उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

Stuart Rosenberg directed this meandering film that stars Paul Newman as Jim Kane, a near-broke cowboy who is approached by a shady rancher(played by Strother Martin) to go into Mexico to buy him some cattle and bring it back. Though suspicious, Jim needs the money, so takes a chance and accepts the job. While there, he meets up with old friend Leonard(played by Lee Marvin) who is also in need of money, so they team up to collect the cattle, but their suspicions are confirmed when the deal goes awry, placing them in a tough situation... Thoroughly blah film coasts along on its star power, which is considerable, though film never amounts to much and is largely unmemorable.

Anyone looking for a run-of-the-mill film won't like this movie but it has long been one of my favorites and has become something of a cult classic.

This was the same period when Sam Peckinpah was bathing movie theaters in Max Factor blood with his edgy oaters, and some may have expected Paul Newman and Lee Marvin to deliver a gritty contemporary Western of that genre. Instead, director Stuart Rosenberg (Cool Hand Luke with Newman and Voyage of the Damned with Marvin) walks us slowly and comfortably in well-worn boots through this quirky buddy film based on the novel Jim Kane by Texan-Arizonan cowboy and author J.P.S. Brown, himself an interesting character.

These two cowboy pals have unwisely agreed to transport rodeo cattle for sleazy oddball Strother Martin and Martin's shifty flunky Wayne Rogers who's equipped with a superb twang and the ugliest pair of high-water, bellbottom pants in cinematic history. Both Martin and Rogers are "all hat and no cattle" in Texas vernacular but Newman and Marvin don't figure it out until it's too late.

Blessedly, both Newman and Marvin range far from the tough, cynical personas that made them famous. Newman is a simple (minded) cowboy and Marvin is a pompously loquacious but harmlessly unhinged sidekick whose subtle paranoia is almost as interesting as his 1940s suit, tie and fedora. Marvin's narrative-like observations and expansive body language rival his superb comedic efforts displayed in Cat Ballou.

The modern cowboys are on what could be an allegorical tale of the last cattle drive at the ragged conclusion of America's hippie era. They are not driving beeves to the rail yards at Fort Worth for a hungry young country, but punching stringy calves that will be roped at rodeos across the now-tamed Southwest. We're given an early clue that Newman might not be a movie cowboy in the John Wayne mold when we see the hectored Newman cajoled for alimony from his parasitic ex-wife and learn a herd of horses he purchased is infected with a venereal disease.

He's still the lonely man of the saddle and lariat but he's living in the 1970s instead of the 1870s. Newman is not only softhearted but soft-headed and his uncowboy-like response is to be frustrated. This is a very interesting turn for Newman who was so taken with the character of Jim Kane that he purchased the film rights to the book.

Characteristically, the "showdown" of this film is not a gunfight between the rascals and the righteous but a comical encounter in a tacky Mexican motel room between the cowboys and their slippery employers. A television set, Martin's snap brim hat and Rogers' dignity are the only casualties. We know the Old West is dead because the spiteful gesture becomes the weapon of choice against banal con men that once might have been evil, land grabbing ranchers.

Watch for superb character actors Richard Farnsworth, Hector Elizondo and Gregory Sierra who provide good supporting performances in this film. The talented Terence Malick, who stumbled recently in his disappointing Thin Red Line, contributed to the script. Also take note of the carefully crafted portraits created by cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs. The final scene, replete with a final, inane conversation between Newman and Marvin at a tiny Mexican train station, is beautiful in the dusty timelessness of the Old West.

Not everything is explained in this movie including why Newman hates his nickname "Chihuahua Express" or the full story behind Newman's comically scary imprisonment. But, not everything is explained in life and therein lies a message.

Spend a quiet afternoon drinking in this visually interesting and very unusual buddy film whose seemingly disjointed vignettes imitate the goofiness of life rather than imitating textbook filmmaking. For those who watch and listen carefully, this film is full of smiles. Newman and Marvin as a Western Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn even seemed to have fun making this movie.

I was surprised to see a movie with Lee Marvin and Paul Newman on the shelf. I'd never heard of it. Cool, let's try it.

