Review of THE HUSTLE (Blu-ray combo)

Leave a comment

Grade: C+
Entire family: No
2019, 93 min., Color
Rated PG-13 for crude sexual content and language
MGM / Universal
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 widescreen
Featured audio: DTS-HDMA 7.1
Bonus features: C+/B-
Includes: Blu-ray, DVD, Digital
Amazon link

Rebel Wilson was funny in the Pitch Perfect movies and Bridesmaids, but films like The Hustle continue to prove that she’s not well suited to play a leading role. Her schtick, let’s call it, is a comedy of character that’s not up to the fast pace of the 2010s. It’s like watching Stan Laurel wiggle and squirm and fiddle with his hat and slowly, increment by increment, try to react or explain something to a befuddled partner (or audience). At some point, you tend to lose patience because the humor, often crude or full of innuendo, is so protracted out. Instead of a bouncy spring, it’s drawn out so it becomes flat as can be.

That’s the adjective that best describes The Hustle: flat. It’s lacking energy, and features only a handful of laugh-out-loud moments where you think, gee, I wish there were more of those. And they’re all in the trailer. The plot, meanwhile, is a rehash of things we’ve seen before, which only adds to the movie’s flatness. And that’s not even getting into co-star Anne Hathaway’s “British accent,” which sounds like the kind of accent that you or I would attempt at a party to amuse folks. As a snooty Brit con artist, she just isn’t convincing enough. And Wilson, as her American counterpart, is also a bit hard to believe as a con artist who could make men part with their money.

The film is a remake or variation of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, in which Michael Caine and Steve Martin played two con artists with gigantic egos who decide once and for all to see who’s the best by having a contest to see who can be the first to bilk an American heiress out of $50,000. In this version, given inflation, the bet is $500,000, and the players are a small-time grafter (Wilson as Penny) and a sophisticated and very rich con artist (Hathaway as Josephine). They meet in Europe when Penny gets in the way of Josephine’s con and also turns up on the French Riviera after learning that’s where Josephine is going . . . and where the really rich people are. After competing they finally decide to team up, and that leads to scrambled egos with egg on Penny’s face, which leads to the ultimate contest over a goofy, nerdy, rich tourist (Alex Sharp as Thomas).

Maybe it’s Wilson and Hathaway, or maybe it’s the screenplay-by-committee that’s the problem. This film by Chris Addison, who’s making the leap from TV to the big screen, just doesn’t have much substance or oomph—though fans of Veep (Addison directed 13 episodes) will be delighted to see Timothy Simons (Jonah, on the show) turn up. Since Veep is so smart and this screenplay by a committee of seven is so lackluster, it would be fair to conclude that the problem is in the writing . . . and there are way too many of those scenes where Wilson does the Stan Laurel wiggle to think that showcasing her was a good idea. If we could conduct an experiment and feature Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy in the con artist roles, we could pinpoint the problem a little better. My guess is that it wouldn’t help a whole lot.

There are a few plot twists, but you can see them coming, even if you never watched Dirty Rotten Scoundrels or the David Niven and Marlon Brando film that inspired it, Bedtime Story. Either one of those films is more entertaining to watch, unless of course you’re a huge Rebel Wilson and/or Anne Hathaway fan.

Language: Fairly mild, just the gamut of lesser swearwords

Sex: A little in the way of kissing and a lot in the way of innuendo and gestures, but still mild overall 

Violence: I don’t recall seeing anything in the way of violence

Adult situations: There’s plenty of drinking but no real drunkenness, with some scenes taking place inside a casino and others inside restaurants

Takeaway: These days every film like this ends up generating a sequel, but if that happens I hope Addison decides to write the screenplay himself and, in the meantime, learn that what often works on the small screen doesn’t translate well to cinema



Leave a comment

Grade: B-
Entire family: Yes
2019, 104 min., Color
Animation-Live Action-Adventure
Rated PG for action/peril, some rude and suggestive humor, and thematic elements
Warner Bros.
Aspect ratio: 2.40:1 widescreen
Featured audio: Dolby Atmos TrueHD
Bonus features: B
Amazon link

My son was into Pokémon when he was younger; my daughter, not at all. From talking with other parents that seems to be fairly common. There are video games and collectors’ cards that can be used to play games and battles and powers and all manner of things that my son could rattle off as if it were all quite elementary. He told me it was like chess: as complicated or as simple as you wanted to make it.

Detective Pikachu, the first live-action film based on the Pokémon franchise, seems to have been made to work on multiple levels as well. There are allusions and references to Pokémon powers and battles that those unfamiliar with the Pokémon universe will choose to ignore, while others will have their heads spinning with recognition. On it’s simplest level, Pokémon are creatures with various powers, and those creatures are pursued by humans that call each other “Pokémon trainers,” because they then battle their Pokémon against those of other trainers for sport.

Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) gave up Pokémon training after his mother died and his father remained absent in his life. Instead, the 21 year old joined the work world. One day he’s told that his father, a detective, was apparently killed in a car crash, and Tim travels to Ryme City—a utopian city where Pokémon and humans live in harmony and equality—in order to meet with the police officer in charge and collect his father’s personal effects.

While he’s in his father’s apartment looking around, he meets a Pokémon called Pikachu (voiced by Ryan Reynolds), who’s wearing a Sherlock Holmes-style hat. When the creature speaks, Tim can actually understand him, and that’s something special. Before they can talk much, Tim releases an R-labeled purple gas from a test tube he picks up, and suddenly they’re attacked by a group of Aipom who are under the influence of that gas. They flee, and when they stop and finally get to talk, Tim learns that Pikachu was his father’s detective partner, and that they were on a case together when Harry was reported as being killed. But Pikachu is convinced that Tim’s father, Harry, is still alive, and the basic plot follows the pair as they try to track down clues to locate Harry. Along the way they meet Ryme City’s wealthiest man, Howard Clifford, who confirms that Harry is indeed alive but warns them about his ambitious son, Roger.

Who Framed Roger Clifford? Not exactly. While the investigative plot, the fantastic creatures, and the blend of animation and live action will have some viewers flashing back to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, tonally the two films are worlds apart. Rather than a manic caper comedy with a clever intellectual core, Detective Pikachu has a warm-hearted core and a structure than comes closer to the classic fantasy quest. As racy and raunchy as Who Framed Roger Rabbit could be, Detective Pikachu is so wholesome it almost borders on the bland. Or maybe the blandness or “meh” factor comes from the familiarity of the plot. It’s a standard missing person story, but one we’ve seen before in so many different forms. Don’t get me wrong: this isn’t a bad film at all. It’s just that given the accomplished animation, the cool creatures, and the heart that this film has, it’s surprising to walk away without thinking, Wow. What Detective Pikachu lacks is that ever-so-hard-to-define wow factor.

Language: Pretty wholesome, with a single “damn,” a few “hells,” and one instance when a character begins to say “sh—t” but stops at “sh—“

Sex: Uh, nope

Violence: There are chases and explosions, but for the most part it’s all pretty tame; each main character has a brief moment when we think they may have died, but it’s clear that everything will be okay

Adult situations: Probably the scariest creatures in the film are the Charizard, a dragon-like species that can spout fire at both ends

Takeaway: I think you’d have to say that this first foray into animation/live-action filmmaking was a success, and that we’re probably going to see a lot more of them


Leave a comment

Grade: B+
Entire family: No (ages 3-8)
2011, 2015, 75 min. (2 episodes), Color
Not Rated (would be TV-G)
Aspect ratio: 16×9
Featured audio: Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo
Bonus features: D
Amazon link

It’s not exactly family movie night material, but episodes of Wild Kratts—a half-animated, half-live nature show featuring the brothers who gave us Zoboomafoo—will entertain and inform children ages 3-8.

Chris and Martin Kratt’s series, which airs on PBS KIDS GO, is a hybrid that combines the brothers’ nature show activities with a cartoon segment that feels like a cross between The Magic School Bus and a Disney animated series like Kim Possible or Phineas and Ferb.

Each episode of Wild Kratts: Wildest Animal Adventures begins with the real-life brothers in the wild, pointing out an animal with a curious trait—say, for example, the Basilisk lizard that can walk and run on water—and then the brothers morph into cartoon versions of themselves in order to explore the animal’s “powers” and, with the help of a suit that looks a little like a cousin to Iron Man’s, acquire that animal power. It all happens within the animated framework of a story that often involves saving a particular animal from human encroachment, a world problem, or even a Disney-style villain. Though the characters seem unnecessary, there’s also a crew at the computer center in Tortuga helping the brothers once they’ve transformed or are on their way in various animal-shaped vehicles to get a better look. It’s clearly a way to include children of both genders in the show, but they really feel like window dressing, and some children will prefer more nature footage to the Tortuga gang “interruptions.”

The brothers say they got into animation because it gave them a chance to feed their (and children’s) imaginations and project what it might be like to have the ability to fly, swim, leap, see at night, or any of the other animal “superpowers.” And it is kind of fun. Again, I’m not sure that the show needed villains—especially ones that remind you of standard cartoon bad guys—but obviously the brothers thought that it might be yet another “hook” to get kids less innately fascinated by nature into the show. My son would have loved this show if it were around when he was younger, but as a nature guy he would have preferred more live footage than the intro-outro we get for each episode. More