Frank D. Gilroy adapted his unsuccessful two-act play about an aging Las Vegas showgirl (Elizabeth Taylor) who picks up the piano player (Warren Beatty) in a cocktail lounge one night after work. He's a gambler who can't be trusted with money; she's on the rebound after her married lover returned to his wife. It's an oddly old-fashioned tale with nothing particularly dramatic in the set-up; the pressing issues seem to be her loneliness and his need to win big. The critics pounced on the picture, not because of Gilroy's writing or George Stevens' direction or the performances--but because of the budget ($11M), inflated by Taylor's insistence the film's interiors be shot in Paris, France (so she could be close to husband Richard Burton). Despite the wigs and insistent soft-focus close-ups, Taylor comes close to finding an interesting character here; she isn't convincing as a showgirl (shot from the shoulders up), and she doesn't exactly sizzle with Beatty, but she's easily bruised and vulnerable, and lovely when she needs to be. Beatty (filling in for Frank Sinatra, who had prior commitments) plays his dryly sarcastic role with a touch of eccentricity; he's supposed to be younger and reckless, a wild card, but some scenes--like a hopeless fishing excursion at Lake Mead (using a green screen)--are beyond his control. The color scheme of Taylor's apartment (where we're stuck most of the time)--in avocado green and gold--isn't glamorous, but the rest of the movie is. Cinematographer Henri Decae gives the picture a touch of fake-Vegas sparkle which is appealing, and all the exteriors on-location look terrific (Las Vegas becomes a big, shiny department store). What doesn't work is the back-end of Gilroy's second act, wherein Taylor hesitates over Beatty's marriage proposal. Their conversation is supposed to be a dissection of why men and women marry, what keeps them together and why the participants eventually get restless--but it goes on and on, grinding the movie to a halt. Had Stevens (whose last film this was) given us something more--a final visual zinger or a twist--"The Only Game In Town" may actually be worth a second glance. As it is, it fades in the stretch as well as in the memory. **1/2 from ****
36 Reviews
La Liz last round as a young babe
Chricke-221 October 2005
So I finally have gotten to see this film again after 22 years. It is interesting in so many ways I don't know where to begin; First thing: It stars one of the most beautiful and sexiest woman ever on the big screen; no one less then la Taylor. But she has some serious problems with portraying the lead role of Fran Walker, she is very badly cast as a young, single, chorus girls, as so many of the previous commentators have mentioned. The audience at this period was used to see la Taylor plump and alcoholic, playing characters that were badly faded beauties in their late 40s or even 50s; Martha in Wolf and Sissy Goforth in Boom. Here, she is supposed to be not many years older than the young girl la Taylor portrayed in the late 1940s, contemporary to the "old" movies the character Fran Walker watches. This is indeed one of her last "babe"-parts in movies. And her male co-star, is played by a then an up- and coming actor who is five years younger, even more highlights the miscasting. With face covering hairdos, soft focus close-shots, and clever cinematography things get somewhat plausible and under control. She must have crash-diet, and stopped half-way, she has slender legs, but not a dancer's sturdy legs, moves youngish and feminine (she's eating her pizza like a shy princess), but she is still somewhat top-heavy and double-chinned, maybe because of the heavy medication she was on at the time, as described in Burton's memoirs. Or maybe because of the strange fluffy dresses she wears that make her body look like "an apple balanced atop of two toothpicks" to quote a contemporary reviewer. In some scenes though, especially when filmed from a distance, she does still manage to look petite and delicious. And even though it is absurd to think of Taylor as a struggling working-class girl who needs to count every dollar and dime to balance the payments, she really tries hard here to convince us, and sometimes she actually succeeds. Or is it that the film is cleverly cut? We never really know, since Taylor's larger-than-life image interferes and blurs our judgment on her true talent as an actress. Still, she surprises by transcending a low-key and insecure appearance, which I guess was the intention of the original play writer Gilroy.
Second thing: Her co-star is the charming Warren Beatty, who here has some very effective scenes in which he makes his character Joe Grady very much authentic and believable. He resembles a combination of both (as one commentator pointed out before) Frank Sinatra's wit and style and Brad Pitt's Irish charming bad-boyishness. In contrast to Taylor, he is in my opinion very well cast. I sometimes wonder what it would be like, to be Warren Beatty, in Paris in autumn 1968, fresh from the huge success of "Bonnie and Clyde". According to the gossip that Taylor picked up, and reached the ears and notes of Burton, Warren was courted by so many beautiful Parisian women that Taylor hardly got a look of him off the set. Still some years to go before being "outed" by Carly Simon as being "So Vain", here in Paris he was evidently everybody's darling.
Third interesting point: The last star needed the presence of her beloved husband (and unfortunately heavy boozing partner) in order to be able to cope with this film, or anything else for that matter. Mr Burton was at this time busy shooting a farce with Rex Harrison, "Staircase", in Paris, which by the way was set in a grayish London. Maybe the married celebrity couple both needed the Parisian location to evade the US/UK taxes? Hence, a movie whose main plot is nothing less than one of the most American themes one can think of (quest for the big break), had to be shot in Paris! Nowadays the stars of Hollywood earn enormous amount of money, but they can hardly make any demands such as those of la Taylor, and get through with it. It is therefore a pure pleasure to watch the streets and buildings, knowing at least some of them, are entirely build for la Taylor in Paris (if we don't count some scenes that had to be made in Las Vegas very quickly in early Spring of 1969).
Four: The score of Maurice Jarre. Great late 1960s early 1970s feel to it, jazzy and bluesy, in a stylish blend, the very definition of Easy listening.
Fifth: A lushly filmed Hollywood picture like this needs elements that make it "touch the ground". We, as an audience, must still be led to believe that the story enfolded before us could be real. Bathroom and bedroom scenes that are not obviously over-sty. Warren's character IS supposed to be a fly-guy dreamer, who painfully lands in reality after excesses at the casinos. The fairytale needs to touch the audience in-between all its awe and amaze, and technically Stevens and the editor have managed the task.
Sixth and last point I come to think of: In spite of this extravaganza, which is not apparent on the screen if one is not aware of that we are looking at a mini-Vegas built in Paris, this movie apparently flopped painfully when it premiered in 1970. It is since forgotten, overlooked, and its print doomed to deteriorate slowly somewhere in the 20th century Fox archives (in Burbank?). But is the plot of the film dated? I think not. Today, whenever the X-and Y-generation have problems of sorts to deal with, like for instance gambling, we are inclined to make it a pathology that must be treated with therapies and counseling. Couldn't this film be re-dusted as a lecture in how painful and destructive addictions to gambling really is? It deserves it. In spite of all the "half-ways" of this film it is cute and sympathetic lesson in love.
Second thing: Her co-star is the charming Warren Beatty, who here has some very effective scenes in which he makes his character Joe Grady very much authentic and believable. He resembles a combination of both (as one commentator pointed out before) Frank Sinatra's wit and style and Brad Pitt's Irish charming bad-boyishness. In contrast to Taylor, he is in my opinion very well cast. I sometimes wonder what it would be like, to be Warren Beatty, in Paris in autumn 1968, fresh from the huge success of "Bonnie and Clyde". According to the gossip that Taylor picked up, and reached the ears and notes of Burton, Warren was courted by so many beautiful Parisian women that Taylor hardly got a look of him off the set. Still some years to go before being "outed" by Carly Simon as being "So Vain", here in Paris he was evidently everybody's darling.