What a waste of time. The only 2 movies with stars in it that i imagine would be worse are "Pluto Nash"and "Leonard Part 6". Heck, the supporting cast included Gregory Sierra, Wayne Rogers, Hector Elizondo and Strother Martin. I like Rogers, but I didn't buy into his performance for even one second. The cast was not enough to save this Turkey in any manner.

The dialog was horrible. The story just never seemed to develop,nor finish. There were 3 scenes with women. Only the scene with the ex wife did anything to advance the story, and that scene was lame.

Cinematography? Mostly too washed out. There was one scene in the moonlight that was hilarious. We see him in what appears to be moonlit moment. Cut away, then right back to him and the lighting looks like midday.

Carole King did the opening song. I suppose her singing would have fit with what they "wanted" this movie to be. The rest of the score was interesting, but incongruent. Sometimes sounding like Mike Post, sometimes western, some times folk or Mexican.

I gave this 2 stars. Thinking back, I'm not sure why i was so generous.

The above line of dialog is all you need to know about the abbreviated mental capacity of the two lead characters played by Paul Newman and Lee Marvin, and why they were such losers trying to be important cattle brokers in Mexico, and of course failing miserably. The Summary quote above was just one of Marvin's many bright ideas that went nowhere.

Newman and Marvin were terrific here, but two other stars in this comedy, to me, were Marvin's great old '60's red Buick convertible and, of course, the terrific Strother Martin, whose hilarious line of "wait, wait, wait" in this film was almost as effective as his very famous one in Cool Hand Luke and his less famous one in Butch Cassidy of, "yes, there are plenty of jobs don't you want to know why?" He was the best at memorable lines, and he had some of the best ones in many of Newman's films over the years. Wayne Rogers(MASH) was in it too, playing a cattle buying middleman who was just about as dumb as the star characters.

This film was very entertaining in the very funny and goofy way Newman and Marvin played off each other with their lines, both thinking they were so clever when they were really just abject loser dopes. Newman's character was actually a good and simple guy underneath it all but he was just too dumb to breath out, and Marvin's sleazy small time crook and deal negotiator character thought he was so clever but was actually laughable in his incompetency. "Spies are everywhere", he said as he grossly overestimated his importance to the world, which was next to nothing.

Reminded me a lot of old Laurel and Hardy film stories, where great plans always came to nothing after much useless, but hilarious, activity.

Very entertaining film and a lot better than its rating for the very funny interplay of these 3 terrific actors.

A low-key and wry modern-day western from the early-'70s. Filmed in Arizona and Northern Mexico in the spring and early summer of 1971 and shown in cinemas in that most downbeat of hippy years -1972: it records the 'feel' of the early-'70s which were pioneering years so well. Jim Kane (good-looking blue-eyed US actor Paul Newman) is a naive, broke and in debt cowpoke i.e. An everyman and loser. Needing the money, he agrees to work for a pair of crooked rodeo cattle dealers -Bill Garrett (Strother Martin) and Stretch Russell (Wayne Rogers) who hire him to squire 250 steers from Mexico to Arizona. Kane locates his equally broke buddy Leonard (Lee Marvin) in a Mexican hotel room and the two undertake the imprudent business venture with failed results marked by their inability to make astute decisions. The inner rhythm of the film is strange, languid and existential with Beckettian undertones. It features some great scenes - the sun-bleached urban aesthetics of Nogales, Phoenix, Chihuahua and Hermosilla and the enchanted and evocative interior scenes featuring exotic Mexican bordellos, bars, mariachi/rock and roll musicians, street hucksters etc plus the barren cattle lands of Northern Mexico and the Mexican transport/rail infrastructure ca. '71-72 all recorded by ace Hungarian cameraman Laszlo Kovacs. Leonard - who sports white hair, a 'Forties style suit, fedora hat and jazzy tie in one scene is seen imbibing olives, fajitas, tacos, chili and the Cuervos-brand of tequila. Pocket Money is in my top ten films of all time.

