Critics' Wet Dream, Reviewers' Nightmare...

Rating: 4/10 (9 November 2013)

Maybe you once spent some time in Hollywood? Maybe you did not? On this next point you should trust your friendly reviewer. The values are different. The goals are different. The yardstick for measuring success is different. As always, other IMDb reviewers have covered the story and highlighted some of the most interesting moments. But what is missing from those reviews is how anxiously the "boys" were looking forward to seeing how this experiment panned out. For some of us the "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow is money. For others fame. For the mavens in Tinseltown, it was getting a definitive answer to one of the most elusive mysteries in the biz -- can an actor well past his prime "revisit" one of his greatest roles (actually one of the greatest performances ever set to celluloid, period) after a lay-off of 25 years, and still deliver the goods? Recall (assuming you are a fight fan) that Ali could never, even after just a few years on the sidelines, bring back the speed and the snap he had BEFORE he was suspended. Frankly, you have to give Newman credit for even attempting to bring Fast Eddie back to life. Did he succeed? If you are looking for a definitive answer from me, I don't have one. I will say that the attempt, while on the one hand heroic, was at the very same time a serious cautionary tale for any actor thinking of trying the same stunt. The tone and direction were different. And the financial guys, the suits, did what they always do in this sort of situation, they threw in a younger guy as "insurance" to make sure the film didn't flop while waiting for the geriatrics to show up on the wheelchair ramp. (They needn't have bothered, this is possibly Tom Cruise's worst performance next to FAR AND AWAY and completely forgettable). If you are a film fan, and you have seen HUSTLER, oh, maybe six or twenty times, then you owe it to yourself to check our this longshot. Otherwise, give it a pass.