ONE OF SCORSESE'S WORST?
-
asherp — 12 years ago(August 14, 2013 12:13 PM)
I liked itand I think "one of Scorsese's worst" is a bit over statedOne of his worst is better than many people's bestSome of the other movies you listed are sooooo incredible, its not fair to compare another movie to them because under that light even a decent movie will look bad.
Of course when I saw Color of Money, i was working in a rec/pool hall and had seen the Hustler recentlyIt had a good story, good music, memorable scenesSo i'd have to say that i liked it.and when i see it now and again i still like it.
The interplay in how fast eddie was once the young hustler and now is the old proand how the hustler never learns and never listenshow even for the old pro life isnt so easy.how things arent always how they appearou cant just lose a game, but you have to lose convincingly.lots of good philosphy stuffoverall enjoyable. -
hey_treacle — 12 years ago(February 21, 2014 04:36 PM)
Totally agree and I'm a big Scorsese fan. I saw it first about 15 years ago and was pretty keyed up as I had heard about the werewolves of London scene and I'm a Warren Zevon fan. Also it came in the same decade as two of Scorsese's strongest films in my view - In fact my pick of all Scorsese films is still King Of Comedy, mainly due to De Niro's performance. Also, of course, the brilliantly original After Hours came in this period. Anyhow I digress.The point being that I was disappointed when I first saw it 15 years ago. I saw it yesterday in HD though and decided to give it another chance. It remains for me a weak film for a few reasons. Firstly the pacing and narrative is very pedestrian and I think this is the reaction to the box office duds of King Of Comedy and After Hours, this was made to appeal to the largest possible audience. To me it suffers from a distinct sequel feel and a desire to make the film commercial, anyone who thinks this is better than The Hustler needs their taste checked. Marty's visual flair is all here but everything else seems oddly almost anti-Scorsese to me.
The other main problem I have with it is the acting. Newman seems far too restrained and to me seems to be phoning his performance in, honestly don't feel his heart is in the project (which makes it all the more ironic he won the Oscar for it). Tom Cruise on the other hand plays against an almost uninterested Newman by hamming it to the nines, Cruise is practically eating the scenery - way way way over the top. Also while the character is clearly supposed to have flaws Cruise manages to make him totally repellent I feel. For this reason would be interesting to know the relationship between Cruise, Newman and the rest of the crew on set. I will say Elizabeth M. turns in a decent performance but there is something very misogynistic about the character here, she does all her talking in an early notable scene and then stands around delivering very short lines while looking pretty. Also the dynamic between Newman and Elizabeth doesn't work in any manner. It feels creepy and the most mysogynistic scenes all come from this idea of her flirting and showing her body to Newman before he pins her up against a wall and manhandles her a bit. Its a very mean spirited horrible role for her, she seems to have no redeeming qualities. I can only put this down to the film being a reflection of the times. Having said all this I still find Cruise to be the main problem, while the film has elements of comedy cruise cannot pull it off and by the end the film takes itself far too seriously. An odd film and by far Scorsese's worse misfire, not considered bad at the time it has to be said though. But while other films which fared much worse at the box office have been lauded with age (After Hours, King Of Comedy, Bringing out The Dead) this has been forgotten. Above all else I think the main reason for this is there was little to remember here, other than Cruise's grotesque performance (note that Cruise wouldn't work with Scorsese again so Marty could not have been too impressed). -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 28, 2014 04:52 PM)
'there is something very misogynistic about the character here'
'It feels creepy and the most mysogynistic scenes'
I don't know if you're a woman(though I guees you are), but may I ask if women look for Misogyny ,where sexism towards men in films would not be noticed or commented on? Is it because women confuse Misogyny with reality, or that it's easier for women to cite Misogyny? Or that sexism towards men does not exist?
You see, it's easy for women to cite a men for sexism,than the reverse since it's a "given"
If a film was about a male stripper(and they exist) who was being exploited, it really wouldn't get a raised eyebrow, but a chuckle instead. I've noticed this on boards from I Love Lucy to Rosemary's Baby, and in-between.
I think accusations of Misogyny has more to do with the woman who perceives it more than whether it's true or not. Now, my last comment would be dismissed as being (very)'misogynistic' in itself. -
piggoli-imdb — 11 years ago(August 19, 2014 02:06 PM)
I don't know if you're a woman(though I guees you are), but may I ask if women look for Misogyny
Only feminists do because they are a bunch of crazy, disoriented people anyway. They will look for even the smallest detail and try to pin every blame on men while at the same time playing the victim card, loudly denouncing patriarchy. -
james-mac — 9 years ago(October 22, 2016 09:21 PM)
A whiney baby man aren't you. You don't seem to understand the smallest part of history. All your references are media. How about looking at how women have been treated as chattel right up to the present day. God men who cry like this don't deserve to be called men.
