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

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.