Really? Not according to Siskel & Ebert and a lot of pool players.
Actually you Do need to be a non-pool person to enjoy it.
Review:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hC0HdfCgeAQ
Ebert Written Review:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-color-of-money-1986
Siskel Written Review: Sequel To `Hustler` Is A Disappointment
October 17, 1986|By Gene Siskel.
Our Flick of the Week is Martin Scorsese`s eagerly awaited ``The Color of Money,`` a continuation of ``The Hustler`` (1961), the classic pool room saga about a drifter who has to be put through the ringer and a personal crisis before he can rid his ``loser`` tag and become a self-respecting winner.
Paul Newman repeats his role as ``Fast Eddie`` Felson, a former pool hustler who is now making money with a liquor distribution scam. But Felson returns to hustling pool after he spots a raw young talent in the form of Tom Cruise, who has all the right moves but none of the guile of the hustler.
The premise might sound interesting, but the plotting is so utterly predictable--as Newman and Cruise quarrel and make up, and quarrel and have problems with their respective girlfriends--that ``The Color of Money`` turns into a pool-room variation of ``The Karate Kid.``
The problem may be that Scorsese, arguably America`s most gifted and gritty director, is working from a script not written by one of his veteran collaborators, and so the grit is gone. All of the performances are fine. Newman is particularly effective, but he is forced to run a familiar treadmill. And so ``The Color of Money`` joins ``Heartburn`` as one of the biggest disappointments of 1986. Both films should have been so much better, considering the talents involved.
2-1/2 Stars
