Pocket Money

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.