Die Farbe des Geldes

"The Color Of Money" continues the story of pool player/hustler 'Fast Eddie' Felson (Paul Newman). He's 25 years old, and 25 years wiser as he's spent that time watching pool hustles and schemes and selling wine after his 'early' retirement from pool playing in the original.

But now he's got a new excitement and energy to the game, as he meets Vincent (Tom Cruise), a young, cocky but talented fresh player who's not well known around the low-level pool rooms Eddie has been frequenting. Eddie and Vincent's girlfriend, Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) see Vincent as a cash cow. Indeed, everybody uses everyone, and we're never quite sure the relationship between the three. That's the beauty of it.

Scorsese's never been more refined yet quietly flashy, dealing with a traditional 'old' Hollywood tale of a mentor and protege as small time hustlers playing each other and getting played. The film is an underrated gem, truly downplayed in Scorsese's overall filmography.

Definitely recommended.

"Fast Eddie" Felson (Paul Newman) is an aging liquor salesman and retired billiards professional who spots the talent of a cocky young player Vincent (Tom Cruise) and offers to teach him to be an even better player. With his girlfriend Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), Vincent accepts the offer and the trio begins a long road trip touring many pool halls across the country, with Vincent winning and losing intentionally to create a specific reputation and to hustle more money than he would gain otherwise. Eventually Eddie also finds his long lost knack for the game.

Paul Newman's natural charisma carries the film with ease, but the movie is not without its problems. Tom Cruise's overflowing energy and self-confidence are an intentional part of his character's style, sure, but I feel he is overdoing the cockiness to the point of being just irritating. The third main character Carmen is left more in the background but Mastrantonio looks rather fragile for such a role, as the vibe I was getting from her character was more rough and experienced than the innocent-looking actress could convey. The supporting actors do a good job though, such as Forest Whitaker as an unexpectedly good pool shark Amos and John Turturro as an antagonistic rival to Eddie and Vincent.

Another thing that bothered me about the film was the restless camera-work. There is a lot of movement: turning, zooming, tracking, some quick cuts – something I found distracting. In certain scenes it works fine though, such as during the spinning long take of Vincent's game against Moselle (Bruce A. Young). The other pool playing scenes are mostly well done too, especially during the finale at the big tournament.

The Color of Money may not be Scorsese's best film by a long shot, but it is entertaining alright and contains some exciting billiards scenes, so fans of the game ought to check it out. The drama, namely the development of the relationship between young Vincent and the father figure-like Eddie works well enough too. 'A decent film, but no masterpiece' is my verdict.

The Color of Money (1986)

The reputation of this films rides partly on its director, a mainstream Martin Scorsese, and on the previous film it bounces off of (and makes vague reference to), The Hustler. Key to both films is the astonishing Paul Newman, who holds his end of the stick and then some. The rest of the cast is purely in canned and competent support roles, or in semi-star roles by two young actors with some screen presence but no great subtle skill to match Newman's.

I'm speaking not only of Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio, who is forced to play the slightly tough, slightly sexy, generally submissive girlfriend, but also of Tom Cruise, who is brilliant at being "flakey" partly because he is in real life, from all accounts. You give Scorsese credit here for using the young actor in a role that matches his natural persona, in contrast to others, including Spielberg, who seem to make more of the actor than there is, and a certain falseness gets in the way. But this film uses the awkwardness and naive, boyish qualities of Cruise as a sudden pool shark really well.

What holds it all back? I think basically plot. I mean, it's fun to see the big hustle at play, and to get stung once or twice when things aren't what they seem. But we sort of know going in that that's the general plan, and then it happens. And it takes a long time happening...there are no (no) complications here, beyond pool and hustling. The romances, for what they are worth, a completely thin, and didn't have to be. The settings, all these great (great) poolhalls and small town joints are terrific, populated a little too perfectly by locals of all different stripes. The camera-work makes some fairly cinema verite footage make sense in the scenes, but not with either edge or lyricism.

This all sounds a little like I'm working hard to point out the flaws, and I must go back to where I started about Newman, and the basic strength of the aging pool player facing a change in his personal scenery. It's a canned affair overall. Well done, sure, but without the richness of the best of Scorsese's work, or the best of Hollywood, for that matter, including the preceding The Hustler, which you might see in a pairing with this one.

