Fast Film Reviews

Amsterdam

Sometimes distilling a perplexing film down to its bare essence can seem daunting. Director David O. Russell has made a slew of great films, Three Kings, The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle. Amsterdam is significantly harder to enjoy. This is a case where my “powers” of reviewing a movie are put to the test. It isn’t easy to even know where to begin with his latest picture.

Let’s start with the plot. To put it succinctly, Amsterdam is a mystery set in the 1930s starring Christian Bale and John David Washington as longtime best friends. They are framed for a murder they didn’t commit and must get to the bottom of the motives behind the killing to absolve themselves. Margot Robbie rounds out their trio. They developed a close bond during their halcyon days in the Netherlands capital. The circle of friends made a pact to protect each other no matter what years ago.

Considering our core triad, Christian Bale is giving the best/most performance as nutty doctor Burt Berendsen. He’s doing a riff on Peter Falk as Columbo. He’s even got a glass eye that keeps falling out. Maybe there’s a dash of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman in the character too. John David Washington portrays lawyer Harold Woodman. The actor — so riveting in BlacKkKlansman — has been seemingly replaced by a subdued, somber imposter I hardly recognize. Margot Robbie is a wealthy but eccentric artist named Valerie Voze. She met the duo while working as a nurse in France during World War I. She becomes romantically involved with Harold, although their interactions fail to generate any sparks.

Amsterdam is blessed (maybe cursed?) with a cast over-stuffed with stars. It would be tedious to list them all. Nevertheless, a surprising number of actors with speaking parts bear mention: Zoe Saldaña, Chris Rock, Anya Taylor-Joy, Rami Malek, Mike Myers, Michael Shannon, Taylor Swift, and Robert De Niro comprise a distended roster of celebrities. Most inhabit parts that coast on their fame. When De Niro recounts his political ideology as retired general Gil Dillenbeck, I saw an actor playing himself. Every time another well-known actor popped up, I chuckled at their conspicuous presence. There are many, and they keep coming. These appearances do contribute to the kooky nature of the narrative. However, they constantly remind the viewer that this is first and foremost a farce — not a period piece.

Amsterdam is plagued by a convoluted screenplay written by its director David O. Russell: simple at heart but tortuous in execution. A collection of capricious subplots meanders without a sense of direction or focus. The screenplay is merely a series of offbeat conversations in various locations. If there’s a bright spot to any of these deviations, it is the introduction of Anya Taylor-Joy and Rami Malek as an affluent married couple who sympathize with Hitler and Mussolini. Their mugging faces and campy line readings belong in a completely different movie — the one I wanted to see.

I looked at my watch one hour into the narrative, hoping it would be over soon. There had to be some grand design served by these random developments. Still another 75 minutes to go. Keep the faith, I told myself. The positive is that all becomes clear in the end. There is an ultimate purpose. The story is partly inspired by a 1933 U.S. political conspiracy called the Business Plot. In addition, the 2021 events at the nation’s Capitol on January 6th are an obvious inspiration too. My overall reaction to the way it was presented was ho-hum. None of it captivated me.

It’s obvious a lot of care and effort went into making this picture. I admit the production looks spectacular. I’m talking costumes and production design. Also, the cinematography from Emmanuel Lubezki is outstanding. He uses many close-ups to lovingly frame these actors’ faces, and they do indeed hold our attention, even if only visually. Amsterdam is largely a disappointment where whimsy and quirkiness are celebrated as the ultimate goal. On occasion, that works. Unfortunately, those moments are few and far between.

5 Responses

  1. Thank you for your review! I couldn’t have and well, haven’t been able to put it as succinctly as you did. I was so bored watching this film, honestly it wasn’t even an half an hour before I was itching to leave. It’s sad, because it really could have been something good, something magical. Especially considering the cast, the era & root of the story. It was never funny or clever enough to make me laugh and there was no Intrigue or suspense. You knew how things were going to end from the beginning. Plus, I’ve never seen people trying so hard to pretend to have fun.
    On the upside, I agree completely about the costumes and cinematography. They were great as someone who loves cosmetics – the hair and makeup was Gorgeous! Although, I’m not entirely sure how true to the period it was, but I’m just splitting hairs I suppose. Thanks again!

    1. I agree with almost everything you said. The only thing I might take exception to is that I do think genuinely Mike Myers was having fun. He was not pretending. 😃 😃 😃

  2. This is unfortunate news. I will adjust my expectations if I do choose to see this in theaters. I do get a kick out of David O Russell’s penchant for gathering together a massive cast and putting them in ridiculous get-ups. Notably Christian Bale.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *