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.

Paul Newman and Lee Marvin listlessly drift through a thin story about two down-and-out guys who get hired by a well-known swindler to buy cattle in Mexico and bring them back. The men are surprised when the known-swindler swindles them. Occasionally, Carole King sings.There is no clever dialog, no interesting character development, no love interest or sex scene, and no resolution. In the end the movie simply drops dead with the story unresolved. Watching these two screen giants stumbling through Mexico trying to buy and round up scrubby underfed cattle simply doesn't add up to a movie; yet top talent was employed for art direction, etc..If you like Paul Newman or Lee Marvin, skip this awful mess. What could they have been thinking.

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.

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.