MovieChat Forums > The Color of Money (1986) Discussion > This whole movie doesn't make any sense ...

This whole movie doesn't make any sense at all...

posted 10 years ago by Atotffl
4 replies | jump to latest

this movie is a sequel to the Hustler. at the end of that movie, Eddie had learned his lesson about hustling.

why then would the older Eddie in this movie try to train a new young gun how to hustle? wasn't that what destroyed his life in the Hustler? why would Eddie try to destroy another life?

are we saying that Eddie didn't learn anything at all from 25 years ago? the whole movie basically depicts Eddie as a old time seasoned hustler. instead of hustling pool, he's now hustling liquor and life. as soon as Vince comes into his life, he immediately sees him as a race horse and wanted to squeeze all the money he could make from Vince by teaching him how to hustle.

I just think this whole movie is a contradiction to the original movie. either that or the movie makers wanted us to believe that Eddie is and always will be a hustler and he has no regard for anyone but himself.

finally, at the end of the hustler, Eddie basically hated his backer. but in this film, Eddie basically becomes the scum backer himself. I mean I just don't see how he could go from the guy who finally has character at the end of the hustler to a complete scum in the color money. he had become the one person he hated the most. just doesn't make any sense at all...

[–] nbreyfogle-1 10 years ago

It's not officially a sequel. It was originally going to be, but that idea was scrapped. Read the Wikipedia article about this movie.

[–] krycek19 9 years ago

If it's not a sequel, how come Newman played the exact same character??

This movie was so boring and so pointless that it pisses me off. And reading how people love it and defend it, like their opinion is the only right opinion, pisses me off even more.

[–] McQueen1980 9 years ago

it got paul newman an oscar did it not??

[–] maturity 9 years ago

He got his thumbs broken by showing off after trying go hustle people. He said he could have beaten them cold and they never would have known. As for Bert he was much more sleazy and greedy, taking 75% of the winnings compared to 50% and trying to take a cut at the end when Eddie had left him and he was backing Minnesota Fats. Plus Eddie was losing money on the games sometimes to have better odds in tournament down the line. Eddie was kind of sleazy to walk out in the early game leaving Vincent with no money to pay the bet, but Vince should have got the money up front or had his own money. It's stupid to trust someone else to hold the money when they might go out to the bath room or something and let you get jumped by a dozen guys and beaten to a pulp. That scene I would agree Eddie put Vincent at risk recklessly but it was a stupid setup for Vince not to have the cash in hand for that game like he had for the earlier games.