The Color of Money (1986) (25th Anniversary Edition)

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Retablo that would be the only movie I would have a hard time arguing about him being the best actor in the film. But would you consider it to be Oliver Stone's great films or masterpiece ( remember Platoon and JFK now).

Yes I would. JFK and Born on the 4th are his two strongest films IMO.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

My final point is: would you consider any of directors listed with Tom Cruise in their film a masterpiece? I will remember The Color of Money because of Paul Newman, and hope everyone posting will see The Hustler. It's in a different greater league. Minnesota Fats and Fast Eddie are the only cool sharks.

This is my point. Follow the tread guru. You have an askew point of view.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

This is my point. Follow the tread guru. You have an askew point of view.

So your point is Tom Cruise was a bad actor because you didn't think he was cool?

Awesome.

[Fellini912]

Retablo, I don't think the fourth of July is a great film, but for the sake of the argument you win. There is at least one decent film where Tom is the best actor and the film is one of directors best. Thanks for following the tread, unlike your buddy askew guru (purposely reversed).

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

unlike your buddy askew guru (purposely reversed).

Oh, man. Words cannot describe the humiliation I'm feeling right now. Touché, sir, touché.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Oh, man. Words cannot describe the humiliation I'm feeling right now. Touché, sir, touché.

You mean riposte, mind your fencing terms.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

So if someone works with a Great Director less than 2x, that Actor/Actress is Horrible.

Ok. Just making sure.

Your sarcasm detector is broken also.

[Illy Scorsese]

1st Day...

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

From all the movies listed, his acting is contrasted by a great - better actors in those movies. I think from all those directors he was picked once. For example Scorsese, only used his acting once. Compared to De Niro or DiCaprio. I would venture to compare him to any actor in any of those movies and say he is the best of the group. I can't say I have not enjoyed any of the movies listed, but the ones I enjoyed the most were because of the other actors in the film.

So what?
Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, Alan J Pakula, Sydney Pollack, Robert Altman, Michael Cimino, Spike Jonze, Albert Brooks, Curtis Hanson, Barbet Schroeder, Wes Craven, Stephen Daldry, Jonathan Demme, and Wes Anderson have only used Meryl Streep's acting once. Does that make her a bad actress?

[D1rk12]

Great new!!

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by Cliff

So what?
Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, Alan J Pakula, Sydney Pollack, Robert Altman, Michael Cimino, Spike Jonze, Albert Brooks, Curtis Hanson, Barbet Schroeder, Wes Craven, Stephen Daldry, Jonathan Demme, and Wes Anderson have only used Meryl Streep's acting once. Does that make her a bad actress?

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Cliff

So what?
Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, Alan J Pakula, Sydney Pollack, Robert Altman, Michael Cimino, Spike Jonze, Albert Brooks, Curtis Hanson, Barbet Schroeder, Wes Craven, Stephen Daldry, Jonathan Demme, and Wes Anderson have only used Meryl Streep's acting once. Does that make her a bad actress?

I used that argument against the one that if many great directors use an actor that makes that actor great,( Tom Cruise being great, lol) which is BS (as well as mine prior suggestion).

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Retablo that would be the only movie I would have a hard time arguing about him being the best actor in the film. But would you consider it to be Oliver Stone's great films or masterpiece ( remember Platoon and JFK now).

Would that make Charlie Sheen and Kevin Costner truly great actors? It's not really the actor's fault when the movie isn't as good as the director's other movies.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Would that make Charlie Sheen and Kevin Costner truly great actors? It's not really the actor's fault when the movie isn't as good as the director's other movies.

From all the top great films listed by Sight and Sound and AFI, all of them have great actors. Charlie Sheen proved he was a better actor with Hot Shots!, a better version of Top Gun by far.

[Cliff]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I used that argument against the one that if many great directors use an actor that makes that actor great,( Tom Cruise being great, lol) which is BS (as well as mine prior suggestion).

Yeah, but using a weak point to counter an equally weak point makes for a weak argument. (although I would certainly say that many great directors utilizing an actor -even just once- says more about the actor than one director reusing the same one over and over and over. Guys like Kubrick, Spielberg, Ridley and Tony Scott, Levinson, Scorsese, Coppola, Stone, Howard, Pollack, Crowe, PT Anderson, Mann, Zwick, and Redford don't work with a guy unless he's good). And don't forget Tony Scott, Steven Spielberg, and Cameron Crowe have worked with him more than once and that's not exactly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'll go one farther (and more controversial)... I actually think Cruise is the best thing in Rain man. Hoffman's is the flashier performance, but Cruise is excellent in that movie and woefully under-appreciated. While it's a great role, Hoffman's Raymond has no arc in that movie. He ends the movie exactly as he began. Cruise is tasked with all the emotional heavy lifting. The audience sympathizes with Raymond because of Cruise's character Charlie.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Yeah, but using a weak point to counter an equally weak point makes for a weak argument. (although I would certainly say that many great directors utilizing an actor -even just once- says more about the actor than one director reusing the same one over and over and over. Guys like Kubrick, Spielberg, Ridley and Tony Scott, Levinson, Scorsese, Coppola, Stone, Howard, Pollack, Crowe, PT Anderson, Mann, Zwick, and Redford don't work with a guy unless he's good). And don't forget Tony Scott, Steven Spielberg, and Cameron Crowe have worked with him more than once and that's not exactly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'll go one farther (and more controversial)... I actually think Cruise is the best thing in Rain man. Hoffman's is the flashier performance, but Cruise is excellent in that movie and woefully under-appreciated. While it's a great role, Hoffman's Raymond has no arc in that movie. He ends the movie exactly as he began. Cruise is tasked with all the emotional heavy lifting. The audience sympathizes with Raymond because of Cruise's character Charlie.

Thanks for agreeing that the first statement was weak. Rain Man is a hard movie to argue against Tom's acting, yet Hoffman's character is more memorable. He does carry all the emotional weight, but that weight would not be there if not for Hoffman. The tension produced by Hoffman is what makes the catharsis possible. Same thing with Nicholson in A Few Good Men. You can switch Tom with any actor in those two movies, and it would not matter; the tension is made by the great acting of Hoffman and Nicholson.

[mulscul]

They messed with the cover art.

http://www.amazon.com/Color-Money-Bl.../dp/B001GS7AZS

[Presence]

I like that better actually. ^

[Aerodude73]

Yup, time to change/update the Cover on the first page of this thread AND on the pre-order page.

[Show spoiler]Color-of-Money.jpg

[bmogav]

Originally Posted by mulscul

They messed with the cover art.

http://www.amazon.com/Color-Money-Bl.../dp/B001GS7AZS

Originally Posted by Presence

I like that better actually. ^

Me too now if we could just get some special features info, and it better be beyond a theatrical trailer and a 25th Anniversary title (in other words it better not be The Rocketeer, Disney )