was one of ’s favorite filmmakers. The critic even interviewed him at some point, something he never did with other Hollywood stars. On top of that, he wrote a book about the Goodfellas director, titled Scorsese by Ebert. In the book, Ebert explains why he was so fond of Scorsese, stating that he and the filmmaker were born five months apart in 1942, had Catholic upbringings and were fascinated by movies from a young age. Understandably, Ebert reviewed all Martin Scorsese movies positively, except one.

In Life Itself, a documentary about Robert Ebert, Scorsese recalls getting an award at the Toronto Film Festival at the recommendation of the Chicago Sun-Times columnist and his buddy, Gene Siskel. He said the award came at the right time, when things were not going well in his life, and that being honored in such a manner helped steer him back on the right path. The ceremony happened in 1982. Four years later, Scorsese released , starring Paul Newman and Tom Cruise. Surprisingly, Ebert was disappointed by this picture, suggesting that the director’s heart wasn’t in it.

The Color of Money is a sequel to the 1961 film The Hustler, and is also based on the follow-up novel by Walter Tevis The film Still, he keeps his eyes on the game, and, soon, Eddie is irked by the fact that, despite Vincent's skill, his girlfriend Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) doesn’t help him by luring opponents to lose money. He thus offers to teach the two the art of pool hustling.

Vincent and Carmen soon go on the road with Eddie, visiting numrous pool halls where they meet all kinds of seedy urban types. In their arrangement,. As Vincent better understands the circuit, he increasingly chafes at his role as unwilling partner and dreads what may come of the services he provides. Eddie thus becomes angry and leaves. Without him, Vincent keeps winning, but his arrogance scares off wealthier marks. Consequently, he makes less money.

Eddie and Vincent have another chat and agree to work together again. Unfortunately, Vincent remains keen on showboating and doing extra to prove he is the best. Soon, the two men are pitted against each other, and all the tension culminates, of course, in splendidly manic face-offs at the tables. Who will win? Grab a seat and watch as the concise dialogue, merriment-charged settings, and fist-gnawing sense of competition all propel this stylish adaptation into dramatic overdrive.

Capturing the sense of ambition and mistrust inherent in the indoor sports industry, Martin Scorsese’s slow-boil drama builds to a pleasant and expressive climax. Interestingly, Roger Ebert didn't see anything special. His tone, in his review, was almost like that of a disappointed father. “Why, Marty? Why?” he must have screamed while tapping away at his typewriter. He acknowledged that he might have looked at The Color of Money differently if a less talented filmmaker had made it. The Chicago Sun-Times columnist

Ebert felt the film was formulaic, predictable, and full of mentor-student clichés. He But was he correct in his assessment?

Even though the sports drama didn’t steer clear of Hollywood’s now tired conventions, movies like Creed and The Karate Kid have proven that Audiences love these dynamics, where the relationship is wholesome at best, tense at worst, and the by-play is defined by sniping and sarcasm. Plus, how far could the solo Eddie story be stretched without boring audiences?

, but it didn’t work out because he is a true artist. And true artists don’t force themselves to do these kinds of movies.

“Scorsese may have thought of this film as a deliberately mainstream work, a conventional film with big names and a popular subject matter; perhaps he did it for that reason. But I believe he has the stubborn soul of an artist, and cannot put his heart where his heart will not go. And his heart, I believe, inclines toward creating new and completely personal stories about characters who have come to life in his imagination – not in finishing someone else’s story, begun 25 years ago.”

In the Steve James documentary about Roger Ebert, Life Itself, there is a scene showing Martin Scorsese unhappily watching a clip of Roger Ebert’s negative review of The Color of Money. But we can always expect Marty to take criticism. He gives a sigh of acceptance, before admitting that, as a filmmaker, he has to accept both good and bad reviews.

Roger Ebert might have hated The Color of Money, but . Other critics were impressed, labeling this another fine offering by one of cinema's most esteemed auteurs. , making it one of Martin Scorsese’s best-rated movies. Fans also appreciated Marty’s work here. The audience score is 73, while the IMDb score sits at 7/10.

Still, Ebert wouldn’t be Ebert without his independent takes. He, at times, criticized movies that were loved by all. Whether he was right or wrong was a matter of perspective. After all, , yet Ebert felt he wasn’t impressive enough. In addition to that, That last Oscar nom was especially well-deserved. Throughout the movie, Scorsese’s camera lingers on the baroque furnishings and picturesque environment as lovingly as on Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio’s beautiful frame, amalgamating artistic sultriness and romantic titillation.

If this is indeed Marty’s weakest film, According to the book Scorsese on Scorsese, Paul Newman called Martin Scorsese in September 1984 and asked him if he was interested in directing a sequel to The Hustler. To Scorsese, this was a no-brainer. He badly needed another hit, following the failure of The King of Comedy in 1982. And who could say no to Paul Newman, one of the greatest actors of all time?

It would have been interesting to read Roger Ebert’s reviews of some of Martin Scorsese’s recent movies. Would he have loved The Wolf of Wall Street? It’s hard to tell, considering he hated erotically charged movies like Caligula and Showgirls, yet he himself once wrote the screenplay for a sexploitation film. He would have loved The Irishman and Killer of the Flower Moon, but what about Silence? Probably not.