Skin Game (1971) Poster

(1971)

User Reviews

Review this title
24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A New Type of Con Game
bkoganbing3 January 2006
James Garner ever since he made his first big hit in the television series of Maverick refined the playing of a con man who's no better than he ought to be into a fine art. Quincy Drew is a further refining of the Bret Maverick character.

James Garner can be serious when he wants to be, but I've always gotten the feeling he enjoys being Maverick or Jim Rockford far better than playing it straight. He has to enjoy it more, he's so darn good at it.

Here he's got a racket going with Lou Gossett, Jr. During the days just before the Civil War in the 1850s he and Gossett work this con where Garner keeps buying and selling Gossett as a slave. Of course Gossett escapes and then they move on to the next town.

Trouble is with that kind of a con, your reputation is bound to catch up with you. Gossett, who was born in New Jersey and is a free black man, gets a view of slavery he didn't bargain for. Along the way he meets Brenda Sykes.

Garner also meets up with Susan Clark who's also a grifter. She aids him in his search for Gossett.

Gossett and Garner don't exactly redeem themselves in the end, but you know this is not a racket they will be trying any more.
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A forgotten exceptional comedy
PTaylor1296 June 2020
American film critic Leonard Maltin describes Skin Game as an exceptional comedy...and I agree with him. To make a comedy focussing on two con men ripping off slave owners without regard to any-thing but making money, while at the same time satirizing American slavery is itself bold and original, especially considering the film was made in 1971. However, to make such a comedy work so smoothly and inoffensively as it does is indeed exceptional. Skin Game manages to work for a number of reasons, including because it is serious when it needs to be, complementing the humour with well-crafted dramatic moments that are firmly anchored in the plot and effectively convey the injustice and tragedy of slavery. It does this without attempting to make any grand moralizing statements that would detract from the main thrust of the story and lure the viewer into obvious sentimentalism. Furthermore, while Skin Game is first and foremost a comedy, after its two main characters end up face-to-face with the brutality of slavery, it becomes clear that the gig is up and the comedy is over. Ultimately, slavery is too horrible a business to be taken lightly and the two smart-ass cons have learned their lesson by the end of the movie. In these ways, the film can manage to be satirical and funny, while not appearing to make light of a very serious topic. It should also be mentioned that the humour is of course never directed at slavery or the slaves, but at the slave owners and their stupidly racist attitudes. Another reason why Skin Game works so well is because of the wonderful performances by its two main stars, James Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. Garner is of course an expert at playing the charming and witty fast-talking rascal, and in Skin Game, he gives one of his very best performances in a comedy film (along with Support Your Local Sheriff and The Americanization of Emily). However, the film also revealed Lou Gossett Jr.'s considerable talent. In his first important role in a major film, Gossett easily holds his own against Garner. The two have strong chemistry together, constantly trying to outcon each-other and delivering their humorous lines with ease, charm and spontaneity. The humour itself is maybe not highly sophisticated or extremely funny, but it's a smart tongue-in-cheek kind of comedy that makes you regularly grin and never feels forced. Overall, Skin Game is not only an exceptional film, but an excellent one that intelligently balances comedy and drama, and develops its unusual premise in an amusing, sensitive, and unpredictable manner. It's a shame this movie is not more appreciated, though it did lead to a TV remake (Sidekicks with Gossett reprising his role and Larry Hagman replacing Garner), and other reviewers have pointed out its possible influence on Django Unchained.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Garner's great in this type role.
Jakeroo19 June 1999
And Lou Gossett with hair - Wow! But this comedy has a heavy load to carry, dealing with slavery & it's human cost. It's not much of a comedy when Jason actually gets sold into slavery and Gossett conveys the desperation very well. It does have it's light moments and Susan Clark helps lighten the load. I rated it an 8.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Two pros at the top of their game
mbredeck18 March 2003
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?
21 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Feels more like the inspiration for "Django Unchained" than "Django"
dnauertz26 September 2016
Remember how Clint Eastwood's character in "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" had that wonderful scam of turning Eli Wallach in for the reward money, saving him from the hangman's noose and then taking him to the next town to repeat the process all over again, piling up the cash in the process? James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. essentially have the same graft going in this film, except that they're in the South in 1854 and Gossett is black, not wanted, so Garner poses as a plantation owner while Gossett poses as the devoted slave that he must part with due to falling on hard times. Garner sells Gossett, Gossett escapes, and then they move on to the next town/state to do it all over again.

