Which is better: TCOM or THE HUSTLER
- Thread starter 9 ball
- Start date
Ain't that the truth especially when Paul Newman gives the speech at the end and tells Eddie he's gonna have to kill him 'cause if he only busts him up he'll put all the pieces back together and come back and kill Eddie....gobrian77 said:
Geez I love that movie!!!!!!
The Hustler has more enduring value than the Color of Money. Pool is the backdrop through which Fast Eddie must confront every element of his morals, ethics, values, and conscience, and the vehicle through which he experiences life's highest highs and lowest lows. To succeed at pool will require great sacrifices of Fast Eddie, and the rigor with which he tackles the question of whether such sacrifices are ultimately worth it give The Hustler an extraordinarily rich fabric that The Color of Money cannot nearly match.
Note: the remainder of this post is adapted frm a previous post of mine.
Nonetheless, The Color of Money is a much better pool movie. Some suggest that the implausibility of the Vincent character (a total unknown that plays world class pool) ruins The Color of Money, but I beg to differ. Using a very contrived character as a vehicle to offer a panoramic view of an aspect of his society was not beneath the dignity of Charles Dickens and in no way detracted from the quality of the pictures of society that Dickens painted through the written word. I believe that The Color of Money's use of the admittedly improbable Vincent is similarly effective.
In The Color of Money, through the eyes of Vincent, we get to see:
small time barbox betting
bigtime barbox betting
players good enough to make it on the road
players not good enough to make it on the road
the hustling scene and its underlying morality
trashtalking and gamesmanship
dumping and its implications
mentor/student tension
the pre-tournament scene
the tournament scene
the tournament side action scene
and much, much more.
Is it likely that a booze chugging driving range pro that rarely competed could rebound to the point of being in contention to win on the seventy second hole of the US Open golf tournament in his first try? Not really, but the very contrived Roy MacEvoy, played by Kevin Costner in "Tin Cup" still provided a wonderful panoramic view of the golf scene.
To those that dismiss The Color of Money just because Vincent is an example of artistic license, I ask you to reconsider.
To sum, I guess my view on things is that The Hustler is the better movie, but The Color of Money is the better pool movie.
Note: the remainder of this post is adapted frm a previous post of mine.
Nonetheless, The Color of Money is a much better pool movie. Some suggest that the implausibility of the Vincent character (a total unknown that plays world class pool) ruins The Color of Money, but I beg to differ. Using a very contrived character as a vehicle to offer a panoramic view of an aspect of his society was not beneath the dignity of Charles Dickens and in no way detracted from the quality of the pictures of society that Dickens painted through the written word. I believe that The Color of Money's use of the admittedly improbable Vincent is similarly effective.
In The Color of Money, through the eyes of Vincent, we get to see:
small time barbox betting
bigtime barbox betting
players good enough to make it on the road
players not good enough to make it on the road
the hustling scene and its underlying morality
trashtalking and gamesmanship
dumping and its implications
mentor/student tension
the pre-tournament scene
the tournament scene
the tournament side action scene
and much, much more.
Is it likely that a booze chugging driving range pro that rarely competed could rebound to the point of being in contention to win on the seventy second hole of the US Open golf tournament in his first try? Not really, but the very contrived Roy MacEvoy, played by Kevin Costner in "Tin Cup" still provided a wonderful panoramic view of the golf scene.
To those that dismiss The Color of Money just because Vincent is an example of artistic license, I ask you to reconsider.
To sum, I guess my view on things is that The Hustler is the better movie, but The Color of Money is the better pool movie.
philw said:
Originally Posted by ribdoner
Shame you couldn't experience BENSINGERS in CHI. It could have easily been used as the set for THE HUSTLER...
Freddie told us once they were going to shoot it at Bensingers, but when they scouted the location, they noticed to ceilings were to low to operate the camera cranes.
my bad, here is the thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=28291&page=5&highlight=ames
"Here is the response I got from the FAMOUS and FEARLESS Freddy "The Beard"...
