Skin Game

1971 "To market, to market, to sell your best friend, then split up the money and do it again."
7| 1h42m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 30 September 1971 Released
Producted By: Warner Bros. Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Quincy Drew and Jason O’Rourke, a pair of friends and con men—the former white, the latter a Northern-born free Black man— travel from town to town in the pre–Civil War American West. In their scam, Quincy sells Jason into slavery, frees him, and the two move on to the next town of suckers . . . until a con gone wrong leads Jason into real danger.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Warner Bros. Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Sexylocher Masterful Movie
Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible
Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
jcravens42 Got my breath taken away when I was reading what was coming up on TCM and saw this. I had never heard of it. The premise sounded absolutely painful, even by 1970s standards, and I watched it only to see just how painful it was, in terms of stereotypes, glossing over the evils of slavery, etc. In short, I watched it to make fun of it. And - I was surprised. I'm going to do my best to not spoil the surprises in this review, as so many others have done - I'm writing this to entice you to watch it. Because it's worth watching.This movie is way smarter, way edgier in terms of humor and commentary than I expected, and the story did not at all unfold as I had thought it would - and it's rare that I'm surprised by a movie from the 70s. Yes, there are some what-were-they-thinking?!? moments in terms of how a circumstance is portrayed, and some painful stereotypes about indigenous, non-English languages - but, overall, this movie doesn't present slavery as anything but reprehensible, and it presents African Americans as intelligent and creative as anyone else - and it's fascinating to watch that realization come over one of the characters in particular. I found the portrayal of the two lead women in the film surprising and refreshing for the time the film was made as well (I won't spoil it by saying more). It's intriguing that the film shows only the after effects of the whipping of an enslaved man - not the actual, horrendous act, at least not on a slave - I wondered if that was just too painful for a 1971 audience to endure. It's also intriguing that it shows a white slave- owning woman as a sexual predator - something we all know happened, but it rarely gets talked about, let alone referred to in a movie. I won't say it's some sort of enlightened film, but watch it all the way through - you might be really surprised by the story and the portrayals. James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) are terrific together - I believed the friendship and the mutual respect - and their naiveté about the world. I don't think any other actors could have pulled this off. I still can't believe I liked the movie.
RanchoTuVu 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.
MARIO GAUCI 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 money…but 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.
Phil Holmer 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.)