Third interesting point: The last star needed the presence of her beloved husband (and unfortunately heavy boozing partner) in order to be able to cope with this film, or anything else for that matter. Mr Burton was at this time busy shooting a farce with Rex Harrison, "Staircase", in Paris, which by the way was set in a grayish London. Maybe the married celebrity couple both needed the Parisian location to evade the US/UK taxes? Hence, a movie whose main plot is nothing less than one of the most American themes one can think of (quest for the big break), had to be shot in Paris! Nowadays the stars of Hollywood earn enormous amount of money, but they can hardly make any demands such as those of la Taylor, and get through with it. It is therefore a pure pleasure to watch the streets and buildings, knowing at least some of them, are entirely build for la Taylor in Paris (if we don't count some scenes that had to be made in Las Vegas very quickly in early Spring of 1969).
Four: The score of Maurice Jarre. Great late 1960s early 1970s feel to it, jazzy and bluesy, in a stylish blend, the very definition of Easy listening.
Fifth: A lushly filmed Hollywood picture like this needs elements that make it "touch the ground". We, as an audience, must still be led to believe that the story enfolded before us could be real. Bathroom and bedroom scenes that are not obviously over-sty. Warren's character IS supposed to be a fly-guy dreamer, who painfully lands in reality after excesses at the casinos. The fairytale needs to touch the audience in-between all its awe and amaze, and technically Stevens and the editor have managed the task.
Sixth and last point I come to think of: In spite of this extravaganza, which is not apparent on the screen if one is not aware of that we are looking at a mini-Vegas built in Paris, this movie apparently flopped painfully when it premiered in 1970. It is since forgotten, overlooked, and its print doomed to deteriorate slowly somewhere in the 20th century Fox archives (in Burbank?). But is the plot of the film dated? I think not. Today, whenever the X-and Y-generation have problems of sorts to deal with, like for instance gambling, we are inclined to make it a pathology that must be treated with therapies and counseling. Couldn't this film be re-dusted as a lecture in how painful and destructive addictions to gambling really is? It deserves it. In spite of all the "half-ways" of this film it is cute and sympathetic lesson in love.
Beatty transforms the material, making it seem much sharper and brighter than it is
Nazi_Fighter_David18 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Playing one of her rare working class girls, Liz is a Las Vegas showgirl who lives in a plastic little apartment and watches old movies on late night television
The ambiance doesn't take shape for Liz; we've heard too much about the diamonds and the yachts and the enormous household staff to believe her in such modest circumstances
Frank D. Gilroy's slight, sentimental script is about practically nothing at all A girl meets a guy (Warren Beatty), they go to bed, they part, they get together again He has a gambling problem, and she's engaged to an older married man who keeps promising to get a divorce The gambler is a ladies' man; clever and suave, he tests his way into the girl's bed and then into her heart
In a lightweight romantic comedy-drama like this, the charm is everything As the gambler, Warren Beatty has it; as the bruised, lonely, overage chorus girl, Liz doesn't Her off-screen aura works 'against' the role, just as Beatty's image as her capricious lover works beautifully for the character Liz tries, though, but she is really too old for this sort of thing, and far too heavy and matronly to pass as a chorus girl kicking up her heels every night to earn a meager living
Beatty transforms the material, making it seem much sharper and brighter than it is His reckless, cocky charm, his clever comic timing, his light seductive voice reveal some of his best work When she catches Beatty's light style, Taylor is pleasant, but when she goes weepy, when Stevens encourages her to play the dramatic actress with style, she misplaces the character
The ambiance doesn't take shape for Liz; we've heard too much about the diamonds and the yachts and the enormous household staff to believe her in such modest circumstances
Frank D. Gilroy's slight, sentimental script is about practically nothing at all A girl meets a guy (Warren Beatty), they go to bed, they part, they get together again He has a gambling problem, and she's engaged to an older married man who keeps promising to get a divorce The gambler is a ladies' man; clever and suave, he tests his way into the girl's bed and then into her heart
In a lightweight romantic comedy-drama like this, the charm is everything As the gambler, Warren Beatty has it; as the bruised, lonely, overage chorus girl, Liz doesn't Her off-screen aura works 'against' the role, just as Beatty's image as her capricious lover works beautifully for the character Liz tries, though, but she is really too old for this sort of thing, and far too heavy and matronly to pass as a chorus girl kicking up her heels every night to earn a meager living
Beatty transforms the material, making it seem much sharper and brighter than it is His reckless, cocky charm, his clever comic timing, his light seductive voice reveal some of his best work When she catches Beatty's light style, Taylor is pleasant, but when she goes weepy, when Stevens encourages her to play the dramatic actress with style, she misplaces the character
"Easy Come, Easy Go"
harry-7625 October 2002
The superficial values and emotional anguish that often permeate the world of gambling is captured by George Stevens in his final film.
Maurice Jarre's "bluesy" score (punctuated by a sorrowful trumpet) enhances the "downer" quality of this mundane drama.
It's understandable why Stevens saw something in this Frank D. Gilroy script, based upon his play. During this general period there were some pretty stark two-character plays being produced.
There was, for example, "Two for the Seasaw," "Silent Night, Lonely Night," "Husbands," and "Scenes from a Marriage." In this last film Ingmar Bergman laid bare a vacillating marriage-on-the brink, creating heart-breaking experience.
In "The Only Game in Town," two very good-looking actors try their hand at a challenging duo-character piece. It is said that "one-take" Frank Sinatra declined the role because he felt it might clash with Stevens' perfectionistic "multiple-take" approach. He was probably right.
The part then went to Warren Beatty, who tries very hard in what almost sounds like a Sinatra imitation (close one's eyes and listen to his timing and inflection). Elizabeth Taylor was apparently a favorite of the director, having utilized her talents successfully twice before. She invests her role with much energy and feeling.
However, the two, for all their earnest effort, create only a medium degree of "chemistry." Part of their lack of connection is in the script, which saddles Beatty's "ring-a-ding" character with an unrelenting degree of flippancy, right up to the last line. Taylor's role doesn't break any fresh dramatic ground, either.
Most people agree, though, that it's pretty hard to stop watching this, once one gets past the [characteristically slow Stevens] "late bedroom" -"morning after" scenes. While the presentation didn't exactly turn out to be the consummate emotional experience Stevens was obviously striving for, "The Only Game in Town" is still a most respectable piece of work.
With this opus, a great film director bid his final farewell to the medium.
Maurice Jarre's "bluesy" score (punctuated by a sorrowful trumpet) enhances the "downer" quality of this mundane drama.
It's understandable why Stevens saw something in this Frank D. Gilroy script, based upon his play. During this general period there were some pretty stark two-character plays being produced.
There was, for example, "Two for the Seasaw," "Silent Night, Lonely Night," "Husbands," and "Scenes from a Marriage." In this last film Ingmar Bergman laid bare a vacillating marriage-on-the brink, creating heart-breaking experience.