I found this to be an inspired premise, and "Skin Game" does quite a bit with it. Somehow the movie manages to acknowledge and explore the drama within this situation while still mining it for every possible ounce of comedy. It doesn't quite hit the delirious "let's mock the stupidity of racism" heights that Mel Brooks did in "Blazing Saddles" but that's an unfair comparison. For one thing, "Skin Game" takes itself, and its subject, far more seriously. It's fun to watch these con men take money from unsuspecting racist assholes, to be sure, but the movie never forgets that this institution actually existed, that it ruined countless lives, and that its impacts on society were far-reaching and terrible. "Skin Game" isn't as bitingly satirical as it could be, but it does have some bite to it, and the horrors of racism ensure that this film, which would otherwise be a fairly light affair, has some real suspense going for it.

More than "Blazing Saddles", the movie of which "Skin Game" most reminded me was "Django Unchained". It boasts the same setting, of course, and both movies feature people pretending to be who they are not within this setting. Like "Django", "Skin Game" also features a black man and a white man who have a genuine friendship and a fun camaraderie with one another. Being the film geek that he is, I am almost certain that Tarantino has seen this film and the two movies share a similar vibe and feel at times, although Quentin spins his story into a different and more violent beast. I don't know if either movie is more "important" than the other. Quentin uses this setting for a bloody, highly quotable revenge narrative, while "Skin Game" uses it for a novel variation on the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" dynamic. It starts as a breezy, light con man story with a controversial spin but then deepens into a critique of the institution of slavery that still allows for a good deal of humor and excitement. Director Paul Bogart doesn't provide much in the way of haunting visuals and the whole story could have been told in a more effective manner at times, but he maintains an energetic pace throughout and highlights the chemistry between his leads. Garner, as always, is incredibly charming. Gossett, in contrast, gives his character just the right amount of outrage and anger while still having fun with the whole situation...until the situation changes and fun is no longer possible. Gossett's is the more interesting of the two characters, as he should be, and has more dramatic angles with which to wrestle. After all, he is profiting from a system that enslaves and kills people of his own race. The movie is smart enough to acknowledge and explore this fact at every turn and give Gossett an interesting, three-dimensional character through which to consider all of this.

If anything, "Skin Game" is probably a little too breezy considering its subject matter. With Garner at the lead, its bland visual style and its Western feel, it often feels like a "Very Special Episode" of "Maverick". I appreciate the fact that the movie doesn't moralize too strenuously and that it doesn't go too far into Oscar bait/"Racism is Bad" territory, but maybe a movie taking place within the world of slaves and plantations should be a bit more serious about those subjects. Or maybe not, not necessarily. I mean, the movie shows us at least one whipping and the pens that potential slaves are being held in, and it does show us a couple of slave auctions so it's not like "Skin Game" is going out of its way to avoid the realities of slavery...though it does present such things in a very Hollywood manner. It would be nice if the movie was a bit more brutal about such things. But, still, "Skin Game" manages to show the ugliness of this horrible institution without sacrificing the entertainment value of its fun con man story, and I found that admirable. The movie doesn't really know how to end, and I would have liked if its female lead was a little more interesting. Susan Clark is okay as the con woman who falls for Garner, steals all of his money, and then helps him when he really needs it, but it would have been nice if she'd had a few more dimensions to work with. Brenda Sykes, on the other hand, does a great job with Naomi, the slave girl for whom Gossett's character falls. Her characters is complicated and interesting. Not only that, but Sykes is beautiful whereas Clark is a bit odd looking (not that she can help that, obviously). But despite its problems, "Skin Game" is still something of a fascinating film that has been unfairly forgotten over the years. Had it not popped up during a James Garner day on Turner Classic Movies, I probably never would have heard of it. Luckily I did hear of it, and saw it, and recommend that others seek it out as well. It's not perfect, but it's definitely worth seeing.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great movie
Shows the hypocrisy of slavery while also showing a bond between a white and black man running a con on slave traders. Had some really funny parts too! I never knew about this movie.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Skin Con!
hitchcockthelegend22 September 2017
Skin Game is predominantly directed by Paul Bogart and written by Richard Alan Simmons and Peter Stone. It stars James Garner, Louis Gossett Jr., Susan Clark, Brenda Sykes, Edward Asner and Andrew Duggan. Music is by David Shire and cinematography by Fred J. Koenekamp.