How could a western miss with Paul Newman and Lee Marvin co-starring? Unbelievably, it sure did with "Pocket Money". I can still recall the letdown I felt as I walked out of that theater. When I got to work the next day and reviewed it to co-workers, some of them went to see it just because they didn't think those two stars could make a movie as bad as I was rating it. They also declared it a real DUD. Years later when it was shown on television, I thought maybe it would seem better with age and a more mature mind. Did it? NO. I still had a "Well, DUH!" feeling when it ended. When anyone asks what was the most disappointing movie I ever saw, "Pocket Money" is always the first one to come to mind.

this movie is about life. it's a brief glimpse into the lives of newman's and marvin's characters, with a surrounding cast of rich, entertaining characters thrown in for fun. if you're looking for a particular type of movie with a particular type of ending then this movie is not for you. if you're aware of the twists and turns of fate in your life and have come to be aware that there's not a clear explanation for everything that happens, and that you live a moment and then it's gone forever, then you'll appreciate this look into the lives of these two characters. a brief glimpse into a reality in which not every experience falls into a strict logical sequence and some things just happen. you don't live your life as a sequence of discrete beginnings and endings and this movie has done a great job depicting that.

If anyone has read my review of Robert Mitchum and Deborah Kerr's The Sundowners I said that the film has really no plot, but relies successfully on the charm of the characters to carry it along.

Pocket Money falls in the same category. It just follows the driftings of its two leads to carry the film along. It works to a degree, but unlike the other film, the supporting characters aren't as interesting.

Still Paul Newman who seems to personify a definition of insanity in that he keeps doing the same thing and expecting different results and his hustling pal Lee Marvin amble along in this film with such a degree of charm you can't help but like them.

But you watch Pocket Money and you know these two guys will never hit the big time. Still they seem to try. My favorite part of the film is Marvin convincing Paul Newman to ride a bucking horse to gain some respect from prospective Mexican customers. It almost, but not quite descends into the kind of con games that Crosby used to employ on Hope.

It would have been nice for a couple of mega stars like Newman and Marvin to have gotten a better film to do though.

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.

POCKET MONEY (1972) was a colossal waste of time. I deeply appreciate both Newman and Marvin and was looking forward to the film, loving westerns. Yet even the best thespians can't salvage an inept, aimless, pointless script. Bad material sinks even gifted actors. Newman puts on a strange inconsistent accent for the film. Marvin is never really the tremendous comedic actor we expect. We've all have bad outings. Though the film has a solid supporting cast in Martin, Rogers, and Elizondo, they didn't help. I thought often of stopping viewing, but I persevered hoping that the humor or insights would improve. That never happened, and watching clueless people remaining clueless has little redeeming purpose. The vapid characters barely held my interest. The musical score distracted from the film, though Carole King's theme song was apropos. I have little good to say. I should have read the IMDB reviews before wasting 100 minutes that could've been better employed elsewhere. I take some solace in being able to post this review to spare others.

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.

Pocket Money is a good film, but I wonder if it would be with any other stars, or even simply one star as staying true to the book the movie's based on. The script is by Terrence Malick (yes that Malick, it was his first official Hollywood gig after all so he had to pay at least one due), and it offers some keen one-liners, some that are very subdued in the sense of humor, and an opportunity for an actor to play it how he will. It's also, akin to what's weaker about Malick, a little flimsy and aimless on plot and more about atmosphere of the situation. If Malick were directing it it might resemble one of those mythic modern westerns. Under director Stuart Rosenberg of Cool Hand Luke, who isn't an eccentric genius-artist filmmaker like Malick but a sturdy craftsman, it's a lot more simplistic, and ultimately isn't about much except two s***-kickers looking to buy some cows and get paid the money deserved.

But as it stands, Paul Newman and Lee Marvin, even without the greatest material, can act the pants off of it and Newman somehow makes his character amiable and cool when not seeming to have it all upstairs except for livin' in the moment kind of thinking. Marvin fleshes his character out a bit more than Newman perhaps because, frankly, he's more of the comic relief however in slight and clever ways (watch as he is washing up and almost uses a pigeon to dry his face, or his rambling dialog when he and Newman are sitting atop the train). By the time it ends we might not feel like it can go much else, and it ends on a somewhat (though surprisingly good) ambiguous ending. But there's also the feeling that a lot has gone on, a lot of wheeling and dealing and almost nearing insight into the condition of greed and double-crossing in men. Almost. That and the sweet Alex North score that combines many forms of music.

I love Paul Newman's work and have seen most of his films. When I saw the cast for this one I figured I had stumbled upon a jewel. Wrong. Newman is good for what he has to do, but the story and plot are confusing and empty. This was one of the first movies for Newman's new production company - and perhaps he became too absorbed in those details and the story got away.