In "The Only Game in Town," two very good-looking actors try their hand at a challenging duo-character piece. It is said that "one-take" Frank Sinatra declined the role because he felt it might clash with Stevens' perfectionistic "multiple-take" approach. He was probably right.
The part then went to Warren Beatty, who tries very hard in what almost sounds like a Sinatra imitation (close one's eyes and listen to his timing and inflection). Elizabeth Taylor was apparently a favorite of the director, having utilized her talents successfully twice before. She invests her role with much energy and feeling.
However, the two, for all their earnest effort, create only a medium degree of "chemistry." Part of their lack of connection is in the script, which saddles Beatty's "ring-a-ding" character with an unrelenting degree of flippancy, right up to the last line. Taylor's role doesn't break any fresh dramatic ground, either.
Most people agree, though, that it's pretty hard to stop watching this, once one gets past the [characteristically slow Stevens] "late bedroom" -"morning after" scenes. While the presentation didn't exactly turn out to be the consummate emotional experience Stevens was obviously striving for, "The Only Game in Town" is still a most respectable piece of work.
With this opus, a great film director bid his final farewell to the medium.
some kind of redemption...
lostngone4ever14 December 2000
...can now be held for the latter part of Elizabeth Taylors career. After The Taming of the Shrew(1967) it all seemed to go down hill. Check out any post Shrew movies and you will see what I mean. Here, in The Only Game, in Town Beatty and Taylor are jaded and cynical workers and lovers trying to escape Vegas, but both have their problems. Beatty is a compulsive gambler and Taylor is a cold fish unable to communicate love for fear of abandonment. It's a subtle love story and comedy that has some pretty good moments even though it runs a little slow. Don't expect anything amazing but its worth a look.
Love Triangle: Taylor, Beatty, Braswell...
tim-764-29185617 September 2012
This rarity, the last film to be directed by the great George Stevens (Shane, Giant) was shown on Turner Classic Movies (TCM).
Typically of the sort of talky romantic mush that Taylor did at this point in her career, it's set in Las Vegas. She's described as being a chorus girl (a 38 year-old one, if my maths is correct) and Beatty, a handsome club piano player, who happens to have a history of gambling woes.
He wants enough money to leave this town of temptation and bad memories, she wants him. And, when 5 year standing flame, the older, and married Charles Braswell, comes back to her, saying he's now divorced and wants to whisk her off to England, cue battle of words, emotions - and the usual. So, who will win her heart? Obviously, neither are suitable but this Hollywood!
It's largely set-bound and often argumentative; Beatty is charismatically watchable but Taylor is just doing the same act and routine, whilst Braswell, intentionally cast as the solid, boring one, is just that. Being (I guess, I couldn't find an age rating) a PG certificate, there's no sex or swearing, both of which, frankly would have added a bit of 'life' into the mix. A jazz score by Maurice Jarre does add atmosphere, though, with melancholic saxophone solos wailing into the night, which helps.
Whilst never quite slipping into tedium, the near two hour running time hardly helps but at least it looks good, with good colour and production values. There are a few casino scenes for those that like such. It's based on a play by Frank D Gilroy, who also adapted it and like so many similar dramas from theatrical sources, you can't help feeling that it'd work better on stage.
So, is it worth watching? If it comes on TV or if you know someone with a copy, yes; you won't see anything new but Lizzy Taylor still is Elizabeth Taylor and Beatty keeps it ticking over nicely. But otherwise, unless you hold a special interest in any of the actors, or the play, then, it's hardly worth pursuing.
Typically of the sort of talky romantic mush that Taylor did at this point in her career, it's set in Las Vegas. She's described as being a chorus girl (a 38 year-old one, if my maths is correct) and Beatty, a handsome club piano player, who happens to have a history of gambling woes.
He wants enough money to leave this town of temptation and bad memories, she wants him. And, when 5 year standing flame, the older, and married Charles Braswell, comes back to her, saying he's now divorced and wants to whisk her off to England, cue battle of words, emotions - and the usual. So, who will win her heart? Obviously, neither are suitable but this Hollywood!
It's largely set-bound and often argumentative; Beatty is charismatically watchable but Taylor is just doing the same act and routine, whilst Braswell, intentionally cast as the solid, boring one, is just that. Being (I guess, I couldn't find an age rating) a PG certificate, there's no sex or swearing, both of which, frankly would have added a bit of 'life' into the mix. A jazz score by Maurice Jarre does add atmosphere, though, with melancholic saxophone solos wailing into the night, which helps.
Whilst never quite slipping into tedium, the near two hour running time hardly helps but at least it looks good, with good colour and production values. There are a few casino scenes for those that like such. It's based on a play by Frank D Gilroy, who also adapted it and like so many similar dramas from theatrical sources, you can't help feeling that it'd work better on stage.
So, is it worth watching? If it comes on TV or if you know someone with a copy, yes; you won't see anything new but Lizzy Taylor still is Elizabeth Taylor and Beatty keeps it ticking over nicely. But otherwise, unless you hold a special interest in any of the actors, or the play, then, it's hardly worth pursuing.
This film is just a big budget bore
AlsExGal14 January 2019
How could anything directed by George Stevens, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Warren Beatty, with a score by Maurice Jarre, be such a bore? Taylor plays a Vegas singer who is just existing while she waits for her married lover to get a divorce. Beatty is a compulsive gambler who works as a piano player in a Vegas bar/restaurant. They stumble into an affair when Liz goes to get a pizza after work one night at the place were Beatty works.
Most of this film is just the two of them talking about how much they do not love the other. When the married lover shows up at Liz' apartment he treats her like a pet (Here, Liz!, Hurry Liz!, Good Liz!). There is no subtlety in his performance, but then he is not alone. You can see the little flashes of greatness in Beatty's acting, he just isn't given much to work with. I never understand what compels him to gamble and why he feels towards money and possessions as he does.
The only bit of fun is seeing if you can identify all of the classic films Liz Taylor is watching whenever she is sitting around in her apartment. And then there is the irony of Beatty playing a compulsive gambler in Vegas about twenty years before he plays the founder of modern Las Vegas, Bugsy Segal. Even for completists of the players involved, I'd say avoid this one.
Most of this film is just the two of them talking about how much they do not love the other. When the married lover shows up at Liz' apartment he treats her like a pet (Here, Liz!, Hurry Liz!, Good Liz!). There is no subtlety in his performance, but then he is not alone. You can see the little flashes of greatness in Beatty's acting, he just isn't given much to work with. I never understand what compels him to gamble and why he feels towards money and possessions as he does.
The only bit of fun is seeing if you can identify all of the classic films Liz Taylor is watching whenever she is sitting around in her apartment. And then there is the irony of Beatty playing a compulsive gambler in Vegas about twenty years before he plays the founder of modern Las Vegas, Bugsy Segal. Even for completists of the players involved, I'd say avoid this one.
His Lucky Liz
bkoganbing17 March 2018
George Stevens made his farewell work as a director with The Only Game In Town
and you wouldn't think that a flop Broadway play would make such a good film.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
For this final performance his leading lady was Elizabeth Taylor and she was certainly lucky for him. Stevens won two Oscars for Best Director for A Place In The Sun and Giant and Taylor was in both those films. This third time out didn't yield any Oscar gold for him, but this is certainly a most respectable character studies of two Las Vegas characters.
