Watch Skin Game For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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

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.

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.

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.