Slavery era America and two interracial con-men travel from town to town duping white folk into purchasing black Jason O'Rourke (Gossett Jr,). After Quincy Drew (Garner) strikes a deal, with money in hand, the pair meet up later to scarper and split the profits. A nice con, that is until ladies and savvy outsiders enter the fray...

A lovely Panavision/Technicolor production, Skin Game is a little remembered comedy Oater, not because it's poor, but more than likely because it has been shunted to one side due to what is now perceived as political incorrectness. Which is a shame, for although it doesn't fully exploit the premise it is working with, it's a very likable pic that's propped up by strong lead performances.

As the not so intrepid duo move from town to town, places with great names like Dirty Shame and Bitter End, a number of funny scenes keep things perky, be it bath time, Jason crying or the verbal jousting rumbling on, the comedy is subtle and easy to digest. The introduction of Clark lifts the pic higher, for she's a bigger rogue than Quincy and Jason, adding more cream to an already amusing pudding.

It's all very improbable as such, so we are not surprised when things inevitably go belly up, while the intention to probe the bile of the era in question doesn't make a telling mark. But the pros of the piece far outweigh the cons to give us a film worth tracking down. 7/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
unique pre-Civil War master & slave con game film
RanchoTuVu12 March 2009
James Garner and Lou Gossett play Easterners who head west to con the gullible country folk in a scheme where Garner is a slave owner and Gossett is his slave whom he sells only to later escape together and then find another town. It's an interesting take on the institution of slavery, done as both comedy and drama, with an interesting portrayal of John Brown (played by Royal Dano in a full beard) storming into a Kansas town during a slave auction horsewhipping and shooting various people. In a film full of "N" words, Garner and Gossett keep the mood fairly light. However, when the game backfires Gossett is really sold into slavery and ends up on a Texas plantation owned by a rather cruel Andrew Duggan. The film goes into just enough whippings and violence to shock the viewer while also providing James Garner a familiar role he had perfected on TV's "Maverick" to sustain a lighter side as well.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
SKIN GAME (Paul Bogart and, uncredited, Gordon Douglas, 1971) ***
Bunuel197611 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Though highly rated in the Leonard Maltin Film Guide, this comic Western isn't as popular as star James Garner's two other genre spoofs - Burt Kennedy's SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL SHERIFF (1969) and SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL GUNFIGHTER (1971) - but it's very much in the same vein.

For the record, Garner had earlier collaborated with Paul Bogart (even if Gordon Douglas seems to have been involved as well at some point) on MARLOWE (1969), a failed attempt at a noir revival (and on which I'm kind of lukewarm myself); incidentally, I've just taped another thriller by this director - MR. RICCO (1975), starring Dean Martin - off TCM U.K. Anyway, while I was disappointed that the version I acquired of SKIN GAME was panned-and-scanned, I was glad to have caught up with it, as the film proved ideal lightweight/entertaining fare for the Christmas season; the same is true of the film I followed it with - coincidentally another Western comedy revolving around sparring partners, Texas ACROSS THE RIVER (1966), with Dean Martin himself and Alain Delon.

This, in fact, has con-men Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. cleaning up small towns by having the two posing as master and slave - with the former purporting to sell the latter to the highest bidder and then have the black man run away to rejoin his pal (who, by this time, has already left)! This ruse has been kept up for quite some time (as seen in flashback) and it's garnered {sic} the duo a fair sum of money; however, things take a different turn when they run in, first, real slaves (which causes Gossett, born a free man, to rethink his situation) and, then, another con artist in Susan Clark (who targets Garner himself). Gossett even falls for a black girl who's to be sold at auction (where he too will be present) - so he asks Garner to buy her out of his share of the moneybut the whole elaborate scheme is interrupted by the arrival of notorious anti-slavery crusader John Brown (played by Royal Dano)!