Taylor is an aging dancer in one of the plush casinos. She also had been the kept mistress of Charles Brasswell who just can't quite get around to divorcing Mrs. Brasswell. After a quarrel on that subject he leaves and on a whim she takes up with lounge piano player Warren Beatty.
Beatty was a last minute substitution for Frank Sinatra and wouldn't have that been a once in a lifetime pairing of Liz and old blue eyes. Sinatra was definitely set for the role and I know that because of Hank Henry's presence in the cast as Beatty's employer. Henry, a former burlesque comedian, was a Sinatra regular in many of his films and I have no doubt Frank got him the small part as the bar owner.
Despite no Sinatra, The Only Game In Town is a nice and deep character study of two show business veterans for whom the industry has lost its glamour a long time ago. Beatty also has a gambling problem which is why he can't stay in any relationship. Both of our stars make you forget it's them you are watching and get deep in their roles.
Director Stevens in his farewell directorial gig got great performances from his stars and the mood and ambiance of Las Vegas is captured beautifully. You can't go wrong with The Only Game In Town.
For this final performance his leading lady was Elizabeth Taylor and she was certainly lucky for him. Stevens won two Oscars for Best Director for A Place In The Sun and Giant and Taylor was in both those films. This third time out didn't yield any Oscar gold for him, but this is certainly a most respectable character studies of two Las Vegas characters.
Taylor is an aging dancer in one of the plush casinos. She also had been the kept mistress of Charles Brasswell who just can't quite get around to divorcing Mrs. Brasswell. After a quarrel on that subject he leaves and on a whim she takes up with lounge piano player Warren Beatty.
Beatty was a last minute substitution for Frank Sinatra and wouldn't have that been a once in a lifetime pairing of Liz and old blue eyes. Sinatra was definitely set for the role and I know that because of Hank Henry's presence in the cast as Beatty's employer. Henry, a former burlesque comedian, was a Sinatra regular in many of his films and I have no doubt Frank got him the small part as the bar owner.
Despite no Sinatra, The Only Game In Town is a nice and deep character study of two show business veterans for whom the industry has lost its glamour a long time ago. Beatty also has a gambling problem which is why he can't stay in any relationship. Both of our stars make you forget it's them you are watching and get deep in their roles.
Director Stevens in his farewell directorial gig got great performances from his stars and the mood and ambiance of Las Vegas is captured beautifully. You can't go wrong with The Only Game In Town.
Leaving Las Vegas
jotix1008 May 2005
It's unimaginable that George Stevens, the distinguished director that gave us "Swing Time", "Shane", "Giant", among others, could have agreed to be associated with this dud! I vaguely remember the Frank D. Gilroy's play, in which this movie is based, as a not too interesting night in the theater. Well, with the help of the author, the film was made under Mr. Stevens direction, and the results are there for anyone to judge! The worst thing in the film is the running time! At 113 minutes, it's way too long. The two principals are so miscast that it pains the viewer to watch them go through the motions feigning to love one another when probably the stars ended up hating each other for the duration of the shoot that took almost three months to be completed.
Elizabeth Taylor was into one of her fatty periods while doing this movie. One only sees her in unflattering costumes that don't do anything for her. Those shmattes make her even look older and heavier, but Liz must have thought she was making a fashion statement, or who knows what went through her mind? Warren Beatty is seen in the film as though he were under the influence. His take on Joe Grady, as directed, seems the kind of man that would be a turn off for Fran. After all, she was having a thing with a rich man who kept her in some kind of luxury. Mr. Beatty doesn't do anything to get us to like him. He is a loser, and that's that.
Watch this film on a sleepless night. Maybe it'll provoke you to sleep and have great dreams about what this movie is not!
Elizabeth Taylor was into one of her fatty periods while doing this movie. One only sees her in unflattering costumes that don't do anything for her. Those shmattes make her even look older and heavier, but Liz must have thought she was making a fashion statement, or who knows what went through her mind? Warren Beatty is seen in the film as though he were under the influence. His take on Joe Grady, as directed, seems the kind of man that would be a turn off for Fran. After all, she was having a thing with a rich man who kept her in some kind of luxury. Mr. Beatty doesn't do anything to get us to like him. He is a loser, and that's that.
Watch this film on a sleepless night. Maybe it'll provoke you to sleep and have great dreams about what this movie is not!
At first I thought it would put me to sleep, but I had to keep watching
notrlred26 September 2002
This movie has a nice feel to it. It takes you back to an era when women looked like women, curvy and wearing dresses as Elizabeth Taylor does in this picture. Warren Beatty is most handsome and is totally smitten with Taylor's character, which makes this movie seem like a fairy tale since men like him usually go for the model thin women. After viewing this movie late at night, I realized I truly enjoyed it, and wouldn't mind having a video of it. Although, they may seem unrealistic, these are the kind if movies that keep hope alive for true love.
No dice.
brefane28 April 2009
Dreary, poky, talky and practically non-existent as drama, The Only Game in Town features Liz Taylor, looking like a mature Millie Perkins(see Wild in the Streets), ridiculously cast as a Vegas showgirl. Taylor's pretty, but vacuous, and she and the boring, mumbling Beatty don't compel and they are an odd, uninteresting and unconvincing pairing. Neither one could be accused of acting, and their characters were intended for less stellar types. George Stevens who directed Taylor in A Place in the Sun and Giant brings only his name to this film, his last, and Frank Gilroy, who received a Pulitzer Prize for his play The Subject Was Roses, and whose film From Noon Till Three is a gem, hasn't written anything that seems worth putting on the screen. The audience, wisely, never showed.
A Treat For Film Buffs and then some.
Kopelson-Group18 March 2018
Seeing "The Only Game In Town" for the first time forty odd years after it was made is a very special treat for anyone who loves film and film history. This was going to be George Steven's last film. A great director, a pioneer. Here he's directing Elizabeth Taylor for the third time, after "A Place In The Sun" and "Giant". That alone makes "The Only Game In Town" a collector's piece. Elizabeth Taylor clearly trusted George Stevens completely and for good reason. She is spectacular. Every close up is like a personal, private experience. Warren Beatty is perfect here and he turned down "Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid" to work with George Stevens. Good for him. A delicious treat.
Co-habitation never looked LESS glamorous . . .
oscaralbert17 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
. . . than during THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, in which "E.L. Taylor" plays "Mutt" to the "Jeff" of "C.L. Barrow." Because E.L.'s Real Life Hubbie "Dick Button" wouldn't let E.L. out of his sight, and since Dick was making another flick in Paris, France, when it came time to film THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN, the latter movie was shot in a "fake" Las Vegas set up in Germany's Playground (aka, France). Of course, the phrase "fake Las Vegas" is as redundant as calling something "a bogus counterfeit." At any rate, THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN fled out-of-town to become a boring snooze-fest which may interest a few drunks who have frittered away all their cash at the nickel slots, forcing them back to the cheap casino hotel rooms in the steerage section, in which GAME pops up on a free movie channel from time to time. However, for everyone else, THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN may well prove to be the ultimate yawner, indicating that it's time to move on to a new town.