-
coffeemann — 12 years ago(April 01, 2014 04:25 AM)
no way! this movie was Brilliant!
now , looking back for you first time viewers it might seem not that good when you compare everything elese marty has done.
but I saw it in the 80's a couple years after it came out I think the first time I saw it was around 1988 or something, I was 15 or 16, not a fan of pool, not really a big fan of hollywood, except a couple films, ET, star wars, indian jones or stuff, I was just a kid, but I thought it was cool at the time and I wanted to go out and play pool,
I watched it again in the early 90's about 5 years later when I was in college , played pool, worked in a bar with a pool table, had been with a couple girls, been in bars , meet those kinds of characters in pool halls, and had a little bit of life experience.
had seen scarface so I knew the actress, had seen goodfellas, so I understood the director marty scorsese and who and what he is, I knew paul newman, had seen the hustler and of course knew tom cruise.
so when I watched it that second time, I really feel in love with the lighting, the mood the director of photography used, how he lit the movie.
Michael Ballhaus would go on to work with marty again in
Goodfellas , The Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and The Departed.
also you can get a sense of his mood with films like mambo kings, sleepers and Dracula.. so
for me, I loved Color of Money for that reason first.
Then the fast pace of the movie, the excitement of the pool life, and of course
the music sound track, the hustling nature of the characters, and the brilliant acting from the cast. -
mail-2217 — 11 years ago(May 10, 2014 12:03 AM)
First of all, this is arrogant to say, but this isn't where I expected Eddie to be at 60-something. IOW: I don't believe this is how he turned out, so it was tough to buy in from the start.
And it is a very "80's" movie and it feels more like a Hollywood movie than a 'Scorcese' movie. IOW: it looks like a LOT of directors could've made it. I think the Cruise is a little too young and the music only adds to the "80's" vibe.
And yeah, it's a mistake to do a sequel to The Hustler if yer not gonna swing for the seats. IOW: it would look a LOT better if it wasn't Hustler II.
There are worse Scorcese movies (and if you ask me, he hasn't had a truly -great- movie in a good while). -
piggoli-imdb — 11 years ago(August 19, 2014 02:01 PM)
Certainly nowhere near Goodfellas, Casino, Mean Streets, Gangs of New York, the Departed, Hugo, etc. I also watched it right after watching the Hustler (which probably didn't help matters) because the Hustler was so much more interesting.
Gotta confess that I stopped reading as soon as I saw you putting classics such as Mean Streets and Casino alongside boring movies like Gangs and Hugo. Are you for real? This is a much better movie than the kind of sh*t he makes these days -
Irish_Pete — 11 years ago(October 05, 2014 02:38 PM)
Can't disagree, this is probably the worst Scorsese film I've seen. It's more typical of the mainstream dross that polluted cinema screens in the 80s than the rest of Scorsese's work. In short it's shallow, formulaic and boring.
The real tragedy is that Newman won the Oscar for this garbage rather than any of the excellent performances for which he had previously been nominated. I guess the Academy must have been feeling sentimentally inclined that year. -
anchorman360 — 11 years ago(October 05, 2014 05:06 PM)
Definitely not the worst Scorsese movie. IMO it's better than a lot of his other movies. High quality entertainment that Newman won a well deserved Oscar for. Maybe not Newman's best but definitely up there.
-
collin-reid — 11 years ago(October 22, 2014 12:54 PM)
I would not call it his worst as there is Who's Knockin' On My Door (Student Film in reality), Boxcar Bertha (His Drive-In one), Shutter Island (WAY Over done), Bringing Out The Dead, and my least favorite, New York, New York. (On paper Marty making a Noir Musical should have been great but it is a mess.)
In general , TCOM screams Marty "Commercial 1980s Hit!" saved by a good Newman performance. (Although Cruise is little over-the-top and the music is incredibly dated.) That said, the MTV moments were good and I think great practice for his masterpiece Goodfellas. -
esb90 — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 10:55 PM)
I don't understand this preoccupation people seem to have with music being "dated" as a downside. This film was made IN the 80s, and most of it's blues, jazz and rock by legendary artists such as Eric Clapton, B.B. King, Muddy Waters Warren Zevon etc. It's the type of music you'd hear playing in a bar or pool hall in 1986, if not today.
Nobody seems to be bothered by a jazz soundtrack playing in a film from the 40s or 50s, yet, if it's in the 80's or 90s, it's somehow insufferable? -
cultfilmfreaksdotcom — 11 years ago(December 15, 2014 02:36 AM)
I think it's much better than Hugo, and anything with Leo too. The directing itself is just amazing. Almost steals the show. Along with Newman.
Movie Reviews
www.cultfilmfreaks.com
FBK
www.facebook.com/cultfilmfreakcinema -
DracTarashV — 11 years ago(January 10, 2015 04:50 AM)
I think it's much better than Hugo, and anything with Leo too. The directing itself is just amazing. Almost steals the show. Along with Newman.
I agree with this 100%.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!