Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

AaronCapenBanner 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.

stalzz64 I love most everything I have seen Paul Newman and Lee Marvin in, and I was intrigued at the thought of seeing them in the same movie. This story really did have potential. It's entertaining until about 2/3rd of the way through. It's kind of a dumb ending and Lee and Paul's characters really could have kicked Wayne Rogers & Strother Martin's character's butts for the money, but I guess the way it turns out is the way real life is. Sometimes you just have to let it go and leave and learn from your mistakes. Don't mess with shady characters to begin with, and you won't get burned in the end.This is a rather mediocre film. How sad. It had such potential.It's cool that Paul Newman worked with Director Stuart Rosenberg again.They did a total of 4 films together. They did so well with 'Cool Hand Luke' in 1967. Those of you who follow the careers of character actors will also note that Strother Martin and Wayne Rogers were both in 'Cool Hand Luke' with Newman.Newman obviously liked Strother Martin's acting and they worked on 6 films together, including the classic 'Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid', 1969.

bkoganbing 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.

bhpowell36 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.