Pain Hustlers is directed by David Yates – the same guy who directed the last four Harry Potter films, as well as all three Fantastic Beasts films. What’s always exciting is to see a director do something completely different than what they are known for, and that’s exactly what Yates is yearning to do. The problem is, even if you have an impressive cast, it can be hard to form something of your own if you are still making something that has been done before and done better.

I still had high hopes for this film. I always enjoy seeing this type of perspective in film. Between the director and cast, I was still intrigued even if the reviews beforehand were telling me to lower my expectations. Even though I still enjoyed it, I can see where people are coming from with this. Aside from the stellar performances, pacing, and Yate’s direction, the script falls victim to a cliche story done many times before, chaotic editing, and little to no characterization to anyone outside of Emily Blunt’s character.

Having an impressive cast can go one or two ways. It can either be like The Departed or it can be like the most recent Amsterdam. The qualities can sway one way or the other and if you are at all familiar with the movies mentioned, then you know what makes a good or bad movie with an impressive cast. While Pain Hustlers doesn’t have a huge series of A-listers, it has more than enough fire power to deliver entertainment to viewers, and that’s exactly what happens here. Blunt & Evans carry the movie through performances that push the boundary of what they are used to. Blunt is struggling as a single mother who’s inspiration of making it comes solely from her daughter. As she is doing it for her daughter, she is still conscious to the fact of what evil she is doing. It makes her character even more understandable as she gets more involved. Evans is totally confident with his character. From the way he speaks to how he acts are two different things. He speaks with conviction through his lies, while his actions when he says nothing says everything there is about the guy. It’s truly two performances that are worth watching thanks to Yate’s direction and understanding how to make the characters feel like real people and have an arc.

I can’t ever really say that I was bored with what I saw. For something that was a little over two hours, it is paced extremely well. It never lingers on scenes longer than it should. It continuously gets from scene to scene in a fast-paced manner that understands the balance of eventful dramatization.

Even if the film is paced really well, it doesn’t mean that the editing isn’t chaotic. I almost got the sense that Yates was inspired by The Wolf of Wall Street, but still wanted to integrate new things to ensure it wasn’t a complete carbon copy. For example, in particular moment, Blunt’s character in a doctor’s office with her daughter as the doctor is explaining something that is happening to her daughter. The doctor mentions something of the matter of maintaining a safe livelihood, resulting in Blunt thinking about where they are actually living. It results in a sudden cut of what she is thinking. It was so sudden that I thought the movie randomly skipped. I had to go back to ensure I wasn’t being gaslit. The film does this quite a bit really for no reason other than to appear to be original.

The themes also doing feel that poignant. The film desperately wants us to sympathize with Blunt, but the story never knows how to truly shows the implications of what’s done. It’s like she only got a slap on the hand. The film does struggle with trying to convey to its audience whether who’s side we should be on.

To make a better film that shows that Yates is more that capable to direct more original movies outside of a franchise, the structure should have been streamlined – not relying on sudden cuts. More characterization could have been done to any one other than Blunt’s character. Even Andy Garcia feels like a random placement to ensure you know that the film actually needs an antagonist. I think that’s where the problem lies. It’s just never really implied who is really the hero or the villain. It’s all blurred to the point where it doesn’t make the film redeemable. Lastly, the film could have focused more on the negative repercussions of what was done to these patients. The film focuses more on the positives that happened to them, resulting in once again, a blur of morals that are happening here.

Overall, Pain Hustlers is nowhere near as bad as expected. Yeah, it takes from other movies that did it better, thus resulting in a film with not much of an identity, but it is carried well from Emily Blunt’s & Chris Evans’ performances and Yates does an impressive job at doing something else than his previous seven movies. That’s more than enough to make up for its more negative qualities.

VERDICT: Good