Skip to main content

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money

(SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money, however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

There’d be much more egregious for-hire examples later (Cape Fear, Shutter Island, even the one that got him the Oscar, finally), but this is where Scorsese willingly prostituted himself, telling himself that, if he didn’t, and didn’t turn up a hit, his career would be in serious trouble. Perhaps DOA. Even those supporting The Color of Money at the time – and critics were generally kind – recognised it for what it was. And what it was, was a hit. For Newman. For Cruise. For Marty. Not even close to the same year’s Top Gun (which made more than three times as much domestic), but it emphasised both Cruise and Newman – who was still a draw in the right material: Fort Apache, The Bronx; Absence of Malice; The Verdict – were Hollywood, not just pool, players.

It also received Oscar recognition, of course. Second tier, true – it would have to be a rare great sequel to be in contention for the top prize – but four nods, including Best Adapted Screenplay and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Best Supporting Actress, yielded Newman’s first genuine win. He’d taken a lifetime achievement statuette the year before, but I’d suggest, for anyone with any self-respect about their trade, there’s something a little insulting about those. For a story that at no point feels like it needs to be told, the awards recognition makes for a pretty good showing. I suspect part of that is in the DNA of the plot Scorsese and Price eventually hit upon. If Walter Trevis’ 1984 sequel novel was the genesis of the movie, the filmmaker quickly ditched it as unworthy of the character and a motion picture.

Scorsese, as recounted by Bart Mills in the Film Year Book Volume 6, commented “I presented the idea that Fast Eddie would have become everything he’d hated – and then have to face himself. He’d face himself through the education of a kid”. This, as opposed to Trevis’ take of “a beaten man who had spent the intervening years racking balls in a pool hall”. If that reckoning was Scorsese’s intent, it’s fortunately somewhat subsumed. Firstly, in Newman underplaying such an intent (he had, after all, played the redemption card all-out in The Verdict, just a few years prior). Mainly, though, in the way Eddie taking up the tables again translates less as a realisation of sins committed and misdeeds atoned for than his recognising the competitive spirit welling up within once more, the passion to play again. You can interpret that as you will, but it doesn’t play preachy to me.

Possibly partly because, with Tom Cruise’s Vincent Lauria as the spark igniting Eddie’s fire, it’s pretty impossible to feel anything but repugnance. You don’t feel Eddie’s wrong teaching him tricks, how to lose to win big, because he’s such a cocky “little prick” (as Eddie’s girlfriend Janelle, played by Helen Shaver, succinctly characterises him). The only respectable method of responding to Vincent’s masturbatory dancing around the pool table would be to glass him. It’s further evidence of the baffling spell Cruise cast over audiences during that decade, when he actively appeared to be doing everything he possibly could to make them loathe his characters. See also the cocky little pricks in Top Gun and Cocktail.

There’s a problem too in Cruise’s presence, or rather the protégée presence, in that it actively works against the picture tracking like an organic sequel. It feels manufactured, the sort of thing that leads to a Top Gun: Maverick. If Vincent is supposed to be an infantile brat, I guess Cruise is doing good work here, but it’s no stretch from his other roles during the period. There’s also the damaging realisation that Mastrantonio is so out of Vincent’s league as girlfriend Carmen, and a crucial few years his senior, she could almost be a beard or handler (see also Tom’s real life pairing with Mimi Rogers a couple of years later).

I suspect there was a story to tell without ingratiating junior being shown the ropes, then, or at least, not in such an irksome manner. With him, the movie has been made to order (the other tell-tale sign of such thinking is Eddie’s Rocky training montage, where he limbers up to enter the Atlantic City tournament via an eye test, swimming lengths of the pool, and playing minor stakes games).

Mills considered the picture, “an honourable view of the heel’s comeback”, labelling it one of the films of 1986. Pauline Kael, inevitably, was less plussed. She thought it started well, but was crippled by Eddie’s “crisis of conscience, or something”: “Eddie locks his jaw, sets forth to become a man of integrity, and the joy goes out of Newman’s performance…”. She was convinced Scorsese and Price were turning the character into “a tortured, driven artist, suffering whatever temptations Scorsese is suffering, or… imagines he’s suffering”. Like I say, I didn’t feel that was writ distractingly large, but more to the point, any return to Eddie needed the satisfaction of him doing what he does best again. Why else would you go there, unless you wanted to wallow in emotional squalor? Paul Schrader would have delivered the goods there, I’m certain.

She also accused Scorsese’s approach of being one who “shows off the dynamics of moviemaking, overdramatising everything”. And this is true, but that’s because he doesn’t essentially feel any of the things Kael is projecting onto him, and unlike After Hours, where Coens-esque excess serves the heightened story and tone, this is an exercise in gun-for-hire impersonality.

I’m all in for her description of Cruise, though: “He’s so wholesome and harmless he’s like a cheerleader’s idea of a De Niro flake”. She goes wild for Forest Whitaker (who is very good) yet neglects to mention John Turturro, who is equally so. Whitaker’s the guy who beats Eddie at his own game (“Are you a hustler, Amos?”) Turturro is the spurned junior hustler who thinks he’s better than he is, and even gets a line that might have inspired the Coens’ de Jesus (“I’ll put the nine-ball up both your asses”).

The Color of Money did decent business for Touchstone during its first big breakout year (their other hits were Down and Out in Beverly Hills and Ruthless People). More especially, it earned awards attention, something that had virtually been a foreign country to Disney outside of animation. A great sequel? No. But a perfectly respectable attempt at the quarter-century-later revisit, and it would arguably pave the way for other attempts claiming similarly legitimate intent.

Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was