With estimated box office losses of around $100 million and a Rotten Tomatoes score in the mid-30s,Amsterdamis on track to be the biggest cinematic disaster of the year. Did the film deserve this embarrassing public flogging, or is it a hidden gem in desperate need of some good word of mouth?
It’s hard to imagine a film with this many big names flying so completely under the radar. Most people don’t even seem to know that a periodpiece starring Christian Bale, John David Washington,Margot Robbie, and many more is available at their local multiplex. How did the world ignoreAmsterdamand did it deserve better?
RELATED:Amsterdam Review
Amsterdamis one of the most frustrating and confusingfilms of the modern era. It seems to have no idea what it wants to be, every moving part conflicts with the others, and the experience as a whole leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. The plot follows a pair of World War I veterans who investigate the mysterious death of their former commanding officer. When their CO’s daughter is killed, they find themselves the prime suspects and must work to clear their names. On the way, they reconnect with an old friend, the Bohemian nurse with whom they spent one life-changing summer in the eponymous Netherland town. On the way, they discover a dastardly plot to take over the United States that may be the most confusing element of the film, because it’s ripped straightfrom the history books.
For those who are unaware, in the early-30s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took America off the Gold Standard. This allowed the treasury to print money without it being backed up by gold. The rich hated this idea, along with almost every other policy from the administration, so they decided to do something about it. A cabal of wealthy business ownersincluding J.P. Morgan, Irénée du Pont, and George W. Bush’s grandad Prescott declared FDR a communist and planned a scheme to overthrow him. This handful of rich people sought to lead a fascist march on Washington, with direct aid from Nazi Germany, and install a new dictator in the White House. The plan was stopped and exposed by Major General Smedley D. Butler, the conspiracy’s selected candidate for dictator. This was known as the Business Plot. It’s one of the darkest moments in American history, but not nearly enough people know about it.Amsterdamis the closest thing to a full film on the subject, and thus the best shot at informing the nation of what happened.
This is where the real questions start coming out. If writer/director David O. Russell wanted to make a movie about the Business Plot, why did he center it on a wacky doctor who spends half the runtime looking for his glass eye? Why are the big names changed when incidental figures that no one but the biggest American history nerd would notice get to keep their names? What do the Bohemian journey and long-winded montage in Amsterdam have to do with anything? There’s no thematic link. It’s a bizarrely accurate recreation of an obscure yet wildly important historical event, randomly intercut with a hundred recognizable actors in silly outfits. The movie didn’t need to be this way, why tie all the comedy murder-mystery material to a real historical fascist coup on American soil? Why butcher the historical realism to fit the off-kilterawkward Wes Anderson comedy? This chaotic mess of stitched-together parts struggling to stand is the central premise of the film, but no one would know that until they’d sat through the first hour and change.
Amsterdamisn’t the worst movie released this year, and it’s often a well-made experience. It’s simply carrying too much to fly. Half of the runtime is made up of long close-up shots of well-respected famous people doinga period affect that feels half-improvised. The film has gone off the rails by the end of the title sequence, and it has no interest in getting back on. There are constant digressions in which one supporting character or another just explains an element of the narrative direct to camera. The subtext is often just text. There’s just so little about this movie that makes a lick of sense. There are solid performances on display, it’s often fun just towatch the main castinhabit 1933.Amsterdamworks from time to time, but it’s the kind of movie that sticks in the mind for all the wrong reasons.
Who isAmsterdamfor? It’s not for critics, who see a lot of films and can accurately pick out the beats stolen from other stories. It’s not for the art film crowd, too much of it devolves into dull slapstick. It’s not a feel-good crowd-pleaser likeJoy, because it’s too concerned with fascism, veteran’s rights, and income inequality. Big American history buffs might enjoy it. Even though the names have been changed, it’s the only chance mankind will ever get tosee Robert De Niroportray the actual American hero Smedley Butler. There’s a lot to like in the broad strokes ofAmsterdam,but the fine details are a complete mess. Both the critical distaste and audience disinterest were justified, butAmsterdamdoes have some good aspects. The film’s failure might just go down in history.
