Pocket Money

When I read through the previous reviews for this film on IMDb, I noticed that quite a few folks thought this film was scant when it comes to script. This is absolutely the case, though at least having some excellent actors (Paul Newman and Lee Marvin) makes it watchable.

"Pocket Money" has a very simple plot. Rancher Jim Kane (Newman) is having some seriously bad luck and is broke. However, a guy with a shady reputation (Strother Martin) wants to employ him to go down into Mexico in order to buy some cattle. Once he arrives in Mexico, he meets up with his old friend Leonard (Marvin) and the two try to purchase cattle. However, LOTS of complications arise and a seemingly simple job turns sour.

"Pocket Money" is a very slow film that appears as if it was made up as the movie was being filmed. Sure, it might have had more to the script than that, but it sure didn't look like it did. But, with some actors (especially Paul Newman), I can live with this. Certainly not among the actors' best but a decent time-passer--plus you get to see Lee Marvin riding a horse while wearing a suit--and you can't see that every day.

By the way, a couple songs (including the title song) are sung by Carole King. I really don't think these fit the movie well, as her style of singing and voice seem odd in a film set in Arizona and Mexico among cattle.

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.

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.

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 ****

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.