digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at reuters.com

'21' Gets A Chicken Dinner at the Box Office

reuters.com — The new gambling drama "21" played a winning hand at the weekend box office in North America, earning an estimated $23.7 million in its first round, distributor Columbia Pictures said on Sunday.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MattJF317, on 03/31/2008, -12/+20I'd recommend it
    • rudy23, on 03/31/2008, -3/+17I am trying to figure out if this is a genuine comment or just a generic spam comment.
    • JettaMan, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I saw a documentary of the story on which this was based and it was amazing. It was called "Breaking Vegas" and showed how these MIT people started a group that counted cards and put the odds in their favor. Looking forward to seeing this.
      • robbh66, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I can't remember if they mentioned it during breaking vegas but the "odds in their favor" amounted to a 1% bias- hardly anything.

        They used massive amounts of cash and continuous playing so they could actually make decent money.
        • jonohull, on 03/31/2008, -0/+11% is HUGE when every game in the casino is geared to be a house advantage.
    • kilmer, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The book definitely ruined this movie for me. The movie was okay, but halfway though the movie it was nothing like the great book and I just couldn't enjoy it anymore b/c I enjoyed the book so much. After seeing it I would recommend waiting for it to come out for rent. I was so pumped going in to see this movie and so bummed walking out of this movie.
  • NegativeIon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+65Now I'm DEFINITELY going to download... um... go see it.
  • badwithcomputer, on 03/31/2008, -7/+15i saw it over the weekend- it was alright, but the middle kinda dragged for me a bit. too much "ooh! we're in vegas!!!" imagery with not enough story/character development. movies should always raise the stakes ever scene (especially when it's about gambling...) and i just wasn't feeling any kind of conflict or gradual escalation for the bulk of the time- all of a sudden characters would make these clumsy leaps that didn't seem to fit with who they were. still worth the bandwidt...matinee ticket.
    • Narcism, on 03/31/2008, -5/+5"movies should always raise the stakes every scene" I see what you did there.
    • maci01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7I have to agree with badwithcomputer. There just wasn't enough character and plot development. Two hours and they couldn't accomplish that. I would suggest you "wait" to "rent" it.
    • Birdoftruth, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1I thought the movie was bad. the first half was such a bore that I was literally fighting my sleep. waste of $9 (blame AMC disney)
      • Smuikas, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1$9? It's almost $13 in the NYC! You have it lucky :)
  • bonkeykong, on 03/31/2008, -6/+11Winner winner chicken dinner
  • coachmcguirk, on 03/31/2008, -2/+22Can't go wrong with Kevin Spacey...
    • UberNick, on 03/31/2008, -0/+28isn't this guy's whole career based on playing the smartest person in the movie?
      • nallelcm, on 03/31/2008, -2/+27That's why I love him, he reminds me of myself.
      • kiiwii, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8Sounds a lot like digg, only replace "guy's whole career" with "digg" and "in the movie" with "on the internet"
        • alecks, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3You mean: "Isn't this digg based on playing the smartest person on the internet?"
          That doesn't make sense
      • aceakm, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1No Ubernick, that's Jeff Goldblum's job.
    • noseeme, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Obviously you haven't seen K-PAX.
    • Bologner, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Creepy as ***** (and an amazing job) in Se7en.
    • tomtucker378, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Who is Kaiser Sosa?
      • analogkid01, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Sammy's brother? Unless you were referring to Kaiser Soze...
  • Equinox1, on 03/31/2008, -13/+1Cool, reminds me of Ocean's Eleven, which i loved. Will definitely go see.
    • slvrbullet87, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Beyond the fact that it takes place in vegas it has very little in common with the ocean's movies
      • kinseyincanada, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8what are you talking about the number 21 and 11 there basically the same thing
        • wrathchilde, on 03/31/2008, -0/+111 is only "basically 21" if the count is greater than plus 9, then double down baby.
    • bigdoof, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11Cool, reminds me of Honey, I Blew Up the Kid, which I loved. Will definitely go see.
  • wizpig64, on 03/31/2008, -9/+4I saw it yesterday and thought it was great! Then again, I had just seen Jumper the week earlier...
  • roastedbagel, on 03/31/2008, -4/+100Chicken Dinner?

