Read More @HJ Reviews: Taking Vegas Elisabeth Leitch What Do You Need? Jacob Sahms Previews: Trailer, Photos, Overview David Bruce, Webmaster Ah, Moral Dilemmas Jacob Sahms

By now, most people reading this are familiar with the basic story of 21. Based on Ben Mezrich's book Bringing Down the House, the film tells the true tale of some super-smart MIT students who use a blackjack card-counting scheme to "take Vegas for Millions," as the book's subtitle boasts. According to most people who have read the book and seen the movie, the latter often leaves-off factuality in favor of entertainment when compared with the former.

I haven't read the book, but upon seeing the film last night, I think I have a sense of what these people mean. In my opinion, though generally well-made and entertaining, the movie needed to spend more time on the truly interesting kernel of the story: how the card-counting scheme originated, how it developed, how it worked. I mean, I'm the opposite of a "math person," but I longed for way more complicated explications of the math involved than were given. There was really only one scene depicting the main character at a blackjack table actually using their system in a way the viewer could follow. It seems that the complicated details surrounding the events, for the most part, were left off so that more cinematic time could be spent doing montages of Vegas spending sprees, glitzy strip-club shots, "twists" at the end—so that more time could be spent developing that requisite love story.

Then, to top it off, the final act gets bogged down in very overt, predictable, and even unconvincing loose-end-tying-with-"twists"—the kind that you knew had to happen, so it didn't matter much when you saw it finally happening. The "bad guy" gets his, Ben "learns his lesson," the sympathetic Fishburne is vindicated, the "forgotten friends" back in Boston forgive Ben for his sins . . . you get the idea. And no, I'm not saying I dislike tidy/happy endings, just that the first hour-and-a-half of 21 didn't really justify this kind of patness. The filmmakers wanted me to be saying, "Winner, winner, chicken dinner!" when the credits rolled, but I was more like, "Eh, broke even."

However, despite how obvious a morality play 21 turned out to be, it's still interesting just how many diverse morals turn up in it upon reflection. For example, the Apostle Paul famously said "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" (not, incidentally, that "money is the root of all evil"). 21 underlines this nicely in several ways: first, once Ben has the taste of winning in his mouth—once he's made part of that "millions"—he becomes selfish to a fault, forgetting friends, goals, promises, and so on. Second, simple greed begins to motivate much of his actions later in the story, and pride is what precipitates his major downfall near the end. Watch closely enough, and 21 will also point out that the love of money can lead to unwise and rash decisions, jealousy, dishonesty, superficiality, and more.

Of course, some might argue that Ben isn't completely culpable in all this. He isn't really greedy or selfish . . . he's just a good, "nerdy" kid who gets caught up in something too big, too fast. He forgets who he really is, really wants to be, but it's too late, and then he gets a second chance at the end, yada yada. Someone might even argue that it is because of his implicit innocence, his naivety, that he gets his second chance. All this is true too, which points out some further thematic elements of the movie: "beware the big city," "be careful what you wish for," "don't forget where you come from," "remember who your friends are," "learn from your mistakes," "everyone gets a second chance," etc., etc. In other words: there's nowhere to turn in this movie that isn't flashing a handful of moralizing in your face.

But you know: I'm okay with that. As overt as all the teaching really is in 21, it remains instructive that this is how modern America teaches itself morality to a large extent. Maybe, like Jesus, we have realized that if you want to teach someone how to behave, the best way to do it is usually to tell them a story. A cautionary tale, even, like this one. And honestly: the morals depicted here are all good, positive ones anyway—the movie certainly speaks to the need for redemption—so why quibble about quality? Sure, you could watch a higher-quality, somewhat-similar-veined movie if you wanted. The excellent Rounders, for example. But something like that may be more complicated, may not as obviously speak to spirituality for some.

In the end, then, 21 was a decent, albeit imperfect movie. A great premise and excellent cast helped the film on its way to pointing out some completely valid things about the human experience. And so, for all that, hours of reflection after the credits rolled, it turns out that it can be given a qualified "Winner, winner, chicken dinner!"