Furthermore, after Garner and Gossett make the mistake of returning to one of the towns they had already 'hit', the former lands in jail and the latter (along with his lady friend) is sold off as a slave for real by unscrupulous dealer Edward Asner to despotic Southerner Andrew Duggan. Surprisingly sprung from jail by Clark herself, Garner determines to save his ex-partner: they too take up disguise, this time as preacher and nurse, and start visiting Asner's clients one by one claiming a slave of theirs is actually a leper! By the time they reach Duggan's mansion, Gossett has befriended (or, rather, learned to control via his spouting of mumbo-jumbo!) a group of African slaves who subsequently go along with them when our heroes, with their respective women in tow, take off for Mexico. Incidentally, this sequence also contains the film's biggest laugh-out-loud moment as Gossett, all dressed up to wait at the family table, is fondled by one of Duggan's pubescent daughters - causing him to jump and drop the contents of his bowl!

While, as I said, the quality of the film's widescreen photography is somewhat compromised by the altered aspect ratio in this presentation (culled from a TV screening), David Shire's fine score retains all of its original impact - incidentally, being remarkably somber, it effectively counterpoints the breeziness generally on display.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Garner's most Marverick-y role
mgtbltp30 January 2010
OK finally got to watch this previously unavailable James Garner Western. It was directed by Paul Bogart who was basically a TV director and it really shows since the film doesn't quite use all of the advantages available to a cinematic endeavor. The only other film that I've seen that I know of directed by Bogart is another Garner vehicle based on Raymond Chandler's private eye character called "Marlowe" which I've seen and liked, but not in quite a while.

This film is probably the closest Garner ever gets in a film, that I've seen, to him reprising his Maverick persona when he his still young enough to pull it off, (he does so somewhat also, in the two Support Your Local... films with his cool wisecracking deliveries) but here he is actually playing a character Quincy Drew, who is a con man in the best Maverick Brothers tradition. The story circa (1857) deals with two con men Drew and Jason O'Rourke (Lou Gossett) a native of New Jersey, who we later discover met in a jail in Pennsylvania when O'Rourke was thrown into a cell next to Drew who was doing time for telling fortunes, its hilarious seeing Garner in a turban and fortune telling garb. They hit it off, and devise various different cons that they try out as a team until they hit on what they call the "Skin Game". This con consists of Garner riding into various Western border state towns Kansas, Missouri, etc., feigning poverty and as a result has to sell his best slave at an impromptu auction in the saloon, hotel, etc., etc. Susan Clark, plays a shady lady/pickpocket/con woman who targets the guys taking their money who eventually becomes Garners love interest. Ed Asner here, is in his villain period and he does a pretty good job as a slave catcher operating in the border area who eventually catches on to the con game. Gossett does a great job along with Garner & Clark.

The film is entertaining and plays it safe and cutesy, but it could have been a whole lot better with a more creative and daring director, its reminiscent of Eastwood's self produced Malpaso Production films in that respect, Cherokee Productions is Garner's company.

The what if's: If it would have shown Gossett & Garner's other various cons and how they stumbled upon the "Skin Game" con and had a better ending than the contrived one it does have it would been better.

I'll give it a 7-8/10 mostly for its Maverick nostalgia value. Its a shame its not on TV in rotation with other Westerns on the various movie channels but I think the frequent use of the "n" word probably is the cause of its not being so. Its almost as if the mainstream media has decided that that period of American History has been dealt with enough and can be swept into the closet.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Finely acted comedy-drama about two drifters who swindle slave owners into buying an alleged slave, and later share the profits.
ma-cortes19 February 2024
In 1857, con man Quincy Drew (James Garner who's shamelessly over the top) and his black friend Jason O'Rourke (Louis Gossett Jr) are travelling through the dangerous paths pre-American Civil War. Jason, though born a free man in New Jersey, poses as Quincy's slave as the pair ride through Missouri and Kansas in 1857. Quincy Drew and his black friend Jason O'Rourke have pulled off every dodge known for conning a well-heeled sucker, but it wasn't until they hit on the old skin game that they started to clean up. The game is simple: Gosset is sold to a new owner by Garner who helps him escape. Quincy picks a likely mark in each town, sells Jason to him for top money and rides out of town. Then Quincy and Jason get back together on the road to another town, because if Jason can't just run off after dark, Quincy finds a way to spring him loose. After Jason escapes captivity, both of them share the spoils. All is well until the slave seller Plunkett (Edward Asner) and nasty owner Galloway (Andrew Duggan) turn the tables on them. They talked their way into a fortune, then had to shoot their way out !. Would you buy a used slave from this man ?. To market, to market, to sell your best friend, then split up the money and do it again !. This Dude Gives You The Eye...While This Dude Gives You The Hustle!

