American Hustle: 2nd Opinion

David O. Russell’s ‘American Hustle’ has been one of the best-reviewed films of 2013. On Rotten Tomatoes, it currently maintains a 93% overall score with an average rating of 8.2/10 amongst critics. It has received numerous awards from pretty much every major award ceremony this year from the Golden Globes to the BAFTAS and it is tied with ‘Gravity’ for the most nominations at this year’s Academy Awards. So it seems like this is one of the best films of the year, right? Well, from what I can tell, audiences aren’t exactly agreeing with critics when it comes to this movie… and I’m right there with them. I first saw this movie as a double feature with ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ (a film that ultimately landed the number 3 spot of my Best Films of the Year list) and I originally gave the film a rating of 3.5/5 compared to the perfect 5/5 rating I gave to ‘Wolf’. With ‘Hustle’, I found the film to be very overrated for a few reasons but after a while I was willing to give it another chance, which I recently did. With this second viewing, I've warmed up to this movie a bit more… but at the same time I still think it’s quite overrated.

But first, let me start by saying that the best thing about this movie are the performances from its cast. At the end of the day, this is an ‘actor’s movie’ and everyone does a great job, especially the five leads. The main standout of this film actually isn’t Jennifer Lawrence as many critics are saying, although I will say that Lawrence does a great job making the most out of a pretty minor role and is an absolute scene-stealer. Instead, it’s Amy Adams who steals the show as Sydney Prosser, the seductive mistress of Christian Bale’s character, Irving Rosenfeld. One of the biggest reasons why she outshines everyone else in the cast is that while she may not be the ‘main character’ (more on that in a bit), she does the best job at portraying her character’s inner turmoil, being in a situation where she’s in way over her head ultimately resulting with her being unable to deal with the stress and the pressure. All in all, this film just has an excellent ensemble cast from top to bottom (Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, Louis C.K., an excellent uncredited cameo from Robert De Niro, etc.).

However, while this is certainly an ‘actor’s movie’, that unfortunately comes at the expense of the writing, which is a bit of a mess. From what I hear, a lot of the dialogue was improvised by the actors during filming, which for the record can be fine seeing how it allows the actors to find a greater understanding of their characters. But it’s clear that in regards to this movie, the characters and their dialogue are focused on more than the actual story itself. The movie tries to deal with all of these characters and as a result, it sometimes becomes more complicated than it needs to be. As I mentioned earlier, because the film has so many characters that are being focused on, sometimes at the same time, there isn’t really a definitive main character. It seems like Irving would be the main character, but then sometimes it shifts to Sydney and then it shifts to Richie (Cooper). It also drags at certain points, which I find ironic seeing how I saw this after seeing the 3-hour ‘Wolf of Wall Street’, a film that had a longer runtime but never dragged at any point.

I also want to talk about something that has been bugging me ever since the first time I saw this film. According to the general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, critics found the film to be ‘riotously funny’. With that in mind, I have to ask… what the heck am I missing here? I did not find this film ‘riotously funny’. Aside from a few funny lines here and there, what’s so funny about this film? Is it because they are all in that sort of ridiculous-looking 70’s attire? I just don’t get it. In fact, I’m pretty sure this isn’t even classified as a ‘comedy’; it’s a crime period drama. This is sort of a similar situation that happened with O. Russell’s previous film, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’, I view that film more as a drama than I do as a comedy (though for the record, I think it does have more comedy than ‘Hustle’). On the other side of the spectrum, a film like ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is a black comedy and as such, the term ‘riotously funny’ is more fitting for that film.

(Don’t believe me? Watch this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr3151RdQWE)

For the record, I don’t think that ‘American Hustle’ is a bad movie… it really isn’t. It’s just that this is easily one of the most overrated films of 2013 and I really hate to say that because this was a film that I was really looking forward to after seeing ‘Silver Linings Playbook’. But in the end, ‘American Hustle’ is a film that favors its cast over its story. The story’s a mess and because there are so many ‘main’ characters, it’s hard to find a single/solitary main character. Also, I seriously don’t get how this movie is supposed to be ‘riotously funny’ because it’s not really supposed to be a comedy in the first place whereas a film like ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ is. Still, this film benefits from a terrific ensemble cast, an excellent production design, and one of the best movie soundtracks of 2013 (I have a feeling that O. Russell was influenced by Martin Scorcese in regards to that). Unfortunately though, even after a second viewing, I still don’t think it’s one of the best films of the year. It wouldn’t even make it into my Honorable Mentions.