Was the story accurate?

[Erotica]

Did Micky Rosa really out his team like he did in the movie, and was the ending correct with the team conspiring with the pit to capture Micky?

[KenSmith]

http://www.mickeyrosa.com has a discussion of many of the errors in the movie.
Particularly this post:
http://mickeyrosa.com/?p=13

I also got an email from MR asking me to correct an error in the
Interview with Mike Aponte. The cheating casino Aponte mentions wasn't Budapest, but Prague.
The interview here has been corrected.

[Sonny]

The book was considerably “embellished” and the movie was even farther from the truth. Keep in mind that they were both written to entertain, not to educate. It’s a “soap opera” version of the truth.

-Sonny-

[callipygian]

I don't want to sound like a dick, but why do people ask whether "21" is real? How many Vietnam movies and teary-eyed dramas do you watch with the phrase "inspired by a true story" in front and wonder if it's true to life?

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by callipygian

How many Vietnam movies and teary-eyed dramas do you watch with the phrase "inspired by a true story" in front and wonder if it's true to life?

But what about that movie Fargo? That story was totally true. It even said so in the credits.

-Sonny-

[rogue1]

The book and the movie are fun!

[bluewhale]

Originally Posted by callipygian

I don't want to sound like a dick, but why do people ask whether "21" is real? How many Vietnam movies and teary-eyed dramas do you watch with the phrase "inspired by a true story" in front and wonder if it's true to life?

I think you're completely missing the point. I'm not upset that the story didn't follow what the actual MIT people did. Or even that the characters aren't accurate to real life. They are after all telling a story and should feel free to change it however they like. HOWEVER when you do tell a story it should fit properly with itself. So when i watch a movie like mr and mrs smith and look at the final scene where brangalina are completely surrounded by 20 fully armed men and then they proceed to run out into the middle of them and kill each one of them with pistols I find the whole thing ridiculous and think its a bad movie.

The same kind of thing applies here. When i see a team who's strategy relies on pretending to not know each other in a casino walk into that casino and glance at each other ever 5 min I find it ridiculous. Theres a ton of other things like them actually discussing basic strategy the night before they go to vegas (having supposedly trained for weeks)... let alone mickey agreeing that on the wrong BS. And ofcourse the biggest one is the fact that Laurence Fishbourne's character assaulted and confined several people through the movie and nobody thought of calling the police. The story simply didn't work with itself. I don't care that they tried to make it different from the original story. In fact I think it would be cool to write a new story. But it must work.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by bluewhale

when i watch a movie like mr and mrs smith and look at the final scene where brangalina are completely surrounded by 20 fully armed men and then they proceed to run out into the middle of them and kill each one of them with pistols I find the whole thing ridiculous and think its a bad movie.

I think this is the main difference between us. When saw that scene, I was willing to suspend disbelief. I'm willing to accept Outbreak doesn't really describe what an outbreak is like, and that Saving Private Ryan doesen't really describe what World War II was like, and Rain Man or 21 doesn't really describe what card counting is like. I'm willing to do that before I walk into the theater.

Now, if you don't do that, that's up to you. I think you're missing out , but you're self-consistent in disliking unrealistic movies, no matter what the genre.

I'm saying that most people who ask about 21 aren't self-consistent. They gladly accept that Apollo 13 is an embellished, fictionalized account of something that is based in reality, but then somehow think 21 is, or has to be, a documentary.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by bluewhale

I think you're completely missing the point. I'm not upset that the story didn't follow what the actual MIT people did. Or even that the characters aren't accurate to real life. They are after all telling a story and should feel free to change it however they like. HOWEVER when you do tell a story it should fit properly with itself. So when i watch a movie like mr and mrs smith and look at the final scene where brangalina are completely surrounded by 20 fully armed men and then they proceed to run out into the middle of them and kill each one of them with pistols I find the whole thing ridiculous and think its a bad movie.

The same kind of thing applies here. When i see a team who's strategy relies on pretending to not know each other in a casino walk into that casino and glance at each other ever 5 min I find it ridiculous. Theres a ton of other things like them actually discussing basic strategy the night before they go to vegas (having supposedly trained for weeks)... let alone mickey agreeing that on the wrong BS. And ofcourse the biggest one is the fact that Laurence Fishbourne's character assaulted and confined several people through the movie and nobody thought of calling the police. The story simply didn't work with itself. I don't care that they tried to make it different from the original story. In fact I think it would be cool to write a new story. But it must work.

One thing I couldn't help but notice was a principle of political correctness that has existed for the past 30 years was broken by this movie- there was one black guy in it and he was evil. (But at least he could count!)

Overall, I got exactly what I expected from the movie. You'd have to actually be an AP to make it any more accurate. And it then wouldn't be a good movie to anyone but an AP. And you know how rare we are.

If I were to make a movie about AP, it would be about the different kinds of minds, the psychologies that exist in the trade, and how they relate to what we need to do at the table. Eliot Jacobson touches on some of it in his book.

In terms of accuracy, I would at least hope it is absolutely inaccurate. Let's see: foolish cash handling practices, temper tantrum at the table, outrageous signaling, violating the Freemasonry standard for recruiting (the recruit is supposed to seek out the organization not the other way around), getting involved with females when you are playing, playing in an illegal club, going into a back room without a fight. I certainly wouldn't comingle my bankroll with these guys. Anybody ever hear of getting into a good count, getting your hands in, then going next door? It wouldn't make for a very interesting movie though.

[Snapper21]

The movie captured the essence of a team of players beating the casinos at their own game. Other than that, the stories were almost 100% made up. There was no MIT professor who started and ran the team or who stole from his players. In fact, the founder and leader of the team was a Harvard College and Harvard Business School graduate - http://www.necn.com/Boston/Arts-Ente...207956706.html

Other fiction - The basis for the lead character was not poor, didn't have a mother who worked in a bar, and never applied to Harvard Medical School. No one ever got beaten up by employees who worked for the detective agency employed by the casinos, and training for and winning at the game was 100 times tougher than shown. Players also never tipped, didn't frequent with strippers, and were not allowed to drink when playing.

But, as others have said, this was not meant to be a documentary, but a Hollywood movie "inspired" by a true story. Seen in that light, it certainly succeeded.