SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

jcravens42 Got my breath taken away when I was reading what was coming up on TCM and saw this. I had never heard of it. The premise sounded absolutely painful, even by 1970s standards, and I watched it only to see just how painful it was, in terms of stereotypes, glossing over the evils of slavery, etc. In short, I watched it to make fun of it. And - I was surprised. I'm going to do my best to not spoil the surprises in this review, as so many others have done - I'm writing this to entice you to watch it. Because it's worth watching.This movie is way smarter, way edgier in terms of humor and commentary than I expected, and the story did not at all unfold as I had thought it would - and it's rare that I'm surprised by a movie from the 70s. Yes, there are some what-were-they-thinking?!? moments in terms of how a circumstance is portrayed, and some painful stereotypes about indigenous, non-English languages - but, overall, this movie doesn't present slavery as anything but reprehensible, and it presents African Americans as intelligent and creative as anyone else - and it's fascinating to watch that realization come over one of the characters in particular. I found the portrayal of the two lead women in the film surprising and refreshing for the time the film was made as well (I won't spoil it by saying more). It's intriguing that the film shows only the after effects of the whipping of an enslaved man - not the actual, horrendous act, at least not on a slave - I wondered if that was just too painful for a 1971 audience to endure. It's also intriguing that it shows a white slave- owning woman as a sexual predator - something we all know happened, but it rarely gets talked about, let alone referred to in a movie. I won't say it's some sort of enlightened film, but watch it all the way through - you might be really surprised by the story and the portrayals. James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) are terrific together - I believed the friendship and the mutual respect - and their naiveté about the world. I don't think any other actors could have pulled this off. I still can't believe I liked the movie.

SimonJack This 1971 film, "Skin Game," is a so-so comedy, Western and romance. The plot is preposterous, but that's OK in comedy. The trouble with this film is that it's not that funny. I'm not distinguishing the scenes of slavery and mistreatment of people. But these aren't handled right for a comedy. The filmmakers could have had a great film had they rewritten the script and made the plot a clear satire. But instead, we have a couple of guys conning various gullible and dumb Southerners. The cast all are fine for their acting, but again, most of the attempts at humor fall flat. So, sans any real satire, this film comes off merely as a mild farce. Given that, it sends a message that crime is OK, so long as one steals from the gullible. Hmmm. Isn't that the ploy of most scams today? Too many people, especially older, get taken advantage of in this way. I'm sure they have a quite different idea about crime with comedy. In order to make comedy work with sensitive subjects, it's got to be clear and obvious satire or very strong farce. This version of "Skin Game" doesn't have that. At best, it's a weak comedy of characters. And, so I suppose the film folks would just tell those sensitive to slavery, derisive stereotypes, stealing and other things in here to just not watch the movie. Better still, watch a great true satire or comedy with lines and antics to make one laugh.

Mister8tch Thank goodness for Encore Westerns. They keep showing films that rarely see the light of day, but ones that, for whatever reason, were either ignored or forgotten. This is one, from the paucity of reviews, that has slipped through the cracks.Skin Game is slightly, and only one star slightly, less than the sum of its parts. By that I mean..watch this film for the acting (one, in these PC days, can complain about the possible racial slurs). Not one sour note in this cast. We know Garner can act, can do his Maverick/Rockford thing to perfection, but how about Susan Clark? Lost in the silliness of the Webster TV show 80's phenomenon, she shows an amazingly playful sensuality throughout. I don't think I have seen a more erotic scene than between her and Garner, relaxing near a stream after she breaks him out of jail, finding that a con can love a con, with a camera fixed on the close-up the entire time. What a marvel of chemistry that is created (and forms the basis for the rest of the plot). Paul Bogart, that master TV director of nearly 100 All in the Family episodes, finds his angle and just stays there. Well Crafted and on the money. Throw in well-rounded performances from Lou Gossett and Brenda Sikes (watch THEIR sensuous hayloft scene!), and absolutely solid support from a gang of supporting stars who anchored many a 60/70's movie...Duggan, Jones, Dano, Baer, O'Malley...and Asner is such a hoot as the slave trading merchant. Not sure any white actor could deliver a line with the "n" word in it and not make it sound anything other than business-like! This film holds up well, and its acting pleasure are numerous. Not to be missed.

mbredeck James Garner's cowboy con man character familiarized to us as Bret Maverick and Latigo Smith ("Support Your Local Gunfighter" was filmed the same year) is in full bloom here as Quincy Drew in this classic, modest buddy movie done to a "T." Paul Bogart (who also directed Garner in "Marlowe" two years earlier) directs with a sure hand, with Lou Gossett is excellent as Quincy's partner and amicable rival. Realistically set, made with confidence and mastery, it is a gem that does not aspire to "great cinema" but still scores a bullseye. Well-written dialogue, plenty of humor, and a nice, quick pace make it sparkle. Who knew Ed Asner could make a passably good villain, too?