An amusing enough liberal comedy western that has its fun moments, entertainment, action and some violence. Enjoyable as well as amiable screenplay by William Bowers and Richard Alan Simmons, allowing us to have good feeling for any of the roles, as the plot flows laughly along. It is exciting enough and glosses both the interdependence among protagonists and their antagonism. This plot about the peculiar conflicts and sympathetic relations between the rough, lifer Garner, and the cultured slave Gossett is well worked through a chronic circular premise. The underlying message about the evils of slavery and human greed is , of course, serious and enhances the attractivenes of the story. An entertaining and diverting film about a fast-talking and his black partner traveling throughout the antebellum South setting up scams against slave buyers. Garner and Gossett make a splendid comedy team in this different buddy flick, both of whom supply a few smiles. Their relationship bears remarkable resemblance to Burt Lancaster and Ossie Davies in 'Sidney Pollack's The Scalphunters' (1968). Louis Gossett Jr would repeat his role as Jason O'Rourke in Sidekicks (1974) by Burt Kennedy with Larry Hagman, Blythe Danner, Jack Elam and Harry Morgan. James 'Maverick' Garner and Louis Gossett Jr are well accompanied by a good support cast , such as : Susan Clark as the nice one and also a cheater Ginger, Brenda Sykes who also played a slave in ´Mandingo' , Edward Asner, Henry Jones, Neva Patterson, George Tyne, Royal Dano and special mention for Andrew Duggan who plays straight as a cruel plantation owner.

