Which is better: TCOM or THE HUSTLER

not all of the older movies were great

I realized when I read my post that it could read that old movies were automatically better. Gone With the Wind is one that proves the error of that. It was a huge budget epic which almost demanded things be overdone but it was basically the pop star movie of it's time.

There was a certain style to the old movies, they were over the top in places but you have to realize that they were replacing very much over the top stage acting and that is what people expected. Read the popular novels from the same period and you will see the same a bit over the top dialogue too. People expected movies to entertain, not be exactly the same as daily life.

However when you study the craftsmanship of a Hitchcock movie or many of the movies labeled "essentials" on TCM, you can see the comparison to a good book. One of my all time favorite comedies is "The Trouble With Harry" a Hitchcock movie. His seamless blend of small town America in the glory of Fall and the bizarre is absolutely perfect.

To Kill a Mockingbird, High Noon, Casablanca, The African Queen, Even movies like Donovan's Reef and the Quiet Man, they were put together with a craftsmanship rarely seen today. The occasional movie does stilll stand out as well crafted but the ones that stand out now were once almost the norm.

Hu



trustyrusty said:
Ah, the glory days...I have yet to see a movie that was even close to a finely crafted book. That is the reason for my liking of movies like There's Something About Mary...those visuals would be tough to beat on written page. The CLASSIC movies like, say, Gone With the Wind were trying to hard to be cinematic novels. I'm not saying that some of the movies weren't very well acted, directed, produced, etc., but isn't the book always better. Even something suspenseful like Silence of the Lambs...BEAUTIFULLY done, and acted out about as well as anyone coulda done - the book had me much more riveted (imagination when reading can do that). ----accidental rant---- OOOPS:o
Click to expand...
 
Shootingarts...I TOTALLY share your love for the old classics. I watch them addictively. But the great films you mentioned were anything but the norm back in the day.

That period marked the "studio system" and the vast majority of films produced back then were "B" movies truned out literlly in "production line" fashion...even when noted stars were involved. Check the filmographies of the tops stars of the 1930-60 era and you will see that, for the most part, they all did a LOT of "stinkers."

IMHO Gone With the Wind remains as one of the greatest cinematic achievments of all time. The fact that they got what they got on screen nearly 70 years ago is just astonishing!!

And it wasn't anything resembling a "pop star" film. Vivien Leigh was virtually unknown here and while she was gaining justified respect in the U.K. for her acting talents she was nothing close to a "box office star" even there.

Gable was the only "idol" star in the film.

Again, while I share your love of the older classics, there have been TONS of films produced in the "modern era" that are equal in their cinematic genius to any films ever made....IMHO.

Regards,
Jim
 
I find TCOM to be a more entertaining film, you can turn it on at any scene & get into it whereas The Hustler should be watched in its entirety. It's a much deeper film & far better for it. I just think it's a fascinating movie with much more atmosphere than the sequel.
 
I prefer The Hustler over TCOM by a long way.

Only 2 things I don't like about The Hustler.
1. A bit too much booze - I mean come on how could anyone drink that much and still be able to shoot...LOL
2. The part where Newman plays 3C - pool player playing 3C for money and beating an experienced player...:rolleyes:

Everything else...great.

My favourite pool movie is Baltimore Bullet.
 
ribdoner said:
Shame you couldn't experience BENSINGERS in CHI. It could have easily been used as the set for THE HUSTLER...
Click to expand...

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.
 
predator said:
I prefer The Hustler over TCOM by a long way.

Only 2 things I don't like about The Hustler.
1. A bit too much booze - I mean come on how could anyone drink that much and still be able to shoot...LOL
2. The part where Newman plays 3C - pool player playing 3C for money and beating an experienced player...:rolleyes:

Everything else...great.

My favourite pool movie is Baltimore Bullet.
Click to expand...

Taking wealthy people down was a meaningful part of the road life then and now.

A friend of mine is leaving Wednesday to play some bug bucks guy one handed (both playing one handed). That match could end up costing someone 20-30 bags.

Even though 3C was not Eddie's game, think of Efren. (I have no clue whether he plays 3C but let's say, for sake of example that he doesn't).

Who would you pick in a 3C match...Efren or some rich amateur..who had been drinking all evening and who would continue to drink until 6:00am (or whenever the match finally ended in the film)?

I pick Efren, so I don't fault the film for that scene.
Virtually every pool-related scene in the film was based on actual "stories from the road."

Regards,
Jim
 
av84fun said:
Taking wealthy people down was a meaningful part of the road life then and now.

A friend of mine is leaving Wednesday to play some bug bucks guy one handed (both playing one handed). That match could end up costing someone 20-30 bags.

Even though 3C was not Eddie's game, think of Efren. (I have no clue whether he plays 3C but let's say, for sake of example that he doesn't).

Who would you pick in a 3C match...Efren or some rich amateur..who had been drinking all evening and who would continue to drink until 6:00am (or whenever the match finally ended in the film)?

I pick Efren, so I don't fault the film for that scene.
Virtually every pool-related scene in the film was based on actual "stories from the road."

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim

Here's Efren playing 3-C with Blomdahl, Blomdahl is far better than an Amateur champion. Efren has played plenty of billiards so its not a fair comparison, I believe Fast Eddie had never hit a ball on a 3-C table.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm2vSjJkypY&feature=related

Kevin
 
Poolfiend said:
The Hustler gives TCOM the eight and the breaks.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can't remember one compelling pool match in TCOM, not one match I sweated or gave a fig about, there were 2 (maybe 3) in The Hustler. The best part of TCOM was Keith and a distant second, Iggy Pop.


Kevin
 
Fatboy said:
If God came to me and said "Ok Fatboy from now on if you twirl your cue you'll play 100X better than Efren" I would respectfully decline.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Its the writing, acting or directing, but Cruise never once acted like a player and had no moves whatsoever. The minute you saw Keith, it was like, GREAT, there's a guy that looks like the best player in the world (type casting for sure- an easy "role" for Keith). Every move Cruise had was some stoned banger fantasy.

Newman, in The Hustler, WAS Fast Eddie, and that character was super-convincing and made us care how it turned out for him (and the Fat Man for that matter) . Modern movies never make me care. IMHO, if it doesn't move me it's not worth my time, just staring at some flashy stuff is a waste.

Kevin
 
Spot on Tim but, don't let the age fool you, I mean I love a good film as much as the next guy but the story to TCOM seemed to speak to me more than the hustler but it has nothing to do with the fact that the the hustler was released in the 60's and TCOM in the 80's.

It just didn't grab me the way TCOM did, paul's acting was more believable second time around, just my opinion though.
 
dabarbr said:
And how many of you ever complained because your opponant (fast Eddie) wanted to forfeit his match in a big tournament?[/QUOTE]

I can relate to that scene when fast eddies opponent says something along the lines of "I don't wanna win like that", because I would NEVER & I mean NEVER take a victory via forfeit unless there was a reason behind it its just unsportsman like.
Click to expand...
 
I'm 32, I started shooting when I was 15, so about 4 yrs after TCOM came out. I remember seeing it on video as a young player (ie a punk). I thought it was awesome, I loved it.

I didn't see the hustler for the first time till about 4 or 5 yrs later. IMHO the hustler is a much much much better movie. It has that old hollywood polish to it. You're just drawn right in.
 
219Dave said:
The Hustler was a WAY better movie. Am I the only one who finds Tom Cruise's character in TCOM really, really annoying? Maybe it's just the fact that we all realize now that he's such a nutjob now in real life, but I can't stand his character, with all the ninja cue swinging and stuff.

And I'm not just saying this because they read this board...but I do really like Keith and Grady in it.

Tom Cruise I can live without.
Click to expand...

Glad to see that my opinion seems to be consistent with the majority. Tom Cruise made me hate TCOM, but I always hate Tom Cruise.
 
I can't believe what I'm reading from each and every one of you. You are comparing apples to oranges. I love each film and what it provides in entertainment. It would be like asking if I loved my daughter or my son the most.

The answer is simple I would watch them both again one after the other and would have to flip a coin on the order of viewing! They are the two films that instantly come to everyones mind when you talk of billiards and film.

A Hustler clip for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF1Jjyvec2E

A Color of Money clip for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBvyB2dTnlQ
 
9 ball said:
dabarbr said:
And how many of you ever complained because your opponant (fast Eddie) wanted to forfeit his match in a big tournament?[/QUOTE]

I can relate to that scene when fast eddies opponent says something along the lines of "I don't wanna win like that", because I would NEVER & I mean NEVER take a victory via forfeit unless there was a reason behind it its just unsportsman like.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to with unsportman like conduct. I would never do or say anything to cause my opponant to want to forfiet his match. His decision is his decision for what ever reason and has nothing to do with me. I take the forfiet and prepare myself for the next match. No guilt on my part.
Click to expand...
 
9 ball said:
It just didn't grab me the way TCOM did, paul's acting was more believable second time around, just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

I do agree Paul's acting seemed a little better in TCOM, more relaxed and natural.
 
Tim5000 said:
I do agree Paul's acting seemed a little better in TCOM, more relaxed and natural.
Click to expand...

Time has a way of allowing an actor to mature and become better at his craft. That being said, The Hustler without question was a far better movie. TCOM wouldn't have been any better than "Junkies" had Paul not been there. He carried the entire movie.

I know some of our better known players were in TCOM, and no offense intended toward them, but let's face it, other than serious players, who even knows who they are? Great players? Yes! Actors? Not really.

The Hustler was like Thanksgiving Dinner...TCOM like a number 2 combo from McDonalds.

Steve
 
I loved the Hustler a lot more then Color of Money, and I grew up watching Color of Money and a big fan (didn't seen Hustler until about 5 years after Color of Money)..... Now if you want to read the books they are almost equal, and Color of Money is a very fine read.. The Hustler is close to spot on with the book, while Color of Money might have read the back cover of a wrong book, got home and forgot the title, and decided to go with Color of Money since it couldn't correctly remember the other books title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top