Remember how Clint Eastwood's character in "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" had that wonderful scam of turning Eli Wallach in for the reward money, saving him from the hangman's noose and then taking him to the next town to repeat the process all over again, piling up the cash in the process? James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. essentially have the same graft going in this film, except that they're in the South in 1854 and Gossett is black, not wanted, so Garner poses as a plantation owner while Gossett poses as the devoted slave that he must part with due to falling on hard times. Garner sells Gossett, Gossett escapes, and then they move on to the next town/state to do it all over again.I found this to be an inspired premise, and "Skin Game" does quite a bit with it. Somehow the movie manages to acknowledge and explore the drama within this situation while still mining it for every possible ounce of comedy. It doesn't quite hit the delirious "let's mock the stupidity of racism" heights that Mel Brooks did in "Blazing Saddles" but that's an unfair comparison. For one thing, "Skin Game" takes itself, and its subject, far more seriously. It's fun to watch these con men take money from unsuspecting racist assholes, to be sure, but the movie never forgets that this institution actually existed, that it ruined countless lives, and that its impacts on society were far-reaching and terrible. "Skin Game" isn't as bitingly satirical as it could be, but it does have some bite to it, and the horrors of racism ensure that this film, which would otherwise be a fairly light affair, has some real suspense going for it.More than "Blazing Saddles", the movie of which "Skin Game" most reminded me was "Django Unchained". It boasts the same setting, of course, and both movies feature people pretending to be who they are not within this setting. Like "Django", "Skin Game" also features a black man and a white man who have a genuine friendship and a fun camaraderie with one another. Being the film geek that he is, I am almost certain that Tarantino has seen this film and the two movies share a similar vibe and feel at times, although Quentin spins his story into a different and more violent beast. I don't know if either movie is more "important" than the other. Quentin uses this setting for a bloody, highly quotable revenge narrative, while "Skin Game" uses it for a novel variation on the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" dynamic. It starts as a breezy, light con man story with a controversial spin but then deepens into a critique of the institution of slavery that still allows for a good deal of humor and excitement. Director Paul Bogart doesn't provide much in the way of haunting visuals and the whole story could have been told in a more effective manner at times, but he maintains an energetic pace throughout and highlights the chemistry between his leads. Garner, as always, is incredibly charming. Gossett, in contrast, gives his character just the right amount of outrage and anger while still having fun with the whole situation...until the situation changes and fun is no longer possible. Gossett's is the more interesting of the two characters, as he should be, and has more dramatic angles with which to wrestle. After all, he is profiting from a system that enslaves and kills people of his own race. The movie is smart enough to acknowledge and explore this fact at every turn and give Gossett an interesting, three-dimensional character through which to consider all of this.If anything, "Skin Game" is probably a little too breezy considering its subject matter. With Garner at the lead, its bland visual style and its Western feel, it often feels like a "Very Special Episode" of "Maverick". I appreciate the fact that the movie doesn't moralize too strenuously and that it doesn't go too far into Oscar bait/"Racism is Bad" territory, but maybe a movie taking place within the world of slaves and plantations should be a bit more serious about those subjects. Or maybe not, not necessarily. I mean, the movie shows us at least one whipping and the pens that potential slaves are being held in, and it does show us a couple of slave auctions so it's not like "Skin Game" is going out of its way to avoid the realities of slavery...though it does present such things in a very Hollywood manner. It would be nice if the movie was a bit more brutal about such things. But, still, "Skin Game" manages to show the ugliness of this horrible institution without sacrificing the entertainment value of its fun con man story, and I found that admirable. The movie doesn't really know how to end, and I would have liked if its female lead was a little more interesting. Susan Clark is okay as the con woman who falls for Garner, steals all of his money, and then helps him when he really needs it, but it would have been nice if she'd had a few more dimensions to work with. Brenda Sykes, on the other hand, does a great job with Naomi, the slave girl for whom Gossett's character falls. Her characters is complicated and interesting. Not only that, but Sykes is beautiful whereas Clark is a bit odd looking (not that she can help that, obviously). But despite its problems, "Skin Game" is still something of a fascinating film that has been unfairly forgotten over the years. Had it not popped up during a James Garner day on Turner Classic Movies, I probably never would have heard of it. Luckily I did hear of it, and saw it, and recommend that others seek it out as well. It's not perfect, but it's definitely worth seeing.

Got my breath taken away when I was reading what was coming up on TCM and saw this. I had never heard of it. The premise sounded absolutely painful, even by 1970s standards, and I watched it only to see just how painful it was, in terms of stereotypes, glossing over the evils of slavery, etc. In short, I watched it to make fun of it. And - I was surprised. I'm going to do my best to not spoil the surprises in this review, as so many others have done - I'm writing this to entice you to watch it. Because it's worth watching.This movie is way smarter, way edgier in terms of humor and commentary than I expected, and the story did not at all unfold as I had thought it would - and it's rare that I'm surprised by a movie from the 70s. Yes, there are some what-were-they-thinking?!? moments in terms of how a circumstance is portrayed, and some painful stereotypes about indigenous, non-English languages - but, overall, this movie doesn't present slavery as anything but reprehensible, and it presents African Americans as intelligent and creative as anyone else - and it's fascinating to watch that realization come over one of the characters in particular. I found the portrayal of the two lead women in the film surprising and refreshing for the time the film was made as well (I won't spoil it by saying more). It's intriguing that the film shows only the after effects of the whipping of an enslaved man - not the actual, horrendous act, at least not on a slave - I wondered if that was just too painful for a 1971 audience to endure. It's also intriguing that it shows a white slave- owning woman as a sexual predator - something we all know happened, but it rarely gets talked about, let alone referred to in a movie. I won't say it's some sort of enlightened film, but watch it all the way through - you might be really surprised by the story and the portrayals. James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) are terrific together - I believed the friendship and the mutual respect - and their naiveté about the world. I don't think any other actors could have pulled this off. I still can't believe I liked the movie.

James Garner's cowboy con man character familiarized to us as Bret Maverick and Latigo Smith ("Support Your Local Gunfighter" was filmed the same year) is in full bloom here as Quincy Drew in this classic, modest buddy movie done to a "T." Paul Bogart (who also directed Garner in "Marlowe" two years earlier) directs with a sure hand, with Lou Gossett is excellent as Quincy's partner and amicable rival. Realistically set, made with confidence and mastery, it is a gem that does not aspire to "great cinema" but still scores a bullseye. Well-written dialogue, plenty of humor, and a nice, quick pace make it sparkle. Who knew Ed Asner could make a passably good villain, too?

Tries to create humor in the context of the old South, and actually succeeds to some extent. But it still rides old stereotypes.There are worse movies you could see.