MovieChat Forums > 21 (2008) Discussion > my theory (spoilers)

my theory (spoilers)

posted 2 years ago by daveyh (634)
3 replies | jump to latest

Watched this last night for the first time in about 10 years, and I couldn't help but think the entire story (save for the 2 Harvard interviews) takes place in Ben's imagination.
He read Bringing Down The House and concocted a "life experience" story based loosely on that.
I think he's even lying about his lifestyle prior to Vegas - hard to believe that someone with those looks, brains and likeable personality wouldn't be more popular and have a bigger circle of friends and a girlfriend, but by claiming to be an outcast beforehand, it just adds to his nerd-to-cool-guy-transformation story. Also hard to believe Jill Taylor would be single when she's so sought after.
It explains everything else - the fantasy version of Vegas (which is almost as sugary as Richard Curtis' fantasy London), a system which should only give them a 1% advantage paying out such huge dividends every time (and only finally making a small loss when it's needed to push the plot forward), the ill-conceived hiding money in the ceiling, and that convenience of the story being impossible to prove - no money to show for it, no-one in authority at MIT can vouch for it because it was kept secret etc.
In other words, all the flaws or ridiculous moments in the movie can be forgiven because they were part of a nearly 2-hour fantasy sequence.

[–] scannerdarkly (1397) 2 years ago

"based on a true story" do you mean the original story itself is a lie, that the movie is based on a lie? Because the movie was supposedly based on a true story. I know movies always embelish or glorify or dramatize true stories turning them into "true" stories xD sometimes so much that the movie is almost entirely made up compared to the actual events. But I assumed the original story was true, that math wizs at MIT did form a gambling group to cheat casinos. All kinds of people try to cheat casinos all the time.

You're theory is interesting, its been awhile since I saw the movie. They usually cast good looking people to be outcasts and nerds so I forgave them that.

[–] daveyh (634) 2 years ago

Sorry, I mean Ben's story of it happening to him is a lie.
The original story (Bringing Down the House) is true but, as ever, the movie takes so many liberties.
The main difference, as far as my OP goes, is that the protagonist wasn't doing it to get tuition money or a story for Harvard Med School. He was a top MIT graduate, so whatever job he went on to do would pay as good as card counting and then some. So he basically went along for fun.

As long as I don't know the original story in advance (and I didn't in this case), I can usually reconcile the changes Hollywood makes by figuring if they hadn't made a blockbuster movie about it, I wouldn't be looking up the original story in the first place.

[–] Fluffyudders (143) a year ago

I really like this theory and have now adopted it for myself. The way the 2 Harvard interviews are presented clinches it for me. It doesn't make sense to me that he would interview him twice like that, essentially telling him he needs a good story and then letting him go away and invent one. Makes far more sense that it's actually the SAME interview, and he's smart enough to concoct the story on the fly.