3 / 10
The Hustle is the gender-flipped remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988), which was itself a remake of Bedtime Story (1964). Chris Addison directed. Stanley Shapiro, Paul Henning, Dale Launer, and Jac Schaeffer wrote across the various adaptations. Anne Hathaway plays Josephine Chesterfield, a sophisticated con artist on the French Riviera. Rebel Wilson plays Penny Rust, an Australian con artist who arrives on the same coast. The two compete to defraud a young tech millionaire played by Alex Sharp. The plot is structurally identical to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels with the genders reversed. Steve Martin and Michael Caine played the original roles. Glenne Headly played the mark.
The film made approximately ninety-six million dollars worldwide on a twenty-one million dollar budget. The commercial performance was modest. The reviews were largely negative. The film is one of the clearer recent examples of a gender-flip remake that did not produce different material than the original. The structural beats are the same. The script’s added moral framing about female empowerment in confidence work positions the film as a feminist statement about the property without doing the comedic work that would make the statement land.
What Made It a Woke Disaster
The film’s central added framework is that the marks (in this version, men) deserve to be conned. The 1988 original treated its mark sympathetically and earned the third-act reveal that she had been conning both protagonists. The 2019 version codes its male victims as deserving targets specifically because they are men with money who patronize women. Josephine’s con on the British baron is staged with explicit moralizing. The baron has not done anything wrong. He has money and he likes Josephine. The film treats both facts as sufficient justification for the con. The script’s argument is that the wealth-and-condescension combination makes a male target morally fair game.
The David Stark mark, played by Alex Sharp, is the film’s clearest ideological choice. Stark is positioned as a wealthy tech entrepreneur who turns out to have built his fortune through an app he stole from a friend. The reveal makes Stark a deserving victim. The 1988 original’s mark was an heiress who had nothing to apologize for except being wealthy. The script’s choice to make the 2019 mark deserving of his fraud is the film’s argument that taking money from this kind of man is itself moral action. The con is no longer transgressive entertainment. The con is corrective justice.
The Penny Rust character, Wilson’s broad comic role, is positioned as the unrefined feminist working-class voice against Hathaway’s polished aristocratic con. Penny’s argument throughout the film is that the system has rigged the game against women and her cons are the only way to redistribute resources. The argument is delivered through comedic dialogue but the script treats the argument as substantively correct. Penny’s wins are framed as deserved. Her losses are framed as the system fighting back.
For Writers
A con artist film whose moral framework makes the cons feel justified loses the transgressive energy that makes con artist films work. The Hustle codes its victims as deserving so the audience can root for the con. The 1988 original trusted the audience to enjoy watching skilled rogues without needing moral cover. The lesson is that some genres require moral ambiguity. Con artist comedy depends on the audience enjoying behavior that would be wrong if they thought about it carefully. Add the moral cover and you have removed the genre’s engine. The audience does not need permission to root for charming rogues.
The Caine-Martin Problem
Steve Martin and Michael Caine had specific complementary energies in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Caine played Lawrence Jamieson as the sophisticated long-running con artist whose European refinement was the entire engine of the performance. Martin played Freddy Benson as the crude American small-time hustler whose lack of refinement was the contrast. The two performers had different career backgrounds, different comedic traditions, and different specific instruments. The film worked because the contrast between them produced material neither could have generated alone.
Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson have different career backgrounds and different comedic traditions. The script positions Hathaway as the sophisticated con and Wilson as the crude one. The structural template is preserved. The specific chemistry is not. Hathaway and Wilson are professional and competent. They do not have the same kind of complementary contrast that Caine and Martin had. The film cannot generate the same energy because the lead pairing cannot produce the same dynamic.
For Writers
A remake’s central performance dynamic cannot be replicated by casting different performers in structurally similar roles. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels worked because of Caine and Martin’s specific complementary energies. The Hustle does not work as well because Hathaway and Wilson are professional but do not have the same chemistry. The lesson is that performance chemistry is not interchangeable. Specific performers produce specific dynamics. Replicating a structural template without the original chemistry usually produces work that lacks the original’s specific energy.
The Hathaway Performance
Anne Hathaway commits to the sophisticated con artist role with serious craft. The European-accent work, the refined physical comedy, and the staged seduction sequences are all technically accomplished. Hathaway is one of the most disciplined comedic performers of her generation when given the right material. The Josephine role gives her workable material in spots. The script does not consistently support her work.
The accent work is one of the film’s more distinctive elements. Hathaway has done this kind of accent work in other films (The Devil Wears Prada, The Princess Diaries franchise) and brings the same craft here. The work would be more effective in a film that supported it better. Surrounded by stronger material, Hathaway’s specific commitment would land more clearly. The Hustle does not provide that material.
For Writers
A lead performance that exceeds the surrounding material produces an uneven film. Anne Hathaway is doing more careful craft work than The Hustle requires. The contrast between her commitment and the film’s overall execution is visible. The lesson is that overall quality matters more than any individual element. A film with one strong performance and weak surrounding material reads as weak overall. Distribute the craft attention across the production.
Craft Note
The Lord of the Rings con sequence is the film’s most singular individual passage and a direct lift from the 1988 original’s “Ruprecht the Monkey Boy” routine. Wilson plays the role with full physical commitment. The sequence works in isolation because the original material works and Wilson does not undermine it. The passage demonstrates that the script knew where the 1988 film’s strongest beats were and reproduced them faithfully. The reproduction also exposes why the rest of the film does not work. The Lord of the Rings sequence is the 2019 film’s best moment because it is the most direct reproduction of the 1988 film’s best moment. The rest of the film, where the script tries to add its own material, does not match.
The Verdict
3/10. A gender-flipped remake whose moral framing damaged the con artist comedy it was trying to be. Anne Hathaway’s accent work and the Lord of the Rings sequence are the film’s clear strengths. The Hathaway-Wilson chemistry does not match the Caine-Martin original. Watch Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) instead.
FAQ
How does it compare to Dirty Rotten Scoundrels?
Significantly weaker. The 1988 original is one of the better mainstream comedies of its decade. The 2019 remake does not approach it.
Is Anne Hathaway good?
The performance is committed and technically accomplished. The film around her does not match her work.
Is Rebel Wilson good?
Wilson plays her usual comedic register. The role does not push her in any new direction.
Why does the film code its victims as deserving?
The script’s added moral framework treats wealthy male marks as fair targets. The 1988 original did not need this framing.
What about Bedtime Story?
The 1964 Marlon Brando and David Niven version. Worth seeking out for completionists. Less well-known than the 1988 remake.
Who is Chris Addison?
British actor and director, best known for The Thick of It and Veep. The Hustle was his feature directorial debut.
Should I watch this?
No. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) is the canonical version of this premise.