Taken together all of those things add up to one disappointing movie. But what could the filmmakers really have done to make this a satisfying film? If they had made these characters look like their real life counterparts (i.e. not particularly attractive) and rendered what happens to them in convincing detail (rather than oversimplifying everything to the point that a five-year-old could follow it) they would have alienated the very audience they were trying to reach. And a film like this, were it to be made better, would not have found another audience among more discerning moviegoers. Basically, if this film were better, it’s likely that no one would go see it.
That’s an interesting paradox. I can’t think of any other instance in which a film has a worse chance of success if it were made better. Critics and general audiences tend to think that the same can be said about horror films but the reputation and lasting impact of films like Halloween and Psycho disprove that notion. Perhaps this paradox is somewhat true of stupid comedies but there the goal is to be funny and that’s the only relevant criteria. No one making a stupid comedy is trying to make a bad movie, they’re just not trying to make a smart one. The filmmakers behind 21, on the other hand, set out to make a decidedly middlebrow film. That they achieved that goal marks the film as a success. It just so damn odd that you can set out to make a bad film and be rewarded for it.