You can bet parts of your body that the original Hustler was not filmed there in any part. New York's Ames Billiards only. No such place existed in 1937 as Chris's. Bob Reis opened it as an alternative for the Bensinger 3cushion players who were being abused by the new idiot owner Bob Seigel at the time G Fels and the Ghost said. Before that Chris's was warehouse space. The owner of Chris's is my friend, Dr. Richie Herbert. Doc Herbert is capable of saying anything with impunity. The closest Chicago came to having the Hustler filmed in Chicago was when they approached the old owner of Bensingers, Norman Bensinger about filming it in the Clark-Diversey location. When they discovered that the ceilings there were very low they sh*tcanned the idea. If you like Chris's, you would have ran away from home to hang out in the old Bensingers.
the Beard"
Last edited:
The Acting Was Superior In The Hustler... imo
That's all true. In the time of The Hustler, players wore sportcoats or suit and tie. The sound of the balls was the sound of the room. No jukebox, just pool, mister.
In TCOM, Eddie takes Vincent to a room long closed and in another room Vincent shows his ass by twirling his cue and dancing to the loud music. Different times, different atmosphere, different behavior, different audience and appreciation of an earlier era.
Today, we have 15,000 square foot poolrooms with 30 tables, a full restaurant & bar, a live band and MIDGET WRESTLING......
Doug
( I'll take The Hustler and Ames, mister.... imo )
cuejoey said:You have made a very good point about saying it was slow..i lived in that era and will tell you it represents that era ..things were much slower back then..little things back then got us excited..the things/events of this newer era are so much faster everbody is in a hurry to do everything.it takes more to excite people now...when watching the Hustler a person should realize that they are watching real history of the past..the Hustler being made in 1961 and i believe TCOM was made approx 1984..i have watched them both dozens of times..both movies were outstanding..
That's all true. In the time of The Hustler, players wore sportcoats or suit and tie. The sound of the balls was the sound of the room. No jukebox, just pool, mister.
In TCOM, Eddie takes Vincent to a room long closed and in another room Vincent shows his ass by twirling his cue and dancing to the loud music. Different times, different atmosphere, different behavior, different audience and appreciation of an earlier era.
Today, we have 15,000 square foot poolrooms with 30 tables, a full restaurant & bar, a live band and MIDGET WRESTLING......
Doug
( I'll take The Hustler and Ames, mister.... imo )
Well, if those are your criteria for movie excellence...
pj
chgo
Wow!! Oustanding and thought-provoking presentation. A few comments.
To me, TCOM was to The Hustler as Rocky was to Somebody Up There Likes Me.
If The Hustler was less about pool per se, than about the "human condition" issues you described--and I agree that it was--it nevertheless introduced the world to the dark but fascinating underbelly of a lifestyle desguised as a sport...which is what pool is.
So it gets at least the 8 for its originality and originality is an aspect that can never be duplicated, let alone surpassed.
The Rocky/TCOM analogy rest on the at least somewhat "over-the-top" moments in both films. In an irony reserved only for American film audiences, the Number 1 grossing boxing film (series) of all time was also the series that contained the worst and at times almost laughable fight footage ever shot in a major film of that genre. (But the Rocky audiences couldn't laugh because they were cheering so much)!
But that didn't matter because while much of the fight footage was cartoonish, whats the matter with cartoons?
In a way, The Hustler and TCOM shouldn't even be compared even though aspects of pool--and different aspects as you point out--were fundamental to both films. But High Noon and Butch Cassidy were both founded in the Western genre but have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and are never compared.
My main problems with TCOM--one major and one minor--was the sped up pool shot sequences which were REALLY cartoonish (the major issue) and the gratutious references to "character" that was the bed rock theme of The Hustler (the minor issue). TCOM tried to annoint itself with The Hustler's precious oils of allegory and artistry by REFERRING to it and that rang pretty hollow in my ears.
I am sure that Scorcese didn't set out to create a work of art but rather a pop corn audience pleaser and he did that with great skill.
The creators of The Hustler, on the other hand, NEVER DREAMED that the film would captivate such an immediate, immense and enduring audience as it did...and continues to do.
Other than that, I enjoyed all of the aspects of TCOM that you pointed out.