    I must be out of some loop here....
    • sjdillard, on 03/31/2008, -2/+76When you win a black jack hand, it's a common phrase to say "Winner winner chicken dinner"
      • reqage, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18Wow, I've gone all these years and never knew that. I've never heard that at the river boats or in Vegas once.
      • migitalwarfare, on 03/31/2008, -1/+15what? why the hell would you say that?
      • Xproject01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10lol wut? never heard this before
      • creoderiot, on 03/31/2008, -1/+13If someone ever said that to me I would probably have to slap them.
    • Swarms, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12It was explained in the movie. From what I heard in the movie, it's not a popular phrase that everyone uses in Blackjack, it was a phrase one guy used, a lot. But, from Urban Dictionary if it helps - "The legend tells that years ago every casino in Las Vegas had a three-piece chicken dinner with a potato and a veggie for $1.79. A standard bet back then was $2, hence when you won a bet you had enough for a chicken dinner."
  • superzulu, on 03/31/2008, -6/+17The movie doesn't hold a candle to the book
    • rudy23, on 03/31/2008, -0/+18isnt that always the case?
      • stev31h, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Rita Hayworth & the Shawshank Redemption
      • bigdoof, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0Adaptation...sort of
      • Vapor17, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2The Prestiege, and Children Of Men were (IMO) better as movies than as books.
    • ChairShot83, on 03/31/2008, -1/+19I don't recommend putting any candle near a book. With the fire hazard and all...
  • Kingmichael, on 03/31/2008, -10/+28Too bad it sucks. I saw it last night. The character's were completely two dimensional, and the movie just drags on and on. I would not recommend it. Wish I listened to the critics and went to see Horton Hears A Who instead.
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Horton hears a who was awesome.
    • ImmediateAction, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2Agreed, the writing was shallow and longwinded. The end was the most involving part of the movie and in all honest was a big letdown. Not to mention that Kevin Spacey was disturbingly pedophilic.
    • johnn11238, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4The character's what were completely one-dimensional???
  • sjdillard, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2After seeing this movie, I've vowed to never count cards in Vegas.
    • wc3452, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8Oh, I did the exact opposite.
    • PhillyMJS, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Actually, in the book this is based on it explains that back-room beatings are really not something to be feared anymore, because the casinos are now owned by megacorporations who wouldn't welcome the resulting lawsuits and bad PR.

      Just the same, if casino officials ask you to go somewhere with them to answer some questions or whatever, you just decline and leave the premises in a hurry.
  • rudy23, on 03/31/2008, -0/+54If kate bosworth can convince the audience that she knows math thats some great acting right there.
  • VonCali, on 03/31/2008, -10/+5I saw it opening night and loved it, I strongly recommend!

    "Man this sugar is sweet!"
    • bigdoof, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12These pretzels are making me thirsty!
  • alex1015, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Great book (Bringing Down the House), but I'm concerned about the movie. Will see it this week.
    • redfan, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3I normally hate people who say this, but the book was much better.
      • magic6435, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Hummm why? most of the time the book is better.......... thats like saying i hate it when the weatherman is right.
  • razorc03, on 03/31/2008, -1/+39Step 1: Learn Blackjack and count cards
    Step 2: Win BIG money from Vegas
    Step 3: Make movie of making it big in Vegas
    Step 4: Win MORE money than Step 2.

    I'd say this MIT guy thought carefully about this.
  • bag2p, on 03/31/2008, -9/+1Cinema has digressed so much lately that we're being forced to pick the best looking turd out of a pile of *****. Hollywood is in serious need of a ***** renovation.
    • kingmanic, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Sorry to break it to you, but Hollywood has always been this way. You've just been confused by nostalgia and the tricks your brain plays on you when you remember stuff. Most years it's 80% dreck : 20% acceptable to great movies. This week was no different.
    • maci01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1All the great flicks are in the summer.
    • bag2p, on 03/31/2008, -2/+0sorry to break it to YOU, but this is why i used the word "digressed" i'm not saying that there aren't still a few movies out there with some replay value. i'm saying that movie-makers have turned away from what it means to create a film. more gimmick, less feeling. whatever. bury it.
      • noseeme, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3You still used "digressed" incorrectly.
      • bag2p, on 03/31/2008, -2/+0how exactly did i use it incorrectly?
      • kingmanic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I'm just letting you know that they never were on the path. They made movies. they made movies to make money, Once in a while a good film maker would take their money and make a great picture and a artistically interesting film. But mostly they just pumped dreck. Samn in 1950 as it is today you just don't remember or don't have access to the dreck.
  • MasterPlayer, on 03/31/2008, -10/+5So, why exactly is this news? Better yet, why did this make the front page?
    • Kingmichael, on 03/31/2008, -1/+13It made it to the front page because people dugg it.
  • MeNaCe942, on 03/31/2008, -11/+2what does chicken dinner have to do with blackjack?
    • mojoel, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4See above
      Your question has already been answered.
      • migitalwarfare, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2no, not really. all that was answered was why "chicken dinner" was used in the title, not why anyone would say "winner winner chicken dinner" when they win a hand of blackjack
        • thh204, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3ever heard of googling something?
          • migitalwarfare, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1yeah, i could do that, or i could continue to piss people off like you who get all bunched up when a conversation starts on the internet. god forbid anyone post anything on digg other than smart ass comments
        • Swarms, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3It was explained in the movie. From what I heard in the movie, it's not a popular phrase that everyone uses in Blackjack, it was a phrase one guy used, a lot. But, from Urban Dictionary if it helps - "The legend tells that years ago every casino in Las Vegas had a three-piece chicken dinner with a potato and a veggie for $1.79. A standard bet back then was $2, hence when you won a bet you had enough for a chicken dinner."
  • franklymister, on 03/31/2008, -6/+29This is the movie based on a real-life group of mostly Asian students, and who do they cast in the role of the Asian guys from MIT? Kate Bosworth and Jim Sturgess, of course!