Bad casting, bad script, unlovable characters, utter failure
brower821 May 2005
Except for the widescreen image, one might think this a low-budget, made-for-TV movie: except that Liz Taylor was priced out of such efforts. The script is abominable, and it is impossible to develop any rapport with the over-aged delinquents that Fran Taylor (Elizabeth Taylor) and Joe Grady (Warren Beatty) portray. It is obvious enough that Las Vegas, even more the focus of low-brow, bad-taste materialism in America at the time, would be garish enough, but the domestic set is no relief.
It's hard to imagine the (then in her late thirties) Elizabeth Taylor being cast as a chorus girl, and perhaps such was the attraction of this play as a fountain of youth for her. I could imagine her as a choreographer or as a trainer of chorus girls, but not (with her build) as a chorus girl herself. Warren Beatty plays a singularly one-dimensional character, a superstitious, money-obsessed gambler, and not a good one. Both characters can hardly elicit any sympathy from either of us.
The play, should it have ever been transformed into a cinematic project of any kind, could just as well have been done as a low-budget made-for-TV movie with the use of casino scenes in Las Vegas and nearby sets. Instead, the ethos of this movie remains Warren Beatty fashioning a $100 bill into a boat and letting it sail down a drain way to a gutter. Too bad for all the starving children (adaptation of a line from the play), says Grady, in a time in which $100 was a week's salary for many people.
The investment was huge, and it seems to have gone into the gutter.
Avoid it.
It's hard to imagine the (then in her late thirties) Elizabeth Taylor being cast as a chorus girl, and perhaps such was the attraction of this play as a fountain of youth for her. I could imagine her as a choreographer or as a trainer of chorus girls, but not (with her build) as a chorus girl herself. Warren Beatty plays a singularly one-dimensional character, a superstitious, money-obsessed gambler, and not a good one. Both characters can hardly elicit any sympathy from either of us.
The play, should it have ever been transformed into a cinematic project of any kind, could just as well have been done as a low-budget made-for-TV movie with the use of casino scenes in Las Vegas and nearby sets. Instead, the ethos of this movie remains Warren Beatty fashioning a $100 bill into a boat and letting it sail down a drain way to a gutter. Too bad for all the starving children (adaptation of a line from the play), says Grady, in a time in which $100 was a week's salary for many people.
The investment was huge, and it seems to have gone into the gutter.
Avoid it.
Where's the rest of the story?
jaykay-1017 July 2001
So full of holes in plot and characterization that you must wonder how this was considered a finished product - for stage or screen.
Taylor, who is neither built like a chorine nor moves like one, becomes involved with a boyish Beatty, who, according to the story, is two years older than she. (Even the makeup department had their problems with this one.) Afraid to commit herself emotionally because she's seen too much of the sordid sides of life and love, she nevertheless ends up committing herself totally to a compulsive gambler. That he has undergone some type of catharsis and will gamble no more is something she is ready to believe, but, I fear, the audience is not - especially since he has just gambled away his long-sought ticket out of Las Vegas. What she has to offer him (or any man) in the way of understanding, companionship, support and stability is very much open to question. Her own ticket out of Las Vegas, in the person of a married boyfriend who has-against all expectations-divorced his wife in order to marry her, is rejected for an uncertain future as a compulsive gambler's woman. Why? Unless you are prepared to blindly accept the catch-all "because she loves him," you won't find the answer in this picture. Speaking of fantasy, although she proudly insists that she has never taken money from any man, she lives in a beautifully-furnished apartment and has an extensive, very stylish wardrobe - notwithstanding her pointing out (for our benefit, I suppose) that her jewelry is not costly and her furs are not real. Is she lying about her source of income? If so, it is inconsistent with a character who is presented as being emotionally honest, however confused she might be. If her claim is to be taken literally, how can she manage such a lifestyle on a chorus girl's salary?
There is lots more that doesn't ring true in a picture that fails to build, fails to involve the viewer, and ultimately falls flat.
Taylor, who is neither built like a chorine nor moves like one, becomes involved with a boyish Beatty, who, according to the story, is two years older than she. (Even the makeup department had their problems with this one.) Afraid to commit herself emotionally because she's seen too much of the sordid sides of life and love, she nevertheless ends up committing herself totally to a compulsive gambler. That he has undergone some type of catharsis and will gamble no more is something she is ready to believe, but, I fear, the audience is not - especially since he has just gambled away his long-sought ticket out of Las Vegas. What she has to offer him (or any man) in the way of understanding, companionship, support and stability is very much open to question. Her own ticket out of Las Vegas, in the person of a married boyfriend who has-against all expectations-divorced his wife in order to marry her, is rejected for an uncertain future as a compulsive gambler's woman. Why? Unless you are prepared to blindly accept the catch-all "because she loves him," you won't find the answer in this picture. Speaking of fantasy, although she proudly insists that she has never taken money from any man, she lives in a beautifully-furnished apartment and has an extensive, very stylish wardrobe - notwithstanding her pointing out (for our benefit, I suppose) that her jewelry is not costly and her furs are not real. Is she lying about her source of income? If so, it is inconsistent with a character who is presented as being emotionally honest, however confused she might be. If her claim is to be taken literally, how can she manage such a lifestyle on a chorus girl's salary?
There is lots more that doesn't ring true in a picture that fails to build, fails to involve the viewer, and ultimately falls flat.
Taylor and Beatty Give the Game a Try, But Fail
dglink30 April 2017
Based on play by Frank D. Gilroy that ran only 16 performances on Broadway, "The Only Game in Town" was adapted for the screen by Gilroy and misused the talents of two stars and a director with five Academy Awards between them. Evidently, the play and Gilroy's services to write the adaptation were purchased before opening night, otherwise Elizabeth Taylor, Warren Beatty, and George Stevens would have been more effectively employed on other projects.
Fran Walker, an aging Vegas showgirl, whose stylish apartment and flashy wardrobe belie any financial struggle, becomes involved with Joe Grady, a bar pianist, who subsists on tips and gambling. The pair get to know each other over the course of the two-hour running time, Fran's married paramour appears and disappears, the bar owner has problems with the undependable Grady. In other words, not much happens, and, considering the paucity of dialog, the play's brief life on Broadway is understandable.
In 1970, Elizabeth Taylor was probably the most famous woman in the world, and her image, bearing, and demeanor are definitely not working class. In a part originated by Tammy Grimes and more suited to Shirley Maclaine, Taylor tries her best, but she lacks the physical attributes of a dancer and, at this point in her career, is definitely a grande dame. However, not all the blame falls on Taylor. While she is obviously miscast, hairstylists Alexandre and Claudie Ettori bear responsibility for the puffy hair styles and wigs that overwhelm Taylor and detract from her legendary beauty. When Taylor's coiffures are not demanding attention, Mia Fonssagrives's and Vicki Tiel's unflattering costumes elicit giggles and gasps, especially an outlandish yellow mini-skirted outfit with a pillbox hat that parodies earlier fashions successfully worn by Jackie Kennedy and Audrey Hepburn. If Razzies had been awarded for costumes, Fonssagrives and Tiel would have taken them home.
