Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Wordiezett So much average

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

MoneyMagnet Starts off promisingly, but fizzles out about halfway through when it seems as if the screenwriters didn't really know what to do with the situation or characters, making this nowhere near as memorable as it could have been. The cast is first-rate, from Garner on down, but why this sharp, brisk business drama had to turn into a romantic farce (complete with misunderstandings) is a mystery to me. Nina Foch, always very welcome to see, is wasted in an unbelievable role as a hotel manager who develops an unfounded crush on Garner, which messes up his romance with Natalie Wood, yadda yadda. (Also, why the silly narration about what happened in Maine? It was as if the writers felt the audience would be confused by a flashback.) A really good cast given an unfocused script. I have to wonder if the movie wouldn't have been vastly improved by dropping the whole Garner-Wood romantic subplot altogether, and just having it be about businessmen dealing with each other - the cast was certainly good enough to carry that sort of story and make it interesting.

kenjha A hot shot business man buys failing businesses and manages to sell them for profit. It seems the filmmakers were going for riveting drama about big business and acquisitions. What they end up with has all the excitement of reading stock quotes. There's endless discussion about business dealings that is not the least bit interesting, which is a shame because this one has a nice cast. Garner is well suited to the title role, although his wardrobe looks rather comical. As his love interest, Wood is not given much to do. The supporting cast features many familiar faces, including Foch, Jagger, Marshall, Jones, Kruger, and Platt.

dougdoepke The best part of this Technicolor exercise is the light it shines on high-power business dealings and how these were treated in the Production Code 1950's-- and is worth a quick few words.In that Cold War decade, Hollywood discovered the drama of corporation boardrooms and big business in such films as the ruthless Patterns (1956), the intrigues of Executive Suite (1954), and the comedic Solid Gold Cadillac (1956). All in all, these movies hold up well despite the passage of years. The trick for films of this type was to be realistic enough with the big money scheming to hold audience interest without at the same time indicting the upper tiers of capitalism. For to do the latter would, among other reasons, serve the interests of the Soviet side of the Cold War then at its peak. As a result, in such movies conscience or a force for good usually prevails at the last minute over ruthless business connivings no matter how unconvincing the abrupt triumph. And that's very much the case in the otherwise routine Cash McCall.At first, McCall is characterized as a corporate vulture—a wheeler-dealer who buys up struggling companies, disassembles them for profit, and then walks away from whatever communities he may have destroyed in the process. But, of course, it's hard to make a sympathetic lead out of such a ruthless character, even for such a likable personality as James Garner. So the screenplay begins to fudge. He's next characterized as a dis-assembler whose aim is to build up anew from the pieces, though the human consequences are not made clear. And finally, after a thorough conversion, he becomes a full-fledged business humanitarian putting communities first for reasons that also remain rather unclear, but does, of course, produce a happy ending. Thus, the ends of the Production Code, the Cold War, and audience expectations are duly served.The movie itself is pretty unmemorable. To me the pairing of the mature Garner and the rather callow Wood seems a brittle one, no matter how much the winsome Wood is glamorized. Then too, Garner suppresses his charming Maverick side in the interests of getting into McCall's character, but in the process gives up his special appeal as an actor. On the other hand, it's a fine array of supporting players, especially Henry Jones whose Bassett- hound face registers an unusual array of subtle emotions. His is a very different appearance for that glamour-obsessed time period. Anyway, the movie's a decent enough entertainment, but outside of its wheeler-dealer instruction manual, remains pretty forgettable.

XweAponX When you first hear of this flick, you think it is like most of Garner's "Light Comedy" from the 60's - Not so. This film shows the a steamy underside of the Big Business "Scene" and the kind of trickery that goes on... And how even an honest down to earth deal could be made to look like a swindle, with a little jealousy and backstabbing added when least expected- And for that you have to give proper credit to Nina Koch for playing a kind of reverse "Erica Martin" from Executive Suite.Garner is surrounded with some of the great character actors of the time: Dean Jagger, E. G. Marshall (From "12 Angry Men"), Otto Kruger (From Hitchcock's "Saboteur" and "Magnificent Obsession"), Edward Platt ("Chief" from "Get Smart").And of course Natalie Wood, and in this film she gives one of her best... She is an absolute firecracker. I like the fact that the interaction between Garner and Wood is a little subdued.One thing that is amazing, is that this was directed by Joe Pevney, who directed some of the best episodes of Star Trek Original Series.