The Fine Line Between Clever and Stupid: June 2009

Monday, June 22, 2009

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

Sunday, June 21, 2009

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.