The motion picture was well directed by Paul Bogart (The Canterville Ghost , Class of 44 , Oh God you Devil, Skin Game and Marlowe also starred by Garner), though it has some flaws . Director Paul Bogart was replaced by Gordon Douglas for two to three weeks after Bogart contracted hepatitis. Rating : 6.5/10 . A squirmingly funny, though overrated, Western comedy with a stunning starring duo. The flick will appeal to James Garner and Louis Gosset fans.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I still can't believe I liked this movie
jcravens4212 December 2015
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.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Great Imposters
estherwalker-3471027 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
In 1961, "The Great Imposter", starring Tony Curtis, was released. It was based on a nonfiction book about the unusual life of Ferdinand Demara, who had an obsession with fake credentials that allowed him to do jobs for which he had no background, including being a doctor in the Canadian Royal Navy. Thus, he reveled in being a professional imposter. In this film, we have a team of 2 or sometimes 3 imposters, working together. Mostly, it's James Garner, as Quincy, and African American Louis Gossett, as Jason, pretending they are master, and slave, respectively, in the 1857 United States, repeatedly playing the con game where Jason, a free man, raised in N. J., is sold as a slave, then manages to escape by himself, or Quincy somehow engineers his escape. Quincy talks like springing Jason free is routinely easy as pie, but I'm sure that in reality, he could not be sure of this. We see him spring Jason free only once, near film's end, when Quincy is nearly shot dead for his trouble. Quincy risks a heavy fine and/or jail time if caught, and Jason risks a long or permanent stay as a slave or severe punishment if caused trying to escape. ...............It's never stated why, but according to Quincy, they've only pulled this trick in the border slave states or territories of Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kansas, where the price of slaves was generally lower than in the deep South, for several reasons(see the web article "Slave escape, prices, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1950"). My guess is that the pair might often need to run to a free state, if being chased. Also, if Quincy were caught and jailed, a sold Gossett would stand a much better chance of successful escape by himself to a free state, if he was in a border state, discounting the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850............This film is sometimes billed as a Western comedy, but don't expect anything in the class of "Blazing Saddles", which I saw just last night! It's mainly a curious drama, with occasional humor input, mainly of the ironic sort. For example, there's the incident where pick pocket and general thief Susan Clark, as 30sh Ginger, uses a stick through a small crack in the door to Quincy's hotel room, to hook his pants and vest, which are hanging on hooks near the door. Quincy, in the bathtub, notices this and yanks on the stick, pulling her in. She's the same woman who picked his gold watch and gold piece on the street while talking to him. They have a 'getting to know you' conversation, before deciding that Ginger will join Quincy in his bath, as a warm up to some more serious intimate action, according to a later Quincy. Unfortunately, we don't get to see either! Use your imagination! They would meet and separate several other times during the remainder of the film, she sometimes serving as his accomplice in coning people out of $500. Or more for a rare serum to prevent catching a dread disease they claim is spreading in the neighborhood. Then, to end the film, they are riding horses from Mexico to Chicago when Quincy informs her that he saw Jason steal the $3000. She assumes she has in her saddlebag. This is the same $3000. That she earlier stole from Quincy, as the proceeds from a Jason sale. He explains that he figured that Jason had earned it as compensation for all the risks and suffering he had experienced as a slave. He adds that he and Jason have $10,000. In a Chicago bank. Ginger retorts that she knows about that, pulling out the bank book. She then gallops off, with Quincy galloping after..............Clearly, Quincy and Jason's con game was illegal, making them felony-status crooks. But, in the minds of the audience, this is balanced by the sentiment that buying and keeping slaves is immoral, thus justifying their thievery. That is the central irony of the film!...........I don't understand why 'uncle' Abram, of the Calloway ranch in southern Texas, where Jason is enslaved, decided to join the group of slaves who have decided to try to escape to Mexico. Clearly, at the ranch, he had a privileged position as the senior slave: even his scolding of the teen girls at the dinner table being tolerated. As a penniless elderly man, what could he hope to do in Spanish speaking Mexico that would equal or exceed his position at the Calloway ranch?? Also, I might question the wisdom of the strange clannish 4 Songay slaves, in joining this escape. They were esteemed for their facility of taming and caring for horses, and seemed to be treated well, aside from their accommodation in the barn. Speaking neither English nor Spanish, could they hope to do as well in Mexico? Incidentally, Mexico refused to sign a treaty with the US comparable to The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Thus, once slaves had made it across the Rio Grande, they were considered no longer slaves, subject to possible recapture.(That reminds me, we didn't see the escapees cross the Rio Grande, before they made it to that Mexican village. Hope it was the shallow water season!). It's estimated that around 10,000 runaway slaves made it to Mexico. In spite of the Mexican law, escaped slave bounty hunters did sometimes cross into Mexico. Thus, to be safe, it was wise to travel deep into Mexico, to discourage this illegal activity............Speaking of runaway slave bounty hunters, well known TV star Ed Asner has the unenviable role of being such, as Plunkett. He is painted as morally lower than the slave buyers, and is eventually shot dead by Jaison, just before he is about to shoot Quincy for defaming him. However, his insistence that Jason be sold with his recent girlfriend, Naomi, shows that even he, at times, had a heart. Unlike the usual bounty hunter, who returned captured runaways to their owner for a bounty, Plunkett sold them to anybody, presumably usually for a higher amount. Actually, Naomi wasn't a runaway. In fact, Quincy had bought her at a slave auction at the request of Jason. But, in the chaos following the dramatic leaving of John Brown and gang from a Kansas town, she was misidentified as a runaway and eventually transported to Texas to be sold to one of Plunkett's favorite customers: Mr. Calloway. Meanwhile, Jason was bought by Plunkett, in an embarrassing situation for Jason and Quincy, in which a man claimed that Jason was his runaway slave, and Plunkett offered to give the man what he had paid for Jason. Jason was then added to the wagon containing Naomi, and taken to Calloway.(I believe Quincy was knocked out or put in jail, at the time, so why he didn't try to interfere.)........... Ironically, just 2 days after writing this review, Ed Asner died, at 91.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This didn't age well!
planktonrules1 April 2021
Back in the 60s and 70s, James Garner made a niche for himself playing in comedic westerns, such as starring in "Maverick" on television as well as appearing in films such as "Support Your Local Sheriff" and "Support Your Local Gunfighter". Well, in the case of "Skin Game", Garner perhaps went to the well one time too many...though back in 1971 the film wasn't seen in quite the same way it would be seen today.

