IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,4/10
2088
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuBroke and in debt, an otherwise honest cowboy gets mixed up in some shady dealings with a crooked rancher.Broke and in debt, an otherwise honest cowboy gets mixed up in some shady dealings with a crooked rancher.Broke and in debt, an otherwise honest cowboy gets mixed up in some shady dealings with a crooked rancher.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Gregory Sierra
- Chavarin
- (as Gregg Sierra)
Bruce Davis Bayne
- Bank Customer
- (Nicht genannt)
Poupée Bocar
- Girl in Bar
- (Nicht genannt)
Richard Farnsworth
- Man
- (Nicht genannt)
Ken Freehill
- Bank Customer
- (Nicht genannt)
Terrence Malick
- Worksman
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Caught this one on American Movie Classics, thinking that a Lee Marvin / Paul Newman pairing couldn't be all bad. Indeed, it wasn't all bad, but it was no great success either. A premise with possibilities for interesting developments never seems to play out in a fruitful manner. The Marvin / Newman interaction is indeed the main redeeming factor of the film, along with evocative cinematography, but ultimately the movie never seems to go anywhere in particular, and indeed it does not end - it just all of a sudden stops. I have rarely seen such an abrupt and unsatisfying conclusion - all of a sudden we are seeing the closing credits and wondering "what happened?" Unfortunately, this can only be recommended to diehard fans of Lee Marvin &/or Paul Newman. (Incidentally, "Maltin's" remark that Marvin's car is "the damnedest thing you'll ever see" indicates he was not alive in 1960, the model year this particular Buick was a common sight on the roads of America)
Throughout this thoroughly confused movie, I kept waiting for the point to become clear. Is it an innocent cowboy against the the corrupt cattle barons movie? Is it a buddy movie? A character study? What's the point?
Paul Newman seems to be playing a slightly retarded rancher, with an accent that is neither consistent nor believable. Lee Marvin plays the only character that is at least interesting, even though it's not at all clear just what his purpose in the movie is. Strother Martin is just painful to watch.
Mexicans may want to avoid this movie. It contains enough slurs to keep the producers in law suits for a decade if it had been produced in the more politically correct 90's.
It was a struggle to stay awake through this movie. I sure hope the book was better.
Paul Newman seems to be playing a slightly retarded rancher, with an accent that is neither consistent nor believable. Lee Marvin plays the only character that is at least interesting, even though it's not at all clear just what his purpose in the movie is. Strother Martin is just painful to watch.
Mexicans may want to avoid this movie. It contains enough slurs to keep the producers in law suits for a decade if it had been produced in the more politically correct 90's.
It was a struggle to stay awake through this movie. I sure hope the book was better.
This film is not as bad as the previous reviewer would have you believe. It just takes a different kind of mindset to enjoy it--you have to like nonlinearality. You have to be in a relaxed, maybe even coming-down-off-a-jag state of mind to appreciate its structure.
Paul Newman, affable as always in the lead, is not placed in any of the more familiar predictable, and simplistic predicaments cited by my colleague ( though, if anything, "character study" would come the closest to describing this film).
But, instead of an "easy" situation--the kind that makes us smug to be able to identify quickly--in this picture Newman battles ineffectually against a more subtle and insidious malaise, one not often focused on in film in this manner. Its a common problem--something we all deal with at one time or another--its that type of confidence-effacing, will-sapping, ego-draining personal economic debt that for many adults never really seems to go away.
Just like the rest of us, Newman's simply got an ego that wants to assert itself--but at every turn he's being strung up by the short-and-curlies due to lack of $$. He keeps trying however. Still, we see that throughout the film, each new situation somehow gets away from him and leaves him with nothing to show for his troubles. He's just too nice a guy to come out a winner.
He always needs more money than he's got and it affects everything he does--prevents him from really enjoying what might be an otherwise pleasant life. In the end he's forced to face that:
1) his troubles are maybe never going to be conquerable,
2) there will be a lot more (of the same kind of humiliation he's undergone all throughout the movie)throughout the rest of his life, and 3) despite this, there are still some dividends in life that make things easier to bear, like having a best friend, a car that runs, or just having enough money in your pocket to get a Coke.
Its true the movie has an unsatisfying conclusion--the very human plot in this film just doesnt have a happy resolution, (coincidentally, just the way real-life problems dont work out, what a concept for a film, right?).
But the hangdog ending, just like the rest of the film, is somehow difficult to forget. It has such an unusual, low-key pace and rhythm that it really stays with you. I have seen it come up at least 4-5 times on the late show and never been displeased--its rather like seeing an old friend.
