[Patrick Sun]

Quick setup, super-smart MIT student Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is 'drafted' into a blackjack ring headed by Prof. Rosa (Kevin Spacey) and 4 other MIT students, who go on weekend jaunts to Las Vegas to win money. "Counting cards" is the method used for opportunistic blackjack play, and the team members are situated as spotters and players to get the best of a hot shoe in blackjack. Ben just wants to go to Harvard medical school, but needs either a full ride scholarship, or $300,000. The odds of winning the scholarship being greater than earning the money needed via blackjack is most of the impetus for Ben to join in on the fun, also having Jill (Kate Bosworth) in the mix and on the team didn't hurt the cause.

What follows is somewhat of a roller-coaster ride of the highs and lows of playing big and and betting recklessly. The film has a 4-act structure, and it languishes in between the 2nd and 3rd act, which causes the film to drag in spots, and feels about 10 minutes too long. Outside of some nifty tracking shots here and there, the direction didn't call attention to itself, and the script needed a little more polish (or a bit more editing to tighten it up).

I give it 2.75 stars or a grade of B-.

[DaveF]

Patrick, does it depict the elaborate team system they used for counting cards and beating the odds? I read the article in Wired (?) about this "team" (wow, back in 2002) -- I think the article preceded the book, from which the movies comes.

The original story was riveting, and the description of the game play impressive. I'm interested in the move if it gets at the true events, even if wrapped up in Hollywood-ized fluff.

[Patrick Sun]

It waters it down (probably scared to confuse the general audience with the actual mechanics).

[Adam Lenhardt]

I remember seeing signs directing the production around on my evening commute a while back for this film.

[DaveF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

It waters it down (probably scared to confuse the general audience with the actual mechanics).

Bummer. That was the best part of the whole thing: the elegantly engineering social system to beat the Casinos.

This moves to my rental list.

[Holadem]

The trailer was interesting until it stayed it's welcome and told what looked like the whole story.

--
H

[Shawn_KE]

Thought it was ok, but seemed very long.

[Brett_M]

This film is dull and thinks it's better than it really is.

Pedantic and muddled for sure -- but beyond that it's formulaic and lowest common denominator. Example: They learn to count cards but never explain how counting cards makes you win at Blackjack.

"The count is +13. Wow! I win again! I hope this doesn't change me. Oh, no -- my old friends hate me now. My mentor is now my enemy and he ruined my life! I know, I'll engineer a perfectly lame revenge plot with a scenery-chewing former enemy who is the enemy of my former mentor-turned enemy. I really learned a lot from this experience."

Even the tagline on the poster sucks: "The students who changed the game forever." How did they change the game? They cheated? Everyone tries to cheat. The 10 minute Blackjack cheaters sequence in Casino is better than this whole movie. The Vegas sequence in Rain Man (referenced in 21) is better than this movie.

This is pussy filmmaking. Makes Rounders look like Citizen Kane.