My advice - don't bother.

Jim Kane is broke and in debt, he seems to permanently be chasing the dollar. He gets an opportunity to earn some cash by collecting some Rodeo Cattle from Mexico for shady rancher Bill Garrett, he grabs his old pal Leonard, and they set about delivering the goods without incident, but all roads are not as straight forward as they had hoped.

It's something of a dream pairing, dashing blue eyed Paul Newman and gritty grizzled Lee Marvin together in an off kilter Western, sounds just delightful, but sadly the film doesn't meet the expectations of the two stars blustering reputations. But that doesn't mean the film is a total washout, because it isn't, it's got a charm and gentile comedy riff to it that makes it enjoyable to those prepared for something, well, off kilter. Based on the J.P.S. Brown novel titled Jim Kane, Pocket Money finds Newman playing against type, his Jim Kane is a simple minded {but top line honest} fella, he bumbles his way thru life seemingly unable to halt the misfortunes that come his way. Lee Marvin also plays against the roles he is known for, his Leonard here is shifty and sweet, nervously twitchy with a misadventure glint in his eye, and certainly comical and vociferous in equal measure. Both Jim & Leonard on the surface seem to be a very odd couple, but they really compliment each other, be it good or bad, they are like two peas in a pod.

There some lovely shots in here to enjoy, director Stuart Rosenberg (Cool Hand Luke) nicely portrays perhaps the soon to be dying art of cattle driving across the vast plains, the closing shot is particularly fabulous and a fitting closure. The supporting actors work tremendously hard to keep the movie afloat. Strother Martin is sadly under used as the sleazy Garrett, but his time on screen isn't wasted in the slightest, Wayne Rogers as Garrett's right hand man, Stretch Russell, almost steals the film with attention holding scenes, whilst Hector Elizondo as usual does the solid work that was his trait.

Pocket Money is in the main forgettable once viewed, but for me it never felt like it had wasted my time, and I personally got the feeling that both Newman & Marvin enjoyed working on the picture, they had fun, and so should the majority of the viewers if slipping into a quirky mindset. 6/10

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)

Asinyne (excuse me if spelling is wrong) says that Paul Newman's character in Pocket Money is basically the same as the one in the much better Hud. Well I'd advice the afore mentioned to go back and watch Hud again. In that classic movie, Newman plays a son of a bitch. In Pocket money he plays a far different type of character. Hud would have despised Jim Kane. It was a well acted acted movie, although I though Marvin overshadowed Newman. Strother Martin who has acted with Paul Newman on numerous occasions was as usual terrific. I liked the movie, but would not consider it one of Newman's best. I think I recall reading somewhere that the stars didn't get on while making this movie.

I could hardly believe, when I saw this movie in 1972, that these two great stars made such an awful film. By far the absolute worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen some losers.

This is an excellent movie. Everything is about character development here. Newman's character has a different name but its basically Hud a few years down the road and a lot worse for wear. Newman and Marvin are great as always. If you are looking for lots of action, car chases, or romance look elsewhere my friends. This is a character study and a very good one. Newman is a down but not quite out cowboy and Marvin is his hustler buddy. They try to pick up some quick cash by working a shady cattle deal. Strother Martin and Wayne Rogers are very good as a couple of fly by night businessmen that Newman has the bad luck to associate with. The scene where Newman shakes down Martins character is hilarious. Another great scene is when they tell some Mexican cowboys that they came to Mexico to buy some chili peppers. This is a true to life modern western with no six guns but its fully loaded with charm and real world insight. Great movie!!!! Good acting and writing throughout.

Paul Newman and Lee Marvin of the daily work in the pocket of the Rider to make a existence on the new day's in Horse Riding. The making of the film shortly after the high lights of the Vietnam War gave a lightness to the audience in Newman and Marvin sense of display of Comedy. A old play to the scene came out with Dr Starr - the 1930's Singing Cowboy, Rider and Roper also used in name Dusty Starr, who could wrestle ~ resell ~ a cow in seconds as well as with a fist in fights he added to the fight for a pocket full of money to exist on. Lee Marvin comic approach to has own acting on how to talk to Paul Newman with hands and arms and his shoulder in how to attend to daily existence in gaining their own money for their pocket.

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 ****