Reviewing 21's Trailer

email this story
read comments (14)
post a comment

New Republic senior editor Christopher Orr has written a review of Robert Luketic's 21 (Sony, 3.26) that's based solely on the trailer. The point is that with 97% of today's trailers giving 97% of the film away, who needs to see the feature? Orr says he'll review the film itself tomorrow. I've seen the long version of 21 and can say with authority that Orr's reactions aren't very different from reviews of the film.

I knew the movie would be simultaneously pretty good and not great based on the opening trailer clip. Jim Sturgess, a part-time retail salesman, quickly tallies some numbers and percentages in front of a couple of customers. His character, an MIT student, is obviously a numerical whiz, but the moment is ruined when he smiles sheepishly and says to the customers, "I'm pretty good with numbers." Nothing kills like over-emphasis.

Zack and Miri on 10.31<< previous | next >>New Tracking

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM

comment #1

Geoff says ...

Thank you for pointing that out Wells.

I thought the same exact thing when I saw this trailer. If he's bold enough to do that kind of thing in front of people, don't just turn around and be modest. I'm sure that scene would be much more effective if he just left it at that and said see you at the register.

Posted by Geoff at March 27, 2008 11:57 AM

comment #2

Pelham123 says ...

I'm not defending today's the state of today's trailers which are for the most part uninspired but if you go back and look at the previews from back in the '40's you'll see they did the very same thing --give the entire movie away in less than two minutes. Now, things did change after that, for awhile, and now here we are back in the same spot. The more thiings change the more they stay the same.

Posted by Pelham123 at March 27, 2008 12:00 PM

comment #3

robbiefantastic says ...

i still say see "the last casino" which "21" looks like the big budget brother to. great little low budget flick set in montreal instead of vegas.....i thought it was alot of fun and it's got the hot ass katherine isabelle in it......

Posted by robbiefantastic at March 27, 2008 12:02 PM

comment #4

hollywoodtease says ...

Should have stuck with the title of the book it is based on "Bringing Down the House". Not going to be too many surprises here for those that know the story however. Book was a good read, movie shoud be fun as well. Will wait for video however.

Posted by hollywoodtease at March 27, 2008 12:11 PM

comment #5

berkguru says ...

The book was excellent but the movie will blow.

As with most sports movies, most gambling movies really do suck.

Even Rounders which is probably the gold standard has ridiculous poker-related scenes in it.

Best gambling movie ever is The Gambler with James Caan.

And what is up with the Kevin Spacey / Kate Bosworth movie connection. Very odd that they are always in the same movie.

Posted by berkguru at March 27, 2008 12:17 PM

comment #6

actionman says ...

I'll catch it on dvd...maybe...

I just have no desire to see this one for some reason...not sure exactly why that is.

Posted by actionman at March 27, 2008 12:29 PM

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

Looks like a remake of Sneakers to me...

Posted by D.Z. at March 27, 2008 3:25 PM

comment #8

admiralmpj says ...

Okay, my Father is a Professor of Mathematics. He in fact used to be Chairman of his Department. I have lived around him, and other Mathematicians all my life. I have been around Mathematical Graduate Students, one pining for PhDs all my life, and let me tell you...the ability to add large numbers in your head isn't necessarily a sign of mathematical genius.

If you were to provide my Father with a list of large numbers, most of the time, he's going to whip out a piece of paper...you know, add 'em up like the rest of us do.

Mathematical talent is found in people who understand, intuitively how numbers work together. They work on the formulas and the theorem that made your life hell in Freshman Calc. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s recognizing systems and processes out of thin air, not tabulating a grocery bill. My dad loves the process and trying to figure that stuff out. It has been his lifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work. It got him out of being desperately poor in a small town in Texas. And even though heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about to retire in two years, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll never stop working on that stuff.

One of the things that drive me crazy about Hollywood's portrayal of Mathematics is to this day, they don't get it. Writing your formulations on a window (A Beautiful Mind), come on! You need to save that stuff to go over later. What if the cleaning lady gets to it? ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a great shot, but it has nothing to do with reality. The pursuit of a formula drives you and your daughter slowly insane? (Proof) Aaah no. Again, a real Mathematician lives to crack FourierÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Last TheoremÃ¢â‚¬Â¦and when canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get it, he walks away from it for a while, and comes back.

At least Numbers deals with a guy trying to figure things out at a chalkboard. That guy at least I recognize.

21 is just the latest in a looooong line of bad Mathematical movies. Hollywood thinks the numbers are pretty, but at their heart, they havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the faintest idea of whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s going on.

Posted by admiralmpj at March 27, 2008 4:07 PM

comment #9

KevinTC says ...

"a real Mathematician lives to crack FourierÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Last TheoremÃ¢â‚¬Â¦and when canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get it, he walks away from it for a while, and comes back."

Maybe so, admiralmpj, but that sounds like a pretty fucking boring movie to me.

Posted by KevinTC at March 27, 2008 4:54 PM

comment #10

KevinTC says ...

Not that I'm a big fan of PROOF or anything.

Posted by KevinTC at March 27, 2008 5:03 PM

comment #11

K. Bowen says ...

The funny thing is, I just wrote over on my blog that this was one of those occasional times that I went into a 60-40 movie and enjoyed it more than expected, and certainly more than the trailer suggested.

And the film points out that this isn't brilliant mathematics, just smart people who are very observant and quick and unusually accurate at adding.

Posted by K. Bowen at March 27, 2008 6:15 PM

comment #12