Login to view embedded media
Thuddy hit and result.

Okay….whatever you say……I really don’t think authencity of characters was ever on the mind of the directors or producers versus acting performance. The audience didn’t know or care he was a real life pool player and noteworthy character and competitor. And yes he was indeed a hustler type individual in real life. But the viewing audience of the film really didn’t care. Any actor could have substituted for the role that did not require a real noteworthy. pool player. Tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions by now, have seen those movies and most don’t even know Keith’s name. I don’t hate Keith. I knew him back in the 90’s when he played in Fresno visitin Dan Dadian (RIP). I am just being a film critic and offering praise for an insignificant character and performance in a historically recognized great film seems incongruous and a little curious. It’s a film comment I offered that’s neither an attack or criticism of Keith other than his acting skills.

Biloxi Boy said:

I will not be the first, nor the last, to say this, but the biggest error in COM was that a larger role was not written-in for McCready during production or the obvious sequel set-up or begun. The director had to know he held 24k cinematic gold in his hands, but I am also certain the prospect of acting up against McCready scared Cruise to death. What we did get of McCready was incredible and convinces me that Hollywood is a closed shop. A terrible shame on all accounts. What an opportunity missed.

Click to expand...

Bavafongoul said:

His character, and Keith himself, were not important for the movie in any way and you could have substituted anyone
back at that time like Nick Varner, Kim Davenport and so many others. You could write the character out of the script entirely or just replaced him with any other fictional character. You are just fascinated with the fact a pool player was picked to perform the acting when it could have been literally anyone in acting. Your adoration of Keith is apparent. BTW, he wasn’t acting in the movie. He was just being his acerbic self as many of us know him to be but his acting really was pretty bad.

Click to expand...

The Color of Money was a Hollywood production, regardless where the movie was filmed. Keith wasn’t some random poolroom pick. He grew up in SoCal, everybody in the scene knew him, and if you’re doing the Hollywood thing, it’s cinematic flair for some kind of authenticity - I’m not casting Nick Varner or Kim Davenport as hustlers. They’re great players yeah, but Keith had the personality and edge the producers wanted for an authentic hustler vibe for a fictional movie. So his acting didn’t live up academy award or Oscar level - that’s why the had Paul Newman. And yes, his character was fictional… just like every other character in the movie including the Balabushka cue.

And saying “you could have substituted anyone” - you could make that argument about anymovie role. Substitute one actor for another and the story still moves forward. The only character that couldn’t be swapped was Newman, because they were tethering the story to The Hustler. Everyone else was replaceable.

I’m not on Keith’s jock. I just don’t see a reason to hate. I can see what he brought to the film and I’m happy for him that he got the opportunity to get on the big screen. When does that $hit happen?

Should be a museum.

All right DD! Got a, new to me, table to add to the list. The Beach 8’ is down the road…

2004-5ish Diamond, Red Label Professional.

Speed of thunk.

Link?

I can understand, as a contemporary of Keith’s, that you could see his performance as sub-par because one sees it as Keith being Keith.

It seems to me that Scorsese had a different perspective in his casting, and one would assume, Tom and Paul had a say, that Keith would make a fine antagonist for Tom. This, of course, with the understanding that there were screen tests and the like. The shoes this movie had to fill were immense, so I don’t think just anyone, considering Scorsese wanted real pool players in his movie, would do. He had a vision and from my experience and enjoyment, a good one.

As a 16-year-old boy in 1986 The color of money was pivotal to my engagement in playing pool. When I first saw the movie, I didn’t know that Keith was a real pool player and not an actor. Later in life, as I rewatch the movie, I am always surprised at my suspension of disbelief in his performance. The Color of Money is why I still play pool, because of the influence it had on my young mind. I enjoy it even more now.

Just made my wife watch it with me recently, she doesn’t know anyone besides Paul, Tom, John. To her they were all actors and she loved it! Brought back memories…

Just one man’s opinion.

Greg M said:

Looks like a telescopic mini-butt.

Click to expand...

Looks like the extension breaks down further, but he couldn't get it apart, so finally just used the whole extension.