Fortunately, Alexandre and Fonssagrives kept their hands off Warren Beatty, and he does fairly well, although neither he nor Taylor are convincing as lovers. Equally unconvincing is the supposed Las Vegas location; filmed in Paris, the obvious rear projection to fake Nevada settings is distracting at best. "The Only Game in Town" was a disappointing finale to the career of director George Stevens, who retired after the film's failure. More than four decades after its release, the movie is difficult to sit through, despite the efforts of Taylor and Beatty to inject some life into a moribund story. Only die-hard fans of the two stars and students of George Stevens's career will likely find much of value.
Fran Walker, an aging Vegas showgirl, whose stylish apartment and flashy wardrobe belie any financial struggle, becomes involved with Joe Grady, a bar pianist, who subsists on tips and gambling. The pair get to know each other over the course of the two-hour running time, Fran's married paramour appears and disappears, the bar owner has problems with the undependable Grady. In other words, not much happens, and, considering the paucity of dialog, the play's brief life on Broadway is understandable.
In 1970, Elizabeth Taylor was probably the most famous woman in the world, and her image, bearing, and demeanor are definitely not working class. In a part originated by Tammy Grimes and more suited to Shirley Maclaine, Taylor tries her best, but she lacks the physical attributes of a dancer and, at this point in her career, is definitely a grande dame. However, not all the blame falls on Taylor. While she is obviously miscast, hairstylists Alexandre and Claudie Ettori bear responsibility for the puffy hair styles and wigs that overwhelm Taylor and detract from her legendary beauty. When Taylor's coiffures are not demanding attention, Mia Fonssagrives's and Vicki Tiel's unflattering costumes elicit giggles and gasps, especially an outlandish yellow mini-skirted outfit with a pillbox hat that parodies earlier fashions successfully worn by Jackie Kennedy and Audrey Hepburn. If Razzies had been awarded for costumes, Fonssagrives and Tiel would have taken them home.
Fortunately, Alexandre and Fonssagrives kept their hands off Warren Beatty, and he does fairly well, although neither he nor Taylor are convincing as lovers. Equally unconvincing is the supposed Las Vegas location; filmed in Paris, the obvious rear projection to fake Nevada settings is distracting at best. "The Only Game in Town" was a disappointing finale to the career of director George Stevens, who retired after the film's failure. More than four decades after its release, the movie is difficult to sit through, despite the efforts of Taylor and Beatty to inject some life into a moribund story. Only die-hard fans of the two stars and students of George Stevens's career will likely find much of value.
Taylor and Stevens both disappoint!
JohnHowardReid16 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A comedy/drama/romance that can't quite make up its mind as to which facets to emphasize, this stage play seems to stretch out for an inordinate length on the screen, despite Henri Decae's lush color photography and some stunning location scenery in Las Vegas. The play has been opened out a bit. The character play by Hank Henry sees to be a cinematic addition, although the role is small. However, the movie is still basically a three characters study, actioned in just the one setting. I must admit that the first two- thirds of the movie are agreeable enough – thanks mostly to the charm of the three principals – but the last third in which the movie finally comes to its foregone conclusion, seems to drag on and on and on. From a director's angle, the film is disappointing. Despite the reunion with Liz Taylor, this is not another "Place in the Sun" for director George Stevens. In fact, the old master seems to be losing his touch. The crude studio insert of Liz pretending to dance in the Las Vegas line-up will fool no-one. True, Liz is carefully groomed, made up and costumed and has obviously been taking elocution lessons as her voice is nowhere near as grating as it was in some previous blockbusters such as Cleopatra. On the other hand, despite all Liz's careful make-up, Beatty still looks about ten years her junior.
Two of Hollywood's biggest stars in the flop of the year.
gargantuaboy14 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
OH boy was this not a good one. Elizabeth Taylor plays a Vegas showgirl, I guess she was a showgirl because there was ONE scene where she was dancing. It was hard to tell to tell because she only had a big huge close up so the audience could not tell she wasn't really dancing I guess. After work one night she stops in to a local Pizza place where she sees Warren Beatty playing the piano. The two hit it off. Considering they had zero on screen chemistry it's tough to understand why there were so enamored with each other.
They go back to her place and pretty much have some of the dullest dialogue you will ever see in a movie. The movie was first a play and it shows because the movie barely ever leaves Taylor's apartment! They lay there in bed together smoking and actually have a five minute discussion about cigarettes and smoking in bed. Like I said, ZERO chemistry.
Beatty has this dream of getting 5 thousand dollars together so he can finally leave Vegas! All this time Taylor has this older married man she has been seeing. FINALLY they leave Taylor's apartment and spend the day on a boat fishing. After the first 45 minutes in that apartment you get the feeling the film crew needed to get the hell out of there so they added the fishing scene. I am not even sure they were at sea, from the shot of Warren trying to reel in a flounder it looked like he was in front of a big blue screen.
When they get back to Taylor's apartment they are met by the older married fella that Taylor has been seeing. He apparently has his own key and walks in. It is quite awkward as they all just kind of stand there shocked. Warren has that one fish he caught still hanging by a line and dripping all over the place. Beatty leaves without the fish and the married fella stands there delivering some of the dullest dialogue ever spouted off in a movie. This has to be one of the most boring characters ever in a film. All of a sudden he needs to marry Taylor and she sort of becomes shocked and starts packing. She realizes she still has feelings for Warren and the married fella leaves. Truly one of the oddest scenes I have ever seen.
Warren almost gets his 5 grand to leave but then gambles it all away. We feel nothing for him because he is just such a badly written character. At one point Warren gets to the apartment late and blames it on a flat tire. Elizabeth then asks him which tire, see she loves details!! I don't want to spoil the ending but it just goes on and on.
Pass on this one.
They go back to her place and pretty much have some of the dullest dialogue you will ever see in a movie. The movie was first a play and it shows because the movie barely ever leaves Taylor's apartment! They lay there in bed together smoking and actually have a five minute discussion about cigarettes and smoking in bed. Like I said, ZERO chemistry.
Beatty has this dream of getting 5 thousand dollars together so he can finally leave Vegas! All this time Taylor has this older married man she has been seeing. FINALLY they leave Taylor's apartment and spend the day on a boat fishing. After the first 45 minutes in that apartment you get the feeling the film crew needed to get the hell out of there so they added the fishing scene. I am not even sure they were at sea, from the shot of Warren trying to reel in a flounder it looked like he was in front of a big blue screen.
When they get back to Taylor's apartment they are met by the older married fella that Taylor has been seeing. He apparently has his own key and walks in. It is quite awkward as they all just kind of stand there shocked. Warren has that one fish he caught still hanging by a line and dripping all over the place. Beatty leaves without the fish and the married fella stands there delivering some of the dullest dialogue ever spouted off in a movie. This has to be one of the most boring characters ever in a film. All of a sudden he needs to marry Taylor and she sort of becomes shocked and starts packing. She realizes she still has feelings for Warren and the married fella leaves. Truly one of the oddest scenes I have ever seen.
Warren almost gets his 5 grand to leave but then gambles it all away. We feel nothing for him because he is just such a badly written character. At one point Warren gets to the apartment late and blames it on a flat tire. Elizabeth then asks him which tire, see she loves details!! I don't want to spoil the ending but it just goes on and on.
Pass on this one.
Start Again At Your Beginnings
TheFearmakers27 March 2019
Director George Stevens was great at telling a relatively simple story in an epic, grandiose fashion, burying the hidden lead till the conclusion without it being a letdown, or the audience feeling like they've been taken for a long, misleading ride...