    I guess they couldn't find any Asian actors anywhere in Hollywood.


    ( A good take on what happened here: http://www.reappropriate.com/?p=1114 )
    • kingmanic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8I agree that Asians are severely under represented. As a ethnicity Asians in general make up 2% of all major characters in movies and television but represent ~5% of the over all US population. White people make up just about as many characters as the % of the over all pop while black people are twice as represented as their actual proportion and Hispanics and all other minorities suffer like the Asians (1/2 or less of their actual ratio). Numbers come from a media study of thousands of shows and movies which counted characters with more then 1 repeat appearance.

      It's probably why in the US when they think of race relations they think black vs white as opposed to all of the various different peoples. The media tells the US there are far more black people then there actually is.
    • Kingmichael, on 03/31/2008, -11/+2Most of the cast wasn't Asian! The movie is racist!

      I've never read Bringing Down The House, but I find it annoying how people won't stop complaining about how most of the cast members weren't Asian, like it's such an important detail. So they casted white people instead... Who gives a *****?
      • magic6435, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8The entire point of the people being NON white (which was talked about to a great extent in the book) was that casinos did that consider Arab or Asian players to be a treat and thats why all but TWO of the players on the real team were non white........ so yes it is a very important detail.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/31/2008, -2/+8Directors/screenwriters often make changes to stories in order to, in their opinion, make them more appealing to a wider audience.
      For example, the Forrest Gump character in the book was supposedly a large, fat, foul-mouthed character; for the movie, he was changed into a more palatable, mild-mannered man played by Tom Hanks.
      Hollywood is always changing characters, themes, etc. to make movies more "mainstream." such as having happy endings to stories that, in the original book, were either unhappy or ambiguous.
    • petebot, on 03/31/2008, -3/+5I agree man. It's pretty sad when someone asks you to think of an Asian actor, and the first person that comes to mind is Jackie Chan or Lucy Liu. Even with Lucy Liu, she's never been cast as anything other than an asskicker (of course she knows kung fu!) or a corporate bitch. (Her next two movies are Kung Fu Panda and Charlie Chan. Seriously.)

      On a side note, I have noticed that there have been more commercials with Asian or Asian/white couples and families on TV. So that's something, I guess. And there's always Mindy Kaling on the Office (Indians are Asians too) and the next Harold and Kumar movie (That first movie was funnier than I thought it would be and actually dealt with stereotypes in a clever way).
    • morningmatters, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Sad but true. Hollywood can cast whatever money they want, but it's up to the Asians to speak up about it. Imagine if the casting for the movie Pursuit of Happyness Will Smith's character was replaced by a white guy. Al Sharpton would have organized a massive riot.
      • mdigirol, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5Hate to say this but the guy who is the basis for the main character doesn't feel as strongly as everyone else here. I interviewed Jeff Ma, Ben Mezrich and Jim Sturgess as a member of the press, and Jeff Ma was quoted saying

        "JM: I think that part of it is being overblown a little bit, just because the reality is that if you had a movie made about you, what would be the most important thing? It wouldn’t necessarily be that it was incredibly accurate to life; It would be that it be a good movie. I wanted a great actor to portray me, and Jim [Sturgess] is an unbelievable actor."