As for your Dickens references though...if I may digreess to a sub-topic... I'm not sure that his characters were as contrived as you think they are. I didn't live in that era...obviously, so I don't KNOW that any of his characters were overdrawn, but I am something of a history buff and have read fairly extensively about that era (both fiction and non-fiction).
Clearly, the fate of the lower classes and especially the children, was to face appalling, virtually life threatening obstacles, exploitation and deprevation on a scale that is unimaginable in modern society.
As you know, Dickens own life, at least up to the age of 15 or so was pretty horrific and clearly scared him for life. His father fell into debt for which he was imprisoned and Charles was sent to perform slave labor in a factory...where his own mother tried to get him to stay after she and the rest of the family were released from jail!
I imagine that virtually every unthinkable act perpetrated against children and others, that Dickens depicted in his novels either happened to him, or in his presence or was related to him by credible sources.
In fact, there is an argument that the lot in life of the underprivlidged (actually the NON-privilidged) in Dickens' time was WORSE than he drew it because he had to sell books to those who had money and therefore, were part of the oppressing class!
In any event, I greatly enjoyed your comments.
Regards,
Jim
To me, TCOM was to The Hustler as Rocky was to Somebody Up There Likes Me.
If The Hustler was less about pool per se, than about the "human condition" issues you described--and I agree that it was--it nevertheless introduced the world to the dark but fascinating underbelly of a lifestyle desguised as a sport...which is what pool is.
So it gets at least the 8 for its originality and originality is an aspect that can never be duplicated, let alone surpassed.
The Rocky/TCOM analogy rest on the at least somewhat "over-the-top" moments in both films. In an irony reserved only for American film audiences, the Number 1 grossing boxing film (series) of all time was also the series that contained the worst and at times almost laughable fight footage ever shot in a major film of that genre. (But the Rocky audiences couldn't laugh because they were cheering so much)!
But that didn't matter because while much of the fight footage was cartoonish, whats the matter with cartoons?
In a way, The Hustler and TCOM shouldn't even be compared even though aspects of pool--and different aspects as you point out--were fundamental to both films. But High Noon and Butch Cassidy were both founded in the Western genre but have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and are never compared.
My main problems with TCOM--one major and one minor--was the sped up pool shot sequences which were REALLY cartoonish (the major issue) and the gratutious references to "character" that was the bed rock theme of The Hustler (the minor issue). TCOM tried to annoint itself with The Hustler's precious oils of allegory and artistry by REFERRING to it and that rang pretty hollow in my ears.
I am sure that Scorcese didn't set out to create a work of art but rather a pop corn audience pleaser and he did that with great skill.
The creators of The Hustler, on the other hand, NEVER DREAMED that the film would captivate such an immediate, immense and enduring audience as it did...and continues to do.
Other than that, I enjoyed all of the aspects of TCOM that you pointed out.
As for your Dickens references though...if I may digreess to a sub-topic... I'm not sure that his characters were as contrived as you think they are. I didn't live in that era...obviously, so I don't KNOW that any of his characters were overdrawn, but I am something of a history buff and have read fairly extensively about that era (both fiction and non-fiction).
Clearly, the fate of the lower classes and especially the children, was to face appalling, virtually life threatening obstacles, exploitation and deprevation on a scale that is unimaginable in modern society.
As you know, Dickens own life, at least up to the age of 15 or so was pretty horrific and clearly scared him for life. His father fell into debt for which he was imprisoned and Charles was sent to perform slave labor in a factory...where his own mother tried to get him to stay after she and the rest of the family were released from jail!
I imagine that virtually every unthinkable act perpetrated against children and others, that Dickens depicted in his novels either happened to him, or in his presence or was related to him by credible sources.
In fact, there is an argument that the lot in life of the underprivlidged (actually the NON-privilidged) in Dickens' time was WORSE than he drew it because he had to sell books to those who had money and therefore, were part of the oppressing class!
In any event, I greatly enjoyed your comments.
Regards,
Jim
Smorgass Bored said:
Really? WOW!!!!
I like The color of money. And yes i am under 35........ I fell asleep watch the hustler the first time round. kekeke.
