like anyone could be offed in any given episode and anyone could be the killer.

Week after week the sets are creepy (and awesome) and the tension is high. They gave us enough characters of equal importance, so that we are never sure when someone is about to eat it and when the producers are just messing with us. The length of the series allows them to really take their time killing people off, and now that we are 9 episodes in, I have developed at least some connection with all of the remaining characters. Some might complain that they have failed to drop any solid clues about who the killer is, and that all they have given us is red herring after red herring, but I don't mind. I believe that it is a fact that one of the significant characters is going to be the killer and I have changed my opinion of who that might be on a weekly basis. Just like they want me to. I just hope the ending is decent and doesn't come completely out of left field, so that I can rewatch the entire series consecutively and see how clever they actually were, or if they cheated at all.

Oh and a network of spooky maze-like underground tunnels is ALWAYS a good thing if you ask me.

And finally here comes my rant of the week: Increasingly, I have taken note of annoying tourists in New York City wearing these incredibly ugly neon-colored sweatshirts that look like they traveled through time straight out of 1990.

Although that one is purple, most of them are really obnoxious colors like hot pink. Could someone please explain to me the appeal of these? Are neon colors back in style? If so, will it take more than 2 months for them to once again look horribly dated? I guess it's nice to give the classic (and also overexposed) I-heart-NY shirts a rest, but for these pieces of junk? All these tourists cannot possibly be independently making the decision to buy these shirts, so what am I missing? Did Oprah promote them? Did a Jonas Brother wear one? Are they to promote the fight against cancer. Someone please explain cuz this one has left me feeling rather out of touch with society.

Movie 152: Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading (2008) by the Coen Brothers

starring Frances McDormand, George Clooney, John Malkovich and Brad Pitt

In a nutshell: Far from the best Coens movies, but still solid when the actors aren't getting in their own way by trying too hard to be quirky

Quick synopsis: A few low rent meatheads try to profit after finding some sensitive material accidentally left by an ex-CIA spook in their gym. Meanwhile everyone is sleeping with everyone and, naturally, trouble follows

Content:

Rolling rankings:

1. Vicky Cristina Barcelona (#143)

2. Punch-Drunk Love (#147)

3. Star Trek (#146)

4. Up (#149)

5. I.O.U.S.A. (#150)

6. Role Models (#144)

7. Burn After Reading (#152)

8. The Da Vinci Code (#151)

9. Star Trek: Generations (#148)

10. Bottle Shock (#145)

key:

masterpiece

excellent

good

mixed bag

more bad than good

garbage