Greenes
Please don't spend money on this.
Tayyab Torres
Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.
Bumpy Chip
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
cassiepetti
When you look at the folks involved here it would be a given that you'd want to rent a copy of The color of money- Martin Scorsese director, Paul Newman and Tom Cruise starring. This is something. Add to it this is a sequel to one of the most endearing films of all time- The Hustler. Paul Newman reprises his role, much aged he needs a protégé pool player and he finds him in Tom Cruise's character. The film is good, especially the camera shots around the pool table but there is also great character conflict here. I suggest you see The Hustler and then check out the Color of Money .
bombersflyup
The Color of Money is a classy film, with a great cast. It's not perfect, but it does deserve this rating.The opening sequence is truly one of the best in cinema. Each character is at their very best here and Phil Collins's "One More Night" is playing. On the snap Vincent! Paul Newman is exceptional throughout and mostly carries the film beyond the opening sequence, but a lot of that is due to the restrictions on the other characters. The plot is quite weak, as it is a film about hustling and they never accomplish or even get into any hustling because Vincent always starts winning, except the one with the bar keep and that is just silly. The style, subject matter and acting talent is what makes it a quality film.Eddie Felson: Money won is twice as sweet as money earned.
HotToastyRag
It's not necessary, but you'll probably want to watch The Hustler before you watch The Color of Money. In 1961, Paul Newman played "Fast" Eddie, a pool hustler who took on a master player before he was ready. In 1986, he plays "Fast" Eddie, a pool hustler who teaches and trains a younger version of himself. Basically, in the remake he's Paul Oldman instead of Paul Newman. Oh, and he won a make-up Oscar.So, if you liked The Hustler and it won't break you up to see "Fast" Eddie with gray hair, getting made fun of by a cocky, young upstart, you'll probably be able to sit through The Color of Money. But the original is so much better; there's tension and drama rather than comic relief jokes. Tom Cruise plays the younger version of Paul Newman, but he's not as likable as his predecessor. And in this version, Paul Newman doesn't even try to act. He walks through it, as if he knows he's going to win an undeserved Oscar and he's ticked off about it. My advice: just watch The Hustler twice instead.
Timo Vuorensola
I prepared myself to this by watching The Hustler (1961) and enjoyed its' slow pace and character-driven story. The Color of Money kicks off with much more ballsy tone, really talking a lot about the game itself, and masterfully introducing the characters between the clacking of the balls and swooshing of the sticks. Scorsese goes very artsy with the camera angels and it gets a bit tiresome and feels a bit too intentional twisting and turning here and there, but overall the film is shot solid. Still, the biggest issue comes with the characters; you feel like you're almost there with Paul Newman, watching as he "plays" the kid and "plays" the girl, but it turns out that he's actually one step behind you in the end, which is a bit of a shame in the end. You'd want Paul to be the cleverest of them all, you'd want him beat that snotty annoying Cruise kid, but in the end, he is pleading for the last game and he gets hacked by Whitaker and he gets played by Cruise. Yes, he gets his say in the end, but still it doesn't feel somewhat satisfactory enough. Somehow, the characters end up in weird places and the development feels a bit off. Still, all is well and it's a beautiful film to watch, ambitious and very Scorsesean.
