There are two possible reviews that could be written about this film; two kinds, that is. One kind comes from somebody who's never seen "The Hustler" (1961), who's main character, Fast Eddie Felson, played by Paul Newman, is here reprised and replayed by the same actor, after 25 years has gone by, in a new script. I'm curious to read a review of this kind. I've seen "The Hustler" and rank it very high on my list of great films. So I can only write a review of this other kind. If you know the story from "Hustler" (and love it), how can you not be interested in what happens to Fast Eddie later in life? I was immediately aware of the extension of ideas (money, excellence, honor, pride, and deceit) from "The Hustler" and curious to see where Scorsese would take them. I think he's true to the time period: the clothing (and Vince's hair!), the music (very 80's), and the shift of values (as compared to 60s; e.g. cocaine replacing alcohol). Fast Eddie is also true to his age (and former excellence as a hustler). It feels like he's inherited a bit of Bert (from "The Hustler), a festering bitterness and pride, which reemerges when he meets Vince. I actually liked Tom Cruise as the innocent Vince and thought he played him perfectly. I winced to see him lose that innocence, which is probably what the film means to do. Mastroantonio is also pretty fabulous and yet no where near as cognizant and complex as Piper Laurie's character in "The Hustler." In that respect, this film is not as "cool" as "The Hustler." To credit Scorsese, he avoids trying to make a film as cool or similar in look to the original. Also, this movie does not attempt to gloss over Fast Eddie's faults (indeed it focuses on them intensely), and it doesn't mean to have him come to some redemption (although he does return to some of his former glory as a pool player). For me, my interest in the development of the story hinges upon my knowledge of what happened in "The Hustler." There was no way I could separate this fact from my judgement of the movie. I was disappointed only in so far that I wasn't watching "The Hustler" instead; and that's unfair to this movie. So, I don't know how this movie stands on its own. Try to imagine a movie about Rick, reprised by Bogart, from "Casablanca" 25 years later, called "The Taste of Defeat" when he's living in Paris, bloated from drink and lamenting the loss of swing jazz and, alas, his only love,Ilsa, etc etc.

It's been a while now since I saw "The Hustler", but my memory suggests that it was substantially more grim and gritty than this much later sequel, if one could even call it that. That might owe to the earlier film's black and white photography adding a noirish feel to the smoke filled pool parlors and lounges where the young Eddie Felson used to ply his trade. With "The Color of Money", I couldn't get quite comfortable with where the picture was going or if we would ever get there. The basic plot is understood, the now older Eddie (Paul Newman) would take upstart newcomer Vincent Lauria (Tom Cruise) under his wing, teach him how to read his opponents, stake him in his matches, and collect his share of the winnings. I never really got the sense though that Vincent was ever really along for that ride, since he almost never took Eddie's advice, allowing his ego to constantly get in the way of their shared goal.

What I got the biggest kick out of had to do with the musical lyrics set to various confrontations Vincent dealt with on the circuit. Eddie's warning about Moselle was comically echoed by Warren Zevon's line - 'You better stay away from him, He'll rip your lungs out Jim' - that was great. Later, as Grady Seasons runs the table, Vincent has to consider - 'Are you gonna fall for this'?

The other noteworthy moment watching the film today had to do with Paul Newman's character talking to Vincent early in the story, and explaining how he would teach him how to hustle. The discussion might have just as well turned on Newman giving pointers to Cruise on how to act at this early point in his career. That's not meant to be a put down, but you can definitely see the difference between the actor Cruise of today compared to two decades earlier. Just an observation.

I suppose my qualms about the picture have to do with it's pacing in the latter half, when the focus is on Fast Eddie's decision to compete again. There's that swimming pool dive that comes from nowhere, and the attendant visit to the optometrist when he realizes his sight is impaired. That just seemed to break the flow of the story enough to give it a disjointed feel. Later, Eddie's victory over Vincent in the tournament seemed tainted, and then of course, that's revealed to be true. I guess I was looking for the picture to end on some kind of message shedding light on the underlying decency of the principal players, but instead it looked like they both wound up behind an eight ball.

This film brings together the classic American actor, Paul Newman, with a popular stud of the time, Tom Cruise. With a notable cameo of Forest Whitaker as Amos the hustler.

How to judge this film? It is not as great as Newman's original time around as Fast Eddie ("The Hustler"), but still a great film just the same. And it hardly ranks as one of Cruise's best, though he gets that craziness out of him here (with a bare minimum of running). Scorsese has done better, much better, but he was working within a framework here and I think as far as sequels go, this one is pretty great.

A must-see film, not so much because it is one of the better films, but because it has three great giants of film together in one place. Love it or hate it, this is a strong presentation of talent.