Review of The Color of Money (1986) by Damion R — 17 Oct 2011
After six Academy Award nominations, Paul Newman finally won a Best Actor Oscar for reprising his role as Fast Eddie Felson from 1961's "The Hustler" (for which he was also nominated) in Martin Scorsese's 1986 sequel. I remember thinking they gave him the award simply because he had never won one yet and he was getting older...and now that I have seen the film, I realize my young assumption was...absolutely right. The man didn't even deserve a nomination unless the competition that year was really weak.
If you found "The Hustler" over-rated, you ain't seen nothing yet. "The Color of Money" is even less of a good film than its reviews and Oscar nominations make it out to be. Picking up twenty years later, Fast Eddie Felson's attention falls to a new hustler on the block, Vincent Lauria, played by Tom Cruise in one of his first terribly mediocre performances. And...well...not a hell of a lot happens besides a second-rate, boring film about pool that will make you wonder what Scorsese was thinking and if he was just drunk and not paying attention. And then the credits role. And you breathe a sigh of relief that it's over.
"The Color of Money"? More like The Color of Over-Rated Boredom.
Skip it.
This review of The Color of Money (1986) was written by Damion R on 17 Oct 2011.
The Color of Money has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