The plot to this film is insane...though apparently not so insane that the network didn't this out as an idea for a weekly series. So, only a few years later, they remade "Skin Game" as a retooled TV movie with Larry Hagman in the Garner role and Lou Gossett reprising his role.

So what is the plot? Well in "Skin Game", Garner travels to various slave states in pre-Civil War America. There, he sells his friend (Gossett) and somehow Gossett would find a way to escape (they were very vague on HOW he did this repeatedly) and the pair would move on to some place else and repeat this again and again. Today, this would be considered pretty tasteless by many, but for me the problem was more of a historical nature. As a retired history teacher, such a plot is patently absurd.

Now if you completely turn off your brain and don't think about the implausibility of the plot, you can enjoy the movie on a basic level. Garner and Gossett are enjoyable together. But for me, it just wasn't worth it and the film is definitely weak and a mistake in hindsight.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Well Crafted Film
Mister8tch10 July 2014
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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated movie
MoneyMagnet13 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Well, if you're going to make a comedy about two smart guys dealing with the horrible institution that was American slavery... this is probably the gold standard (whatever that might be for a comedy about slavery). Interesting that this came out several years before Blazing Saddles, yet was actually a far edgier comedy about race relations in the old West. That is to say, edgy in premise, not in execution: it's simply a light comedy about two con artists who get into trouble. Fans of Garner's "Support Your Local..." movies should enjoy this one a lot.

James Garner is in top form here and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) is very appealing.

The best thing the script does is show us James Garner's character being a bit of a thoughtless jerk who doesn't quite understand his white privilege straight off, rather than having that "surprise" us in the middle of the film as a conflict-generating plot development.

In a nutshell, the premise sounds terrible for a comedy, but it's actually not a terrible movie at all, but well done for its era (late Sixties/early Seventies farce).
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Serious subject, funny movie, equal partners
pholmer16 October 2006
This is a very funny movie, dealing with a very serious subject, but it's premise is not as far-fetched as you might think. After all we have heard about man exploiting his fellow man, can we doubt that there were con men who found a way to make money off slave owners, buyers and sellers? Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina? Anyway, my point is that this should not detract from enjoying this movie because the premise is certainly as plausible as most other westerns. One thing that stood out to me in this film was the relationship between the characters played by James Garner and Lou Gossett. Even though the setting is the 1850's, their relationship is clearly one of equals. While Gossett complains about his role as the commodity being sold in their con game, it is clear that these two are equal partners in deciding how and where they will ply their trade. They share the rewards of their loot equally and when one is endangered, the other risks his life and freedom to rescue his friend. When one discovers new responsibilities that requires a complete change in his life, the other unhesitatingly - well, with only short hesitation - joins in. Gossett and Garner are such a good pairing that I wonder why they didn't do more films together. (Although Gossett did appear on "The Rockford Files" as a guest star.)
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Unfuniness of slavery, spoils the humor
smatysia16 June 2013
James Garner does his Maverick/Rockford type character pretty, well,as he is wont to do. And it was fun to such a young Lou Gossett, Jr. The rest of the cast was okay, including Ed Asner as a slave merchant. But one of the biggest problems is this. They are trying to be funny against the backdrop of slavery. Now, I am a white Southerner, not at all liberal, but the race slavery in this film is portrayed honestly enough to show its fundamental evil. Slavery was a moral abomination, and more importantly (in this context) not at all funny. And juxtaposing hijinks on top of it was just a bit jarring. I guess it takes a more deft touch than these filmmakers possessed.
7 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
What Garner did best
hdavis-292 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I hadn't seen this film in years, perhaps since its theatrical run. It's still funny as hell and makes its serious points surprisingly well, especially since it's been 40 years (!) and social norms and rules have changed.