        He went on to say he didn't even know 5 Asian actors he'd want to play him, and if he had his pick, Brad Pitt would have been him in the movie. I have an audio clip if you are really that skeptical, but get off all the racist drama, it is ridiculous.
        • kingmanic, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4While Jeff Ma was Okay with 21's recasting, This type of white washing is still too common. His original response was that even if he wasn't Okay with it, he's a technical "consultant" not a casting director. If Jeff had a huge issues with it they would simply have sacked Jeff Ma not made Ben Campbell into Ben Wong. Although he liked Jim Stugess the secondary point is that there are so few role for "Hollywood" Asian actors that he couldn't think of one to play him. Hollywood just doesn't like Asians. Most depictions vary from mildly racists(Fast and the furious 2) to overtly racists (almost anything they throw Jackie Chan into). Just as many black roles suffer from the racial stereo typing as either a magic Negro, a criminal, or an idiot; Asians tend to be background nerd, Magical Asian, or bumbling fool. This may be changing as Asian actors get a bit more play in TV shows (Battle star galactica, Lost, Heroes) but we could use more Asians in ethnic neutral roles. Roles that didn't specifically call for a white guy, Asian, or Black guy.
          • petebot, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Thanks. You actually said what I was trying to say, but much better.
  • Kinglouis3, on 03/31/2008, -4/+7I saw this movie on Friday and it was mediocre at best, the History channels Breaking Vegas program about the MIT blackjack team was far better. People that recommend this movie need better standards for movies.
  • surf314, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5Does this have anything to do with the real life story though? Because that seemed pretty interesting on its own, and the previews made it look like they completely Hollywood-ized it.
  • carlos259, on 03/31/2008, -7/+4Dugg for creative use of gambling terms in title

    :)
  • GeneHACKman, on 03/31/2008, -7/+3Okay, for those of us that could give a crap about Blackjack, gambling, and all the various catch phrases therein, is there any reason to either see this movie or read this article?
    • maci01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Nope. Nothing to see here move along.
  • duster805, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Now I know the difference between "Inspired by" and "based on". This movie was the former and way more "hollywood" (ex. the protagonist dropped out to gamble and had no plans for going to Harvard Medical School, ever) than the book. If you enjoyed it, do yourself a favor and read "Bringing down the House" for the true(er) story.
  • Deficienze, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was atrocious. The most predictable plot imaginable. They basically assigned a stereotype to each character, pulled a lever and it spit out this hunk of crap. See it if you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half.
  • dark2025, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2What's with Digg and this movie? It keeps appearing on the front page for some reason.
  • noseeme, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5I'm sick of things that feature and glorify Las Vegas. I've been there four times, it sucks unless you are dumb enough to like gambling or paying 50 bucks to see some guy pull a bunch of cards out of his ass hole.
    • timothycrash01, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Here's your problem: "It sucks - I've been there 4 times."
    • xOKxWhy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I don't think you've been going to the right Las Vegas.
  • betona, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1It was good, not great. Maybe a B/B+. I saw the 'surprise twist' ending coming a mile away.
  • LogicBomB, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1As this looks to be the third movie based on this premise I'm in no rush to see it. I'm sure it will be good and I'll eventually see it but seriously, it's not like there are any surprises we don't already know about.
  • whytey, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Mr X
  • morningmatters, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2The movie sucked but so is the entire gambling industry. Why is it that when you win, the casinos reserve the right to kick you out? Businesses have to take wins and losses. It's odd then to have an industry when you can "cheat" your losses by kicking out and blacklisting anyone who gets "good" at certain games.
  • bjs3171, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4ouch, only 2.4 million for Run Fatboy Run. people are morons, I can't wait to see that. 21 looks cool, too.
  • FDL1, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't it have come out on the 21st?
    • mdigirol, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Good Friday/Easter weekend.

      Would have had worse attendance.
  • ClevelandBrown, on 03/31/2008, -5/+3I didn't know Kate bosworth was asian. cool.
  • KingGorilla, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2I was disappointed by the lack of chicken dinners
  • dan222555, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1I'd expect that to drop off. The critics didn't like it and most of people I talked to said it wasn't all that great. Apparently they dumbed-down/Hollywood-ized the story to a disgusting point. So once the word gets out, those numbers will probably drop of considerably.
  • Naturalistic, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1THERES NO TIME WE HAVE TO DISARM THE NUCLEAR ROULETTE WHEEL... GOD DAMNIT NOOOOOO *stares off into distance*
  • daizaru, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Looks like a direct clone of a Canadian Movie I saw based on the exact same thing, it was ok so I'm sure the hollywood touch makes it that much better.
  • zspeed78, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I read about the team a year or two ago, and I live in Vegas now, so I was excited to see the movie, but overall it was predictable and not just not too realistic. I felt like it was a movie made for the highschool crowd, thus a decent teen movie, but could of been so much better.
  • ckorban, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0Has anyone seen "The Last Casino"? I swear, its the same movie, only released and couple years ago...
  • h0ser, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1this movie seems like a rip off from a Canadian movie made a couple years ago.
  • htnguyen, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1entertaining movie. but i was more blown away by the soundtrack!

    MGMT, Peter Bjorn & John, Unkle, Junkie XL, Aliens... oh my! =P
  • hollywoodwizard, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0thats awesome! check out www.hollywoodwizard.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.