Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Skin Game is predominantly directed by Paul Bogart and written by Richard Alan Simmons and Peter Stone. It stars James Garner, Louis Gossett Jr., Susan Clark, Brenda Sykes, Edward Asner and Andrew Duggan. Music is by David Shire and cinematography by Fred J. Koenekamp.Slavery era America and two interracial con-men travel from town to town duping white folk into purchasing black Jason O'Rourke (Gossett Jr,). After Quincy Drew (Garner) strikes a deal, with money in hand, the pair meet up later to scarper and split the profits. A nice con, that is until ladies and savvy outsiders enter the fray...A lovely Panavision/Technicolor production, Skin Game is a little remembered comedy Oater, not because it's poor, but more than likely because it has been shunted to one side due to what is now perceived as political incorrectness. Which is a shame, for although it doesn't fully exploit the premise it is working with, it's a very likable pic that's propped up by strong lead performances.As the not so intrepid duo move from town to town, places with great names like Dirty Shame and Bitter End, a number of funny scenes keep things perky, be it bath time, Jason crying or the verbal jousting rumbling on, the comedy is subtle and easy to digest. The introduction of Clark lifts the pic higher, for she's a bigger rogue than Quincy and Jason, adding more cream to an already amusing pudding.It's all very improbable as such, so we are not surprised when things inevitably go belly up, while the intention to probe the bile of the era in question doesn't make a telling mark. But the pros of the piece far outweigh the cons to give us a film worth tracking down. 7/10

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.

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.

This is a very funny movie, dealing with a very serious subject, but it's premise is not as far-fetched as you might think. After all we have heard about man exploiting his fellow man, can we doubt that there were con men who found a way to make money off slave owners, buyers and sellers? Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina? Anyway, my point is that this should not detract from enjoying this movie because the premise is certainly as plausible as most other westerns. One thing that stood out to me in this film was the relationship between the characters played by James Garner and Lou Gossett. Even though the setting is the 1850's, their relationship is clearly one of equals. While Gossett complains about his role as the commodity being sold in their con game, it is clear that these two are equal partners in deciding how and where they will ply their trade. They share the rewards of their loot equally and when one is endangered, the other risks his life and freedom to rescue his friend. When one discovers new responsibilities that requires a complete change in his life, the other unhesitatingly - well, with only short hesitation - joins in. Gossett and Garner are such a good pairing that I wonder why they didn't do more films together. (Although Gossett did appear on "The Rockford Files" as a guest star.)