Michael_Elliott Hustle (2004) *** (out of 4) Peter Bogdanovich's story of Pete Rose (Tom Sizemore) and his fall from grace due to gambling. This has gotten all sorts of bad reviews but I rather enjoyed the film. It's certainly far from great but as a baseball fan I found it rather interesting. Bogdanovich's direction really keeps this above your typical TV movie but I guess most of the heat went towards Sizemore and his performance. Rose is such a legend that it would be impossible to really have any actor capture him on film. I think Sizemore gives a very good "performance", although it never really seems like Rose. Since I find it impossible to capture Rose, I think Sizemore did a good job creating a character. The ending is pretty depressing even though we now know the truth of what happened. The Hall of Fame has rapists, murderers, dead beat fathers, racists, alcoholics, druggies, cheaters so why not one gambler?

lcarlo123 What a shame. This is a great story about a great baseball player and this movie couldn't have been worse. Let's start with the acting. It was a pile of junk. If Tom Sizemore ever turns in a worse performance he should quit acting and take up ballet. This film was horribly written, terribly directed. It was all over the place. This is supposed to be the story about Pete Rose who gambled on baseball which kept him out of the hall of fame even though he holds the record for the most career hits but this was all about drug scandals. I wish I could provide viewers of this film with some sort of reparations. Its stupid, boring and pathetic. Do yourself a favor, never see this movie.0 stars, no thumbs up

The Overdrama As other users have said Sizemore was nothing more than a "Jay Leno impersonation" of Rose - only the haircut even remotely resembled the real Pete Rose. Moreover, Dash Mihok (who portrayed Paul Janszen) looked more like the real Rose. But casting error aside, the movie was genuine to its subject matter."Hustle" was an apt name playing off Rose's nickname "Charlie Hustle" in order to reference his gambling habits. Anyone who says the movie lacked because it didn't revere Rose for his baseball accomplishments is missing the point. The movie was about latter-life Pete Rose the gambler, not a biopic in general on the "greatest thing to ever happen to Cincinatti." Also, some criticize the film for not exploring avenues of Rose's colleagues; however, while Eric Davis was a background character and other famous Reds were mentioned, said colleagues' consent is required to have their likenesses and views to be used.Furthermore, not even Rose himself confessed to his illegitimate activities until the beginning of this year.Before making any criticism, viewers should research.As for the story itself, the one problem I noted was that the screenplay couldn't clearly delineate who was the protagonist. While Rose was clearly meant to be the 'villain,' focus and sympathy shifted between him and Janszen so much so that near the end, the movie may have been more appropriately entitled "Paul Janszen." Of course, ESPN would NOT have been able to sell that.

donsturm After I saw this TV movie about Pete Rose, I was kind of skeptical until I watched a discussion afterwords with people who knew Pete Rose. They said, and after thinking about it I agree, this movie captures Rose's gambling problem accurately. The actors did a fine job with their roles and you could tell there was a lot of research that went into the making of this film. I'm glad he did finally admit he bet on baseball, including the Reds, and I think he should be in the Hall Of Fame for what he did as a player. Weather you like Pete Rose or not, the point of this movie, I think, was to portray his gambling addiction. I do wish they would have focused on John Dowds report more because that was the main reason Rose was kicked out of the game for life. Like him or not, this film brings out a side of Pete Rose not too many people know and it's about time some of the truth of his life was displayed. This film, for me, does that.