People misunderstood "The Color of Money," I think. There are a few things to keep in mind:

1) This was a Martin Scorsese film. Scorsese was fresh off "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," and other such successes from less than a decade before. People were expecting a lot.

2) It starred Paul Newman, returning to his character from "The Hustler," in a sequel that was twenty-five years in the making. That's longer than the wait for the "Phantom Menace" prequel.

Perhaps for those two (very strong) reasons alone, when "The Color of Money" opened in 1986, the critics and audiences didn't think much of it. It garnered decent praise from both areas but most critics seemed to agree: it didn't hold a candle to "The Hustler," and anyone other than Scorsese could have easily made the same picture.

After 19 years, I disagree. I think "The Color of Money" is not only an intelligent and amusing character piece, but an excellent continuation of a character we haven't seen for 25 years.

First of all, Scorsese's direction isn't his best, but it's still very good. And he's definitely got the same elements going on as "After Hours" from a few years before -- his cinematography is identical and the dark colors and grainy '80s vibe are present in every frame. Likewise he's using the quick-cuts and zooms and iconic panning shots that he's known for. The thing is, Scorsese's styles just changed a bit during the 1980s (they even carried on into "GoodFellas" -- the night-time shots carry the same foreboding look as "After Hours" and "Color of Money"). I think now, looking back, since we've seen more of Scorsese's films, it's easier to notice that this is indeed a Martin Scorsese film. A man who is constantly changing his directorial approach. (Just look at "The Aviator" for goodness sake!) Newman deserved the Oscar more for "The Hustler," of course, but for what it's worth, Fast Eddie Felson's evolution is handled with care in the script and it's very entertaining (for anyone who's seen the original) to note the change in his behavior. It's also interesting to see the new cocky pool hustler, Vince (Tom Cruise), filling in the shoes of Eddie from a few decades before.

If "The Hustler" was a great insight into the life of a troubled young man, then "The Color of Money" is a terrific insight into the evolution of this man, and the contrast between the young and the old. All adults tell us as children that they were just like us at one time, and we don't believe them. "The Color of Money" follows this principal -- in thirty years, we all know Vince will be just like Fast Eddie: wise and matured. And then he'll probably be coaching a young guy who thinks he's the king of the world. Will they make another sequel based on this continuation of the story? I doubt it. It's unnecessary, because as far as I'm concerned "The Color of Money" has already stressed the point. But you never know...

Overall this isn't a great movie and I won't pretend it is. But I do think it's one of the better films to come out of the 1980s and had a lot more going for it than some of the critics gave it credit for. Film buffs should see it, especially those who loved "The Hustler."

"Twenty five years ago, my career ended before it had even really started," Eddie Felson tells Vince, a young pool shark. No longer the cocky man he was in "The Hustler," Eddie (Paul Newman) in 1986 is retired from pool and a successful investor. When he spots hot-shot Vince (Tom Cruise), he decides to invest in him and take him on the road, with the goal of Vince winning a big pool tournament in Atlantic City. Along the way, Eddie confronts what he was and is no more and looks at the dreams he let die. When Vince is too foolish and strong-willed to take his advice, Eddie makes an important decision.

Though not as strong a film as "The Hustler," "The Color of Money" is still an excellent film with a great cast led by Newman, at the peak of his "older man" good looks and the brilliant acting he's always had. And, as usual, he tells you everything you need to know about a character. It's clear that he was content with his life and his attractive girlfriend (Helen Shaver) until he saw Vince. Then the old restlessness and competitiveness came creeping back into his blood.

Seeing Tom Cruise in 1986 is startling since today, the lower half of his face has changed drastically due to plastic surgery. Here he conveys the raw, youthful energy that helped make him a star. Like many successful movie actors, he has a wonderful physical agility. His pompadoured Vince is a short-tempered, jealous, talented ingrate who can't help showing off. Cruise is very effective, as is Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio as his sultry, beautiful girlfriend in another role she made memorable in the '80s.

Beautifully directed by Scorcese, "The Color of Money" shows that it's never too late to follow your dreams and, with the right actors and the right script, you can do a good sequel even 25 years after the original.