Dont dismiss it--its a movie that can cheer you up under the right circumstances.
Paul Newman, affable as always in the lead, is not placed in any of the more familiar predictable, and simplistic predicaments cited by my colleague ( though, if anything, "character study" would come the closest to describing this film).
But, instead of an "easy" situation--the kind that makes us smug to be able to identify quickly--in this picture Newman battles ineffectually against a more subtle and insidious malaise, one not often focused on in film in this manner. Its a common problem--something we all deal with at one time or another--its that type of confidence-effacing, will-sapping, ego-draining personal economic debt that for many adults never really seems to go away.
Just like the rest of us, Newman's simply got an ego that wants to assert itself--but at every turn he's being strung up by the short-and-curlies due to lack of $$. He keeps trying however. Still, we see that throughout the film, each new situation somehow gets away from him and leaves him with nothing to show for his troubles. He's just too nice a guy to come out a winner.
He always needs more money than he's got and it affects everything he does--prevents him from really enjoying what might be an otherwise pleasant life. In the end he's forced to face that:
1) his troubles are maybe never going to be conquerable,
2) there will be a lot more (of the same kind of humiliation he's undergone all throughout the movie)throughout the rest of his life, and 3) despite this, there are still some dividends in life that make things easier to bear, like having a best friend, a car that runs, or just having enough money in your pocket to get a Coke.
Its true the movie has an unsatisfying conclusion--the very human plot in this film just doesnt have a happy resolution, (coincidentally, just the way real-life problems dont work out, what a concept for a film, right?).
But the hangdog ending, just like the rest of the film, is somehow difficult to forget. It has such an unusual, low-key pace and rhythm that it really stays with you. I have seen it come up at least 4-5 times on the late show and never been displeased--its rather like seeing an old friend.
Dont dismiss it--its a movie that can cheer you up under the right circumstances.
Down-on-his-luck Arizona cowboy takes a job herding cattle through part of Mexico. Adaptation of J.P.S. Brown's novel "Jim Kane" is oddly benign, certainly not a strong acting vehicle for Paul Newman, who is likable but curiously dopey throughout, nor Lee Marvin as Newman's equally half-witted cattle-broker pal. Eccentric ambiance abounds (this is no "Hud"), yet director Stuart Rosenberg gives the picture a scruffy charm in a light lower key. The plot is too skimpy for these characters to truly come alive, but it's a pleasant enough throwaway. Screenplay by future filmmaker Terrence Malick, from an original treatment by John Gay. ** from ****
Seems like a lot of wasted potential. Paul Newman and Lee Marvin have some decent chemistry between their characters, and Strother Martin and Wayne Rogers are OK. A young Hector Elizondo is a long way from the manager of the Beverly Wilshire Regency. Carole King does nice work on the theme song. The cinematography looks very nice, and the direction is unobtrusive. But there is simply no there there. The film has a plot that seems to be heading somewhere, but just sort of fizzles out with no closure, no climax, and no denouement. I wonder if the source novel was this unsatisfying. It would be really hard to recommend anyone to watch this film.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe movie's publicity still with Paul Newman and Lee Marvin was photographed by British photographer Terry O'Neill and also appears on the jacket of O'Neill's 2003 compilation coffee-table book "Celebrity." In the book, O'Neill recounts how when he arrived on the set to shoot his publicity stills, Lee Marvin was hungover and in a foul mood. Most of the production personnel were steering clear of him. When O'Neill gingerly approached Marvin and introduced himself, Marvin asked, "Are you English?" What O'Neill didn't know at the time was that Marvin was a lifelong Anglophile--he LOVED the British. After that brief encounter, Marvin's mood changed and, according to O'Neill, he couldn't have been more cooperative for the rest of his assignment.
- PatzerJim asks Adelita if she's ever been out of the country, and she says she's only been to a Catholic school in San Antonio. Yet she has a thick, mid-Atlantic, prep-school accent, without a trace of the south or Spanish in it.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Hollywood Remembers Lee Marvin (2000)
- SoundtracksPocket Money
Written and Performed by Carole King
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Pocket Money?Powered by Alexa
- Does anyone know why "Leonard" (Lee Marvin) wears a suit and tie on a cattle drive? This just seems so ridiculous to me!
Details
Box Office
- Budget
- 2.700.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 42 Minuten
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Zwei glücklose Cowboys (1972) officially released in India in English?
Antwort