This kind of role is undoubtedly what Garner did best, and he knew it. He left quite a legacy of performances like this. The film's ending is realistic (I wondered how they were going to squirm out of the circumstances.) Gossett's brief speech to Garner about them not being brothers ("I can be bought and sold like a horse, and you can do the buying and selling") rang true and put a much-needed limit on the film's levity. The supporting cast was good (What ever happened to Susan Clark?) and much of the dialogue sparkles. The subplot between Gossett and his young "bride" felt a bit forced and stilted, but on the whole this film straddles the gap between comedy, American history lesson and social commentary with grace.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
In the business of selling, not buying.
mark.waltz9 November 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This comedy about slavery during the pre-Civil War days is quite surprisingly extremely entertaining, showing the con game that James Garner and Louis Gossett play on unsuspecting white men, selling Gossett over and over and leaving with not only the loot but with the man as well. It shows the naivete of the white man that black men truly were happy being slaves, and deliciously makes fools of them. Grosset falls in love with the beautiful Brenda Sykes while Garner is conned by Susan Clark whom he assumes to be a prissy spinster. At a slave auction where Garner purchases Sykes, he's surprised when real life abolishionist John Brown shows up, and as played by Royal Dano, it's a memory of previous actors who played the part including Raymond Massey and John Carradine.

The camaraderie between Garner and Gossett is really what makes the film work, a mixed race variation of Hope and Crosby in a very odd "Road" style movie. The film is also rather racy in the sense that it allows Clark to walk in on Garner who is completely naked, and not even flunch. Ed Asner, Henry Jones, Parley Baer and Andrew Duggan are among those conned by the duo, and the always wonderful Juanita Moore appears in a small role as an older slave. Despite the controversial subject matter, it's obvious that this film is completely anti-slavery, using satire as away of ridiculing the whole idea of it. It's easy to see why this film was a hit. Garner is his usual delightfully charming self, and Gossett (playing a black man born free) gets to show the intelligence of his character even when acting the dumb fool part. Clark gets a lot of great momento as well, emulating Cloris Leachman when she disguises herself to visit Garner who is in jail. Maybe a difficult film to choose based on the subject matter, but very easy to watch when you get into it with its intelligent script and sassy direction.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The title says it all
Bernie444428 January 2024
Based on Richard Alan Simmons' original story "Skin Game".

As the title implies, Quincy Drew/Capt. Nathaniel Mountjoy, Army Medical Corps (James Garner) travels the south in the slave days.

There he sells his slave Jason O'Rourke (Louis Gossett Jr.) Then the slave is dubiously retrieved and sold again and again. They have to keep moving as people are catching on.

The two plan to split the proceeds. Then when loves to intervene in Jason's life.

Things get complicated.

Better, tape your ribs before watching this one.

Filming locations: Laramie Street, Warner Brothers Burbank Studios - 4000 Warner Boulevard, Burbank, California, USA And Vasquez Rocks Natural Area Park - 10700 W. Escondido Canyon Rd., Agua Dulce, California, USA

That is in the south if you live in California.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Remotely Funny
view_and_review11 December 2019
I can say without a doubt that I wasn't the target audience for this movie. It wasn't the least bit funny. I only watched because Lou Gossett Jr. Was in it and what a mistake that was. How or why they would turn slavery into a light matter is beyond me.

Tell me one Black person that would play such a game as being sold and escaping as a con. I can't think of a riskier or dumber con than that. What's the upside and what's the downside? If it works you've gotten a couple hundred dollars. If it doesn't work:

A. You're a slave for life and all that entails (which is too much to list).

B. You get caught and killed.

So let's do that equation again. Plus a couple hundred dollars, minus your freedom or your life equals hell no. And it isn't remotely funny.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Could have been a great satire instead of a weak farce
SimonJack30 October 2015
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.
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Funny Side of Slavery?
Trent-1612 January 1999
Tries to create humor in the context of the old South, and actually succeeds to some extent. But it still rides old stereotypes.

There are worse movies you could see.
7 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed