Generally speaking films with excellent, stylistically innovative opening-credits sequences (North by Northwest, Se7en, Dr. No, Raging Bull, Psycho, Dr. Strangelove, Goodfellas, Butch Cassidy and teh Sundance Kid, Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) tend to be excellent films in their own right. One tends to go with the other.

The opening credits sequence for Martin Scorsese‘s The Color of Money is an exception to the rule — one of the very few times when an opening credit concept is much, much better thqn the film itself.

Scorsese narration: “Nine-ball is rotation pool. The balls are pocketed in numbered order. [But] the only ball that means anything, that wins it, is the 9. Now, the player can shoot eight trick shots in a row, blow the 9, and lose. On the other hand, the player can get the 9 in on the break, if the balls spread right, and win. Which is to say, that luck plays a part in nine-ball. But for some players, luck itself is an art.”

Intriguing if not fascinating…hooked! But if memory serves, luck (artful or otherwise) has virtually nothing to do with the story and characters in The Color of Money. Not a single damn thing.

Why haven’t I re-watched The Color of Money in the nearly 40 years since it opened (10.17.86)? Because it’s not very good, that’s why. Because it’s widely regarded as one of Scorsese’s weakest films.

Yes, Paul Newman‘s performance as a graying, moustachioed Eddie Felson won him a Best Actor Oscar, but all I remember are the fake-outs. Ignoring advice about how to lose, intentionally losing, winning too fast or slow, making bets, losing money, trying too hard…is this what the film’s going to be about? This?

I remember seeing Money at an all-media screening in Westwood, and the crowd couldn’t have been more jazzed at first. But within the first 35 to 45 minutes that energy had all but evaporated.