GIANT fits its title in scope but the Texas saga, with all the immense sets and widescreen landscapes, ends with a quick fist fight in a small cafe, and is actually - throughout what's a lifetime, decade-spanning melodrama - a morality tale on racism (Whites towards Mexicans)...
Along with Rock Hudson and a posthumous James Dean, this venture, arguably Stevens's greatest achievement, starred one of the loveliest ingenues at that time who, in 1956, was a much better suited to be a showgirl, like in the director's final film fourteen years later, THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN...
And while what happens in Las Vegas stays there, what happens when someone takes a picture only showing their best features is, at a particular age, usually shot from the neck up, and Taylor's top-half is shown, twice during a fifteen second segment of a musical number on an immense Casino stage, inserted in a contrived, phony and downright hilarious fashion...
But don't let this campy "cheat" moment fool you. TOWN isn't a howler, and could have been embarrassing had Taylor not played the role with her usual dignity and finesse - even though a touch of STREETCAR Blanche Dubois might've intensified the character, who, with a high-pitched, pretty doll voice contrasting to a world-weary expression and a few extra pounds, doesn't seem oblivious enough to her own reality...
She's contented, though, living in a small apartment, opening her curtains to reveal either the ghost bones of a pallid Vegas at dawn or those famous neon lights at night, spending afternoons watching Bogart, Cagney or whatever B&W classic happens to be on... Eventually, when this adapted stage play gathers momentum, aided by a sometimes blaring other times reposeful Maurice Jarre jazz score, she effectively glides her way through an intentionally dry and unfeeling romance with Warren Beatty, who's either too young for her, or vice versa...
As the younger male lead, Warren does a good enough job as a glib barroom piano player with a gambling addiction that turns him from a grinning "thousandaire" to being pocket lint poor. Meanwhile, he and Liz share a convenient and talkative relationship in her apartment that Stevens, along with French New Wave cinematographer Henri Decaë, make seem like a world all its own...
According to trivia, since Liz wanted to be near her husband Richard Burton, who was filming a movie in England, most of the interiors were shot overseas, or medium-shot street scenes where Vegas was expensively recreated finished with an eleven-day quick-shoot in Sin City, which obviously included tons of b-roll/actual footage...
Either way, with the exception of a distracting fake backdrop in a fishing boat sequence (albeit with a "classic movie" look befitting Stevens's heyday), it all seems real enough as the characters mean more than their surroundings...
Despite being owned by a town neither can escape from, and only one really wants to: Poor Joe, the epitome of unlucky, keeps needing enough money to split while Taylor, eventually hiding his tip-cash in a "Tough Love" fashion, had been previously waiting around for her married lover, whose picture's set proudly on on her bed-stand table, turning into a punchline of several Beatty quips about beady eyes...
An important symbolic device is the sound of... Ringing: from a random payphone outside Joe's work-bar before Liz first enters and both meet, to a call she just-misses at her own pad after being with him most of that first night, representing her "Ship Coming In," which, as her relationship builds, seems far in the horizon - yet it does eventually dock...
This rather conventional turning point, when Charles Braswell's business-minded everyman asks her hand in marriage, showing hardcopy proof he finally landed a divorce, veers into soap operatic territory...
In one memorable, awkward moment, right before Liz and Warren's first night (or rather, early morning) of lovemaking, she wisps back her dark hair helmet, and says with the soft, sexy voice of a former young ingenue, "Carry me to bed - I like being carried," which doesn't dissolve to the next scene quickly enough - you can almost hear skinny-bone Beatty nervously clear his throat for such an arduous task...
And yet, somehow, these two solo artists, who really have no place being in a movie together, wind up making some pretty nice music together - although, let it be noted that Robert Altman would really nail the gambling addiction five years later in CALIFORNIA SPLIT.
GIANT fits its title in scope but the Texas saga, with all the immense sets and widescreen landscapes, ends with a quick fist fight in a small cafe, and is actually - throughout what's a lifetime, decade-spanning melodrama - a morality tale on racism (Whites towards Mexicans)...
Along with Rock Hudson and a posthumous James Dean, this venture, arguably Stevens's greatest achievement, starred one of the loveliest ingenues at that time who, in 1956, was a much better suited to be a showgirl, like in the director's final film fourteen years later, THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN...
And while what happens in Las Vegas stays there, what happens when someone takes a picture only showing their best features is, at a particular age, usually shot from the neck up, and Taylor's top-half is shown, twice during a fifteen second segment of a musical number on an immense Casino stage, inserted in a contrived, phony and downright hilarious fashion...
But don't let this campy "cheat" moment fool you. TOWN isn't a howler, and could have been embarrassing had Taylor not played the role with her usual dignity and finesse - even though a touch of STREETCAR Blanche Dubois might've intensified the character, who, with a high-pitched, pretty doll voice contrasting to a world-weary expression and a few extra pounds, doesn't seem oblivious enough to her own reality...
She's contented, though, living in a small apartment, opening her curtains to reveal either the ghost bones of a pallid Vegas at dawn or those famous neon lights at night, spending afternoons watching Bogart, Cagney or whatever B&W classic happens to be on... Eventually, when this adapted stage play gathers momentum, aided by a sometimes blaring other times reposeful Maurice Jarre jazz score, she effectively glides her way through an intentionally dry and unfeeling romance with Warren Beatty, who's either too young for her, or vice versa...
As the younger male lead, Warren does a good enough job as a glib barroom piano player with a gambling addiction that turns him from a grinning "thousandaire" to being pocket lint poor. Meanwhile, he and Liz share a convenient and talkative relationship in her apartment that Stevens, along with French New Wave cinematographer Henri Decaë, make seem like a world all its own...
According to trivia, since Liz wanted to be near her husband Richard Burton, who was filming a movie in England, most of the interiors were shot overseas, or medium-shot street scenes where Vegas was expensively recreated finished with an eleven-day quick-shoot in Sin City, which obviously included tons of b-roll/actual footage...
Either way, with the exception of a distracting fake backdrop in a fishing boat sequence (albeit with a "classic movie" look befitting Stevens's heyday), it all seems real enough as the characters mean more than their surroundings...
Despite being owned by a town neither can escape from, and only one really wants to: Poor Joe, the epitome of unlucky, keeps needing enough money to split while Taylor, eventually hiding his tip-cash in a "Tough Love" fashion, had been previously waiting around for her married lover, whose picture's set proudly on on her bed-stand table, turning into a punchline of several Beatty quips about beady eyes...
An important symbolic device is the sound of... Ringing: from a random payphone outside Joe's work-bar before Liz first enters and both meet, to a call she just-misses at her own pad after being with him most of that first night, representing her "Ship Coming In," which, as her relationship builds, seems far in the horizon - yet it does eventually dock...
This rather conventional turning point, when Charles Braswell's business-minded everyman asks her hand in marriage, showing hardcopy proof he finally landed a divorce, veers into soap operatic territory...
In one memorable, awkward moment, right before Liz and Warren's first night (or rather, early morning) of lovemaking, she wisps back her dark hair helmet, and says with the soft, sexy voice of a former young ingenue, "Carry me to bed - I like being carried," which doesn't dissolve to the next scene quickly enough - you can almost hear skinny-bone Beatty nervously clear his throat for such an arduous task...
