Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here.

Have I mentioned before how much I find games of chance to be irritating on film?

I’m pretty sure I first wrote about this when they decided to change the featured game from baccarat to poker in CASINO ROYALE. In the end, I think it didn’t really matter because the card-playing was next to irrelevant in the Bond film. They could have been playing CANDY LAND for all it mattered. Ultimately, it was just an excuse for Mads Mikkelsen and Daniel Craig to glower at each other across a table for a while before the ball-slapping began.

I am personally mystified by the rise of televised poker. I understand the allure of playing the game, but watching someone else play it? Color me clueless. At least with televised poker, though, there’s still some sense of random chance. Watching people play cards in a movie, the deck is quite literally stacked by the screenwriter, and as a result, I find it almost immeasurably boring to watch people play a fictional card game.

So why would I even bother seeing Zak Penn’s new film THE GRAND or Robert Luketic’s 21? They’re both Vegas movies, both all card playing, centered on a culture I just don’t enjoy watching. In both cases, though, it wasn’t the card-culture that made me decide to go see the films. In the case of THE GRAND, it was Zak Penn that got me to say yes. I really enjoyed his last pseudo-documentary, INCIDENT AT LOCH NESS, and I thought his cast was great this time out. With 21, it’s the real-life story of card-counting super-genius kids that intrigued me. So I decided to do a little bit of gambling of my own and take a chance.

And... I'll try to stop making hideous Vegas/gambling "jokes" that. I swear.

Of the two, THE GRAND is the more satisfying overall experience. It’s a well-acted ensemble comedy that demonstrates a real evolution on the part of Penn as a filmmaker.

21, on the other hand, strikes me as a slick but phony bastardization of a genuinely interesting story, and in certain regards, it strikes me as almost unbearably racist.

Let’s talk about the good film first. THE GRAND is a “documentary” about the various personalities drawn to compete in a Vegas poker championship. That’s all the synopsis you need. It’s not really a flat-out farce like the Christopher Guest films, but I think tha’ts probably the closest comparison you could make. Penn and his co-writer Matt Bierman actually seem to love both the losers and the winners in this tournament, and what I liked most in the film is the way these personal stories spill into the actual gameplay. The best example is the story of Larry Schwartzman (David Cross), his sister Lanie (Cheryl Hines) and their father Seth (Gabe Kaplan). Both Larry and Lanie are in the tournament, and over the course of the film, we see how Seth has played them off each other their whole lives, hoping to turn them both into fierce competitors by showering Lanie with love and praise that he withholds completely from Larry. You look at those three actor’s names... David Cross, Cheryl Hines, Gabe Kaplan... and you’d be justified in thinking that the storyline would be played in the broadest comic way possible, but instead, they play it as real as they can, and I found myself genuinely moved by the way their storyline resolves. I didn’t even know Gabe Kaplan was capable of this kind of work, and Penn deserves real credit for drawing it out of him. There are certainly broad comic elements at play in some of the other storylines, like Woody Harrelson’s performance as “One-Eyed” Jack Faro, or Chris Parnell’s clinched-fist portrayal of Harold Melvin, autistic card sharp. Werner Herzog is probably the most one-note performance in the film, and even he manages to elicit some big laughs in his scenes. Overall, THE GRAND isn’t a film of great consequence, but it’s a solid and diverting little character comedy, and it plays whether you’re a poker fan or not, probably the highest praise I can offer a film like this.

It’s odd to me that we ran an interview on this site with Jeff Ma, said to be the inspiration for the main character in the film. I may be the one with the problem... I may be misunderstanding the term “main character.” Because to me, it looks like the main character is played by Jim Sturgess.

By the way... a quick digression: I have a theory.

Someone at Sony is convinced that Jim Sturgess is a movie star. They are absolutely certain of it. They used him in ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, and they used him in this, and word is that he’s starring on Broadway in Julie Taymor’s musical version of SPIDER-MAN. If they are really as invested in him as I think they are, and if Taymor’s musical does well, then I’m going to venture a guess there’s a chance he could wear the Peter Parker red-and-blues onscreen when Tobey Maguire decides he’s done. If that’s SPIDER-MAN 4... or 5... or whenever it is...

Just a theory.

Ben Campbell (Sturgess) is the wide-eyed innocent math genius who gets drafted into the wild ride and seedy underworld of counting cards professionally in Las Vegas, under the watchful eye of his brilliant-but-degenerate mentor and professor, Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). The movie is Ben’s journey from innocent to asshole to redeemed good guy, and it’s all fairly slick and even frequently entertaining. But it’s also sort of bullshit. If you’re going to buy a not-terribly-well-written book like BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE, you’re buying it because the story is worthwhile. That’s what sold copies. That’s what people are intrigued by. Not a made up story about a bunch of pretty and quirky kids who learn a hard-but-not-that-hard lesson from stern old Cole Williams (played by stern old Larry Fishburne). People love the idea of a bunch of MIT students who really did figure out a way to screw the system and beat Vegas. That’s like a dream-come-true for most people. If you are at all drawn to the promise of Vegas, then you’re probably drawn to the true story, and buying that book would imply that you’re interested in telling that story.

Did I mention there’s a montage of the characters trying on clothes? Robert Luketic... j’accuse. That is the romantic comedy director’s equivalent of a Tourette’s Syndrome tic. And I think that’s the thing that is most wrong with the film. It’s played like a romantic comedy, and it shouldn’t be. He’s one of those guys who is great at showing the glossy side of the story, but the rough stuff eludes him. Reality’s not his strong suit; it’s a romp, when in fact, the true story is something grittier.

And, look... Luketic’s not bad at what he does. Like I said... it’s slick. He’s good with his cast. Kevin Spacey seems to have a pretty good time working with Sturgess and Kate Bosworth (for the third time) and Aaron Yoo and Liza Lapira and Jacob Pitts, the other students involved in the card counting operation. If you’re looking for something Teflon and painless, I guess you could do worse.

But when I said I felt the film was racist on an accidental but unsettling level, it's that casual nature of it that bothers me most. Why can't Jeff Ma be the lead? Why can't we see this film with an Asian lead actor, if the real-life person the film is "inspired by" was Asian? It seems arbitrary. Reflexive. And regressive all at once.

I've got other reviews I'll be posting this weekend, including one film that I seem to be liking more and more as I stew on it. I may save that review for last to see how I feel after writing about everything else. It's a reaction I haven't had to a movie in a while... that sort of sneak attack ambush admiration like this.

Anyway... let's see if I can post one more before bed...

Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles