What I liked most


One of the things I liked most about this movie is that the ones who had been taken never realized it. They came out thinking they were "winners" for having experienced such a rare and wonderful woman who showed true love! They didn't even mind losing the hand. That sets it off from The Sting and others of this genre. That's darn good writing. But the fine casting and acting helped make this movie work, too.

reply

There are a lot of things I liked about this movie (I just watched it, so it's fresh on my mind). First of all, it has one of the most exciting opening sequences ever filmed, and you wonder what matter of earth-shaking importance could cause everyone to be in such a hurry. Then you find it it's just for a yearly poker game! LOL

Then I like the enthusiastic stagecoach driver who loudly announces his itinerary: "The stage is leavin' in ten minutes for Miranda, Hebronville, Santa Ygnava, Bustamente and all parts south!!" He would have made a great Professor Henry Hill in The Music Man.

Then there's the scene where Henry Fonda and his family enter the saloon, and Joanne Woodward is wearing a lavender dress and bonnet that just pops off the screen amid all the rest of the colors which are just muted earth-tones.

But best of all it features Jason Robards at his cantankerous best, honed to a fine precision of curmudgeonliness (if that's a word):

"Listen-- One whole year I've been honin' my backside to sit in on this here game, and what am I doing, playing poker?? Hell no, I'm talking about the stinkweed crop in San Antone, Texas!"

The only problem with this movie is that after you've seen it once and learned the surprise ending it spoils it for further re-watching, but it's still worth seeing again for the distinguished cast and fine performances.

reply

I was taken by surprise! This is a wonderful movie. Robards always shines. And Fonda is fantastic.

SPOILER!!!!!
Just one problem, what's up with the extended ending? After the con is revealed and Woodward reveals herself to be an addict it should have ended, but they played the song Rosie twice and we follow her to another card game and finally the credits. They should have cut out those last five minutes and it would have been perfect. What were they thinking?

reply

Yup, I agree. They definitely could have cut the movie right after the big reveal, and it would have been better.




I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Yeah -- you would think that if she were the banker's girlfriend/wife that the other players would have known about it. That part didn't make any sense.

reply

Yeah -- you would think that if she were the banker's girlfriend/wife that the other players would have known about it. That part didn't make any sense.


Admittedly, it would be a bit of a stretch to believe the banker (Paul Ford) could keep his relationship with his pretty, and considerably younger girlfriend/wife (Joanne Woodward) a secret from everyone in the town. However, I think I have a explanation that might make an otherwise seemingly impossible relationship, feel possible.

Because, we're never informed about how long the banker and Joanne have actually been together prior to pulling off the Big Con. They could've been together for just a few weeks, or, possibly even a few months prior? We simply don't know. Then, I think it's very possible they could've kept their relationship a secret for a short amount of time at least. For instance, while it might be impossible to hide their relationship from the town for one or two years. It would only be difficult (but not impossible) to hide their relationship for a couple of months. While, keeping it hidden for only a few weeks shouldn't be any problem at all, if they were motivated to do so.

Also, the audience is never specifically informed about the true nature of their relationship. Is it really a boyfriend/girlfriend, or, a husband/wife type relationship? Or, is it more like, Joanne's character hooking-up with a older "Sugar Daddy" banker who is looking for one last hot time between the sheets before he's 6-feet under, type of relationship? Personally, I believe it's the latter one, which works best for me because, it's the only type of relationship that both participants have a mutual interest in keeping their affair a secret from everyone in order to avoid public humiliation.

Reason: The much older, responsible and long time respected banker of the town is embarrassed by the nature of his "Sugar Daddy" relationship with Joanne. He realizes that if he's seen in public with Joanne on his arm, everyone will presume correctly that she's only with him because of his money, and he will be the mockery of the town as a result. And, Joanne would be embarrassed to be seen publicly with Paul (the banker) out of fear of being branded a prostitute who is trading her young beauty for money to gamble with. Not the kind of reputation you want back then. But they carry on with their affair with the mutual understanding that they can't be seen together.(how's that for logic?)

While the banker is embarrassed of his relationship with Joanne, he can't resist the opportunity to "be with" someone of Joanne's younger beauty, and overall hotness, but, he can't keep financing her card playing until he runs out of money either.

So, Joanne approaches Henry Fonda with a opportunity to pull off a big con at the annual poker gathering in the town where her sugar daddy banker lives. Then later, both Joanne and Fonda approach Paul Ford with the idea for the con and how he fits into the big scheme of things, provided nobody knows about the relationship between the banker and Joanne before hand. The Banker agrees to go along with his part in the con because, it keeps him in good standings with his bought-and-paid for young hotty (Joanne), and it will give Joanne plenty of her own money to gamble with instead of Paul Ford having to stake her using his own hard earned money, that he's accumulated after decades of lending and collecting.

The last paragraph is all speculation on my part of coarse, but, I think that it's a very reasonable possibility that might explain "How", and, "Why" the town and the annual gamblers had no knowledge of the relationship between the banker and Joanne's character prior to the Big Game.

reply

I have wondered about that because this banker had to go home sometimes in the future. If he had some kind of relationship with Ruby then it would have to be long distance. Also, these "poker hounds" would have heard of or learned of them if they were really into big time poker. These gamblers would have had a reputation and they would have been found out sometimes in the future unless they moved way out west.

reply

I liked the ending just as it was. If you were a drunk it is natural for you to drink. Mary was a card playing gambler. It was never truly shown throughout the movie how hard core she was. The ending reinforced her true nature. If the movie were to stop where you had requested it, I would have thought the swindlers just had a vendetta against the group of players and that was it.

reply


Then there's the scene where Henry Fonda and his family enter the saloon, and Joanne Woodward is wearing a lavender dress and bonnet that just pops off the screen amid all the rest of the colors which are just muted earth-tones.


I have seen her sexier in other roles, but never more beautiful in a movie. I know it was a period look, but it sure looked great on her!

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

... was Joanna Woodward making the movie for me. She was perfectly cast.🐭

reply

This post answers those who question why Fonda couldn't have simply entered the game with more money, called the final pot, and revealed an unbeatable hand. The other players would certainly have realized that they'd been swindled.

Regarding the comments about the ending, it definitely is overextended, which is the result of expanding a 1 hour TV film to nearly 2 hours. The original TV film left out everything regarding the daughter's wedding, and the last scene was the room where they split up the money, with the "wife" announcing that she's going to take her share and go play poker to her banker husband's discomfort.

reply

Just watched this movie again. Love it, but I am in total agreement that the reveal ending went on for much too long. All that activity in the saloon? I agree with Zgran, above, that once they delivered the "punchline" the film should have ended.

reply

For 1966 this movie was far ahead of it's time. I could definitely see this being a product of the 70's, and it's darker, more cynical approach to realism and trick endings. Even more I could see this as a Tarantino film from today. It is really well written and timeless.

reply