MovieChat Forums > The Color of Money (1986) Discussion > The huge, ridiculous flaw in this laugha...

The huge, ridiculous flaw in this laughably medicore film

posted 9 years ago by doughazelrigg
10 replies | jump to latest

Okay, the movie has some nice moments, some memorable lines, but the entire premise is presented in such a flawed way as to render the movie a laughable turd. The idea is that Eddie, Vincent, and Carmen are going to hit the hustings and establish a false rep for Vincent, a rep that he is not all that much of a player, so that when he gets to the big tournament in Atlantic City, he will lose early, but then rake it in big time in the back rooms when he unleashes his full talents. However -- once Eddie seems to have finally gotten through to Vincent that he must lose in order to win down the road, what does the script give us? A montage of Vincent hustling and beating players in hall after hall, laughing as they hand over their money, laughing as he walks out, and even getting chased out of a couple places. In other words, Vincent, contrary to the plan, is establishing himself NOT as an easy mark, but as a HUSTLER, which will not serve him well at all once he reaches Atlantic City. Clearly, neither the screenwriter nor the director -- who in my opinion is one of THE most overrated -- don't even understand their own plot.

[–] HOKfilms 9 years ago

There was no premise that they were going to go around to every pool hall and dump to give Vince a bad rep.

They were going to a tournament and hustle pool along the way. That's it.

And without exposing Vince as a good player only at certain pool halls and against certain players. Not like word of husltlin' some old lady in some dive bar in Bodunk, Iowa is going to reach the pros.

Your whole point is wrong.

I <3 Emily Blunt

[–] maturity 9 years ago

The logic is still flawed because Eddie went and beat Moselle after condemning for Vincent for doing it. Why make a big deal out of it when according to his logic it won't mess up your odds in Atlantic City to beat some big black guy with a cowboy hat in a Chicago slum? I think TCoM was mediocre and so was the Hustler. I'd rate them both about 6/10 at best for different reasons. The Hustler is too slow and depressing and over long. The Color of Money is too hokey, corny, goofy, flakey, and phony. Vincent would have been robbed and beat up after his first win at Chalkie's, unless he had a gun. Doing his dance and baton twirling with the cue stick looked silly and the hoods would be lining of outside.

[–] maturity 9 years ago

And how does Eddie know anything when he has been out of circulation for so long? He didn't even know that his favorite pool hall was now a furniture warehouse or thrift shop. Maybe he read some magazines and knew Grady Seasons, but there are lots of other players who he may not recognize. The whole idea that he can FIX the odds beating certain people in certain places and not others is a stretch. He would have to be immersed in the game and traveling constantly to know that. He knows too much and it's not believable given his early failure. It's like saying if you hitch-hiked and rode rails across country 30 years ago that you can do it today.

[–] jmrex 8 years ago

You can beat Moselle, but not before you've taken money from everybody else. Eddie couldn't have made this any clearer.

[–] maturity 9 years ago

I agree that Scorsese is an overrated hack. Take away his music budget, narration, and flashy camera tricks and his movies would be even more forgettable than they are. This movie is full of silly dialogue that makes no sense and probably didn't make a lot more sense if you grew up in the two decades before it was released. Like Eddie's comment about which girl has the Tony or Vincent mentioning "the guy in the Bible with the many colored coats" when asked about the two brothers and a stranger hustle. But the main purpose of Eddie going on the road was to teach Vincent how to lose games in strategic ways or win later by throwing games. Winning at the practice room was something Eddie said offhand when they were first leaving. He didn't want Vincent to attract too much attention beating the biggest player in a game seen by every player from all the surrounding neighborhoods. Beating a few small timers and acting flamboyant was not as much of a concern.

What I don't get is why Julian was at the tournament if he was such a cokehead loser who could not even win one game against Vincent. If Vincent can run the table over and over, how did Julian stand a chance? May as well have stayed there snorting blow and telling lies of how great a pool player he was, looking like a chump.

[–] super-joey 8 years ago

Scorsese is an overrated hack

Not everyone has to like him but it seems odd to call him a "hack." That implies he uses only overused formulas for the purposes of ensuring commercial success. I don't think one could look at his career as a whole and make that assertion with much authority.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (63057267) 9 years ago

The O.P. would be wise to delete this thread as it outs him as a high-handed, know-nothing simp. He says the great Scorsese and the brilliant screenwriter Richard Price didn't understand their own plot, yet it's clear the O.P. didn't have a clue what was happening in the narrative. Priceless. Later he claims THE HUSTLER was a misfire. It's only one of the most critically praised and generally celebrated films of the 1960s. Thanks for the laughs, goon.

[–] jmrex 8 years ago

Maturity calls Scorsese a hack. Quite possibly the most ignorant statement on the entire internet.

[–] super-joey 8 years ago

I think the internet overuses words (like "hack") without knowing what they mean. Reading reviews and comments about film, I often see words tossed about without much care for their definitions. Much like the phrase, "production values." Often I read, "This movie has terrible production values" when the poster really means, "This movie has a low budget and I don't like low budget movies." In this case, he uses "hack" when he really means, "I don't like his work."

[–] jmrex 8 years ago

You're giving far too much benefit of the doubt. He means to impugn Scorsese's talent. In high school, he probably called Shakespeare a hack. Shakespeare probably still haunts him to this day. His G.E.D. awaits if he can quiet the demons. I, for one, am rooting for him.