And yet, somehow, these two solo artists, who really have no place being in a movie together, wind up making some pretty nice music together - although, let it be noted that Robert Altman would really nail the gambling addiction five years later in CALIFORNIA SPLIT.
The Only Game in Town-Taylor & Beatty Play out Fantasies int o Reality
edwagreen14 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Miss Taylor may have already been too old for the part. There are scenes opposite Warren Beatty where her age is really starting to show.
This is basically the story of two losers who find love in Las Vegas. If Beatty really wanted to leave Vegas, he could have done it in the way that an Oscar winner did it in 1995's "Leaving Las Vegas," where Nicolas Cage gave the performance of his career.
Near the end of the film, the two stars are basically playing out their life stories. Beatty finally wants to settle down and Taylor is as usual, unsure about marriage.
A better, gritty script was needed for this **1/2 production.
This is basically the story of two losers who find love in Las Vegas. If Beatty really wanted to leave Vegas, he could have done it in the way that an Oscar winner did it in 1995's "Leaving Las Vegas," where Nicolas Cage gave the performance of his career.
Near the end of the film, the two stars are basically playing out their life stories. Beatty finally wants to settle down and Taylor is as usual, unsure about marriage.
A better, gritty script was needed for this **1/2 production.
Two stars with conspicuously diverging acting styles
fredrikgunerius16 August 2023
This film, which turned out to be George Stevens' last, is a partly enjoyable, partly agonizing symbiosis of modern dialogue and stilted staging, of elegance and clumsiness, and of two stars with conspicuously diverging acting styles: a fresh and youthful Warren Beatty, and a jaded, declining Elizabeth Taylor. The latter nonconformity is the main reason why the romance between the two never really works - in addition to some cowardice in the bedroom scenes on Stevens' (and probably the it-couple Taylor/Burton's) part. So while you want to believe the Beatty character's attraction to Taylor, her somewhat dated fragility and forced working-class persona (with which she is not in touch) makes her implausible as a 1970 Vegas chorus girl.
The scenes that work the best are those which Beatty is able to spice up with some of his impeccable comic delivery and timing. Beatty impresses dramatically, too. He was probably never more assured (or good-looking) than he was here; in a better film this could have been an award-winning performance. His character is an altogether interesting study, but although his predicaments and even the love triangle per se is well-written, Stevens isn't able to handle it. Granted, the fact that the film was shot in Paris (at Taylor/Burton's insistence) and therefore feels so confined doesn't help either, but the biggest problem is Stevens' inadequate direction in the interpersonal scenes. It seems he was hoping that if he kept the camera rolling, things would eventually make sense. The film fares better at presenting the Beatty character's gambling problem, which is presented with sensitivity, even if the repercussions of it for the relationship between him and Taylor isn't really tackled.
The Only Game in Town is a flawed film, to put it mildly, but it has enough going for it, including some eye-candy (Beatty) and ear-candy (Maurice Jarre's jazzy score), to make it worth a look.
The scenes that work the best are those which Beatty is able to spice up with some of his impeccable comic delivery and timing. Beatty impresses dramatically, too. He was probably never more assured (or good-looking) than he was here; in a better film this could have been an award-winning performance. His character is an altogether interesting study, but although his predicaments and even the love triangle per se is well-written, Stevens isn't able to handle it. Granted, the fact that the film was shot in Paris (at Taylor/Burton's insistence) and therefore feels so confined doesn't help either, but the biggest problem is Stevens' inadequate direction in the interpersonal scenes. It seems he was hoping that if he kept the camera rolling, things would eventually make sense. The film fares better at presenting the Beatty character's gambling problem, which is presented with sensitivity, even if the repercussions of it for the relationship between him and Taylor isn't really tackled.
The Only Game in Town is a flawed film, to put it mildly, but it has enough going for it, including some eye-candy (Beatty) and ear-candy (Maurice Jarre's jazzy score), to make it worth a look.
Boring, Boring, boring.
larrysmile-18-33769417 March 2018
Within the first 5 - 10 minutes I felt that this film was a waste of the talents of Elizabeth Taylor and Warren Beatty. Both are miscast as there is little 'energy' between them throughout the entire film. A great film starts out with a great story. This story is from duds-ville. Taylor, as an adult, is best in dramas, intense dramas, where the story allows her to be in conflict with the male paramour. That's why Burton-Taylor's rendition in Wm, Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" is so great. Anybody could have done Beatty's role in this film. He is lackluster, to be fair. I guess the players did it for the money and not for the art for there is no real art in the story or the setting or the movie itself. Sorry, George Stevens. Not a film to be proud of.
an easily enjoyable film
kiddhowe11 October 2005
Fran Walker the lead character of this film faces the choice many people face-- I've invested time and hope in a relationship, is it the right one for me? Fran struggles with making the best choice for a happy and rewarding life. She's a bit of a ditz but likable. Elizabeth Taylor brings out the anxiety that Fran feels about her life yet shows us the willingness Fran has to take a chance to make a change.
Warren Beatty as Joe Grady did a credible job of helping us like an immature man who was learning to grow-up.
The filming of this picture in France was one of its drawbacks. The film's ambiance would have been better filmed on location in Las Vegas.
All in all The Only Game in Town is worth a watch on a Sunday afternoon or a late night bowl of popcorn.
Warren Beatty as Joe Grady did a credible job of helping us like an immature man who was learning to grow-up.
The filming of this picture in France was one of its drawbacks. The film's ambiance would have been better filmed on location in Las Vegas.
All in all The Only Game in Town is worth a watch on a Sunday afternoon or a late night bowl of popcorn.
The lowest form of camp
mls418214 September 2023
Elizabeth Taylor goes into a bar to eat an entire pizza and comes home with Warren Beatty.
Is this a love story? No. Is this a comedy? No. Is this a drama? No. Is this a character study on the addictions of gambling? No.
The guy only interesting aspect of this film were Elizabeth's wigs. I hadn't seen more contrived hairdos since Valley of the Dolls. I'm sure all were used to try to balance out her booze bloat and/of trying to make her look younger.
When Liz was good,she was terrific. It seems after Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and her second Oscar she felt entitled to coast through or act up in most of her films. Fortunately, we don't expect much from Beatty.
Is this a love story? No. Is this a comedy? No. Is this a drama? No. Is this a character study on the addictions of gambling? No.
The guy only interesting aspect of this film were Elizabeth's wigs. I hadn't seen more contrived hairdos since Valley of the Dolls. I'm sure all were used to try to balance out her booze bloat and/of trying to make her look younger.
When Liz was good,she was terrific. It seems after Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and her second Oscar she felt entitled to coast through or act up in most of her films. Fortunately, we don't expect much from Beatty.
Taylor and Beatty miscast in a "one-act" love story, bogged down by it's sixties-style, leaden melodramatics.
TheVid3 June 2003
Frank Gilroy's play brought to the screen by the great George Stevens; sadly, his last film. The maudlin characterizations by Liz and Warren just don't cut it, simply because they seem far too old and worldly to be victimized by the circumstances set forth for them. Old-fashioned in the worse way. Maurice Jarre provides one of his best scores, though.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
