Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Nice effects though.

good back-story, and good acting

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

This 1971 film, "Skin Game," is a so-so comedy, Western and romance. The plot is preposterous, but that's OK in comedy. The trouble with this film is that it's not that funny. I'm not distinguishing the scenes of slavery and mistreatment of people. But these aren't handled right for a comedy. The filmmakers could have had a great film had they rewritten the script and made the plot a clear satire. But instead, we have a couple of guys conning various gullible and dumb Southerners. The cast all are fine for their acting, but again, most of the attempts at humor fall flat. So, sans any real satire, this film comes off merely as a mild farce. Given that, it sends a message that crime is OK, so long as one steals from the gullible. Hmmm. Isn't that the ploy of most scams today? Too many people, especially older, get taken advantage of in this way. I'm sure they have a quite different idea about crime with comedy. In order to make comedy work with sensitive subjects, it's got to be clear and obvious satire or very strong farce. This version of "Skin Game" doesn't have that. At best, it's a weak comedy of characters. And, so I suppose the film folks would just tell those sensitive to slavery, derisive stereotypes, stealing and other things in here to just not watch the movie. Better still, watch a great true satire or comedy with lines and antics to make one laugh.

Thank goodness for Encore Westerns. They keep showing films that rarely see the light of day, but ones that, for whatever reason, were either ignored or forgotten. This is one, from the paucity of reviews, that has slipped through the cracks.Skin Game is slightly, and only one star slightly, less than the sum of its parts. By that I mean..watch this film for the acting (one, in these PC days, can complain about the possible racial slurs). Not one sour note in this cast. We know Garner can act, can do his Maverick/Rockford thing to perfection, but how about Susan Clark? Lost in the silliness of the Webster TV show 80's phenomenon, she shows an amazingly playful sensuality throughout. I don't think I have seen a more erotic scene than between her and Garner, relaxing near a stream after she breaks him out of jail, finding that a con can love a con, with a camera fixed on the close-up the entire time. What a marvel of chemistry that is created (and forms the basis for the rest of the plot). Paul Bogart, that master TV director of nearly 100 All in the Family episodes, finds his angle and just stays there. Well Crafted and on the money. Throw in well-rounded performances from Lou Gossett and Brenda Sikes (watch THEIR sensuous hayloft scene!), and absolutely solid support from a gang of supporting stars who anchored many a 60/70's movie...Duggan, Jones, Dano, Baer, O'Malley...and Asner is such a hoot as the slave trading merchant. Not sure any white actor could deliver a line with the "n" word in it and not make it sound anything other than business-like! This film holds up well, and its acting pleasure are numerous. Not to be missed.

James Garner does his Maverick/Rockford type character pretty, well,as he is wont to do. And it was fun to such a young Lou Gossett, Jr. The rest of the cast was okay, including Ed Asner as a slave merchant. But one of the biggest problems is this. They are trying to be funny against the backdrop of slavery. Now, I am a white Southerner, not at all liberal, but the race slavery in this film is portrayed honestly enough to show its fundamental evil. Slavery was a moral abomination, and more importantly (in this context) not at all funny. And juxtaposing hijinks on top of it was just a bit jarring. I guess it takes a more deft touch than these filmmakers possessed.

OK finally got to watch this previously unavailable James Garner Western. It was directed by Paul Bogart who was basically a TV director and it really shows since the film doesn't quite use all of the advantages available to a cinematic endeavor. The only other film that I've seen that I know of directed by Bogart is another Garner vehicle based on Raymond Chandler's private eye character called "Marlowe" which I've seen and liked, but not in quite a while.This film is probably the closest Garner ever gets in a film, that I've seen, to him reprising his Maverick persona when he his still young enough to pull it off, (he does so somewhat also, in the two Support Your Local... films with his cool wisecracking deliveries) but here he is actually playing a character Quincy Drew, who is a con man in the best Maverick Brothers tradition. The story circa (1857) deals with two con men Drew and Jason O'Rourke (Lou Gossett) a native of New Jersey, who we later discover met in a jail in Pennsylvania when O'Rourke was thrown into a cell next to Drew who was doing time for telling fortunes, its hilarious seeing Garner in a turban and fortune telling garb. They hit it off, and devise various different cons that they try out as a team until they hit on what they call the "Skin Game". This con consists of Garner riding into various Western border state towns Kansas, Missouri, etc., feigning poverty and as a result has to sell his best slave at an impromptu auction in the saloon, hotel, etc., etc. Susan Clark, plays a shady lady/pickpocket/con woman who targets the guys taking their money who eventually becomes Garners love interest. Ed Asner here, is in his villain period and he does a pretty good job as a slave catcher operating in the border area who eventually catches on to the con game. Gossett does a great job along with Garner & Clark.The film is entertaining and plays it safe and cutesy, but it could have been a whole lot better with a more creative and daring director, its reminiscent of Eastwood's self produced Malpaso Production films in that respect, Cherokee Productions is Garner's company.The what if's: If it would have shown Gossett & Garner's other various cons and how they stumbled upon the "Skin Game" con and had a better ending than the contrived one it does have it would been better.I'll give it a 7-8/10 mostly for its Maverick nostalgia value. Its a shame its not on TV in rotation with other Westerns on the various movie channels but I think the frequent use of the "n" word probably is the cause of its not being so. Its almost as if the mainstream media has decided that that period of American History has been dealt with enough and can be swept into the closet.