Maverick (1994)

The Age of Commercialism

Highly Overrated But Still Good

An Exercise In Nonsense

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

RELEASED IN 1994 and directed by Richard Donner, "Maverick" stars Mel Gibson as the amicable titular gambler who meets up with a fetching scam-artist (Jodi Foster), an aged marshal (James Garner) and an ill-tempered outlaw (Alfred Molina) on his way to a poker tournament on a riverboat at the Columbia River Gorge. Who will win the tournament? James Coburn plays the dubious host on the riverboat while Graham Greene appears as a comical Native chief.The tone is along the lines of comedy Westerns like "The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox" (1976), "Support Your Local Sheriff" (1969) and "Texas Across the River" (1966) so, if you like those Westerns, you'll probably appreciate this one ("Texas" is more campy though). The Western locations are to die for and Foster is striking. The camaraderie of the three main stars is entertaining. The sequence with Graham Greene in the second act stands out and is only surpassed by the riverboat sequence in the last act.THE FILM RUNS 127 minutes and was shot in Arizona (Glen Canyon, Lake Powell, Mescal, Page, Lee's Ferry and Marble Canyon), Utah (Glen Canyon), California (Yosemite National Park, Lone Pine, El Mirage Dry Lake & Burbank studios) and Washington/Oregon (Columbia River Gorge & Beacon Rock). WRITER: William Goldman.GRADE: B

This film is especially suitable for all those who don't like Westerns because think they're never more than train robberies and duels at sunset. Set in the Wild West, this comedy shows the adventurous way that Bret Maverick enters the most lucrative poker tournament in the region. It's a funny story that harmoniously combines action and adventure and where Mel Gibson plays the leading role. Despite his consecration, this actor is no stranger to light comedies (think of "What Women Want"), even though these aren't the kind of jobs he likes to bet. He has Jodie Foster and James Garner as supporting actors and Alfred Molina as a villain, but he manages to stand out from them and carry the film on his back in a very enjoyable way. The fact is they never seemed committed, giving Gibson a lot of space to shine even when everyone was on scene. The result, however, is frankly pleasant.This film is not a work of art nor was it thought to be. It's made for entertain the public and does so easily, with jokes, funny dialogues and action scenes where comedy comes from situations in which protagonist is involved, usually against his will. As usual in comedies, the characters are light and even somewhat stereotyped. The Indians also appear in the film, which makes fun of preconceived ideas about them. Sets and costumes are also good, and wear what we normally associate with Far West. Not worth looking for an exceptional script, great characters or a dramatic show. This movie is to watch without thinking. So sit back and enjoy.

Plot: A card player in the Old West tries to win a cards tournament worth $250,000 but finds that someone is out to stop him.MAVERICK is a big screen adaptation of the old TV show about a gifted card player (and crook) in the Wild West. After learning about the tournament Maverick has to raise the $25,000 entrance fee, which is what he spends most of the movie doing. He finds himself chased by villains, hunted as human prey by a mad Russian noble and alternately assisted and hindered by a female grifter and a leathery old lawman. He also meets a bunch of post-modern Indians but the jokes are pretty thin and it only serves to pad the movie out far beyond what it ought to have been. The leads are good, the script fun and the direction competent yet the film never quite suckers you in. There are enough fights (OK), plot twists (a goodie at the end) and jokes to keep you going but it doesn't lift off and a good half-hour ought to have been left on the cutting room floor.

Technically, "Maverick" is the big screen version of the classic TV show, which, like the movie, starred James Garner. As a film, it's a mixture of adventure and screwball comedy. These two genres are not immune to mixing, in fact the Golden Age of Hollywood was filled with movies like this. Unfortunately, the attempt to recreate this kind of a movie is not entirely successful.Bret Maverick (Mel Gibson) is a professional gambler in the Old West who is looking to enter in huge poker game with a $500,000 pot. Unfortunately, he's $3,000 short. So, with his would-be companions, a pickpocket named Annabelle Bransford (Jodie Foster) and Marshal Zane Cooper (James Garner), he sets out to collect the money that is owed to him by his cronies. Of course, nothing goes quite according to plan.The biggest problem is that the film just isn't that fun. The comedy isn't as clever or as funny as it thinks it is, and the action sequences aren't particularly exciting. Part of the reason is that "Maverick" feels like a series of skits loosely connected by a simple story. The film needed some serious tightening up at the script and filming stages.The art of making an effective screwball comedy has been lost in time, and try as he might, Richard Donner wasn't able to resurrect it. A screwball comedy relies mainly on timing and energy. Donner isn't able to gather the two requirements of the genre to make it work.All three actors are skilled thespians, and neither of them a strangers to comedy. It's not surprising that Gibson, Garner and particularly Foster are effective, but they could have used a better script. Foster is especially delightful as the mischievous Southern belle (or at least that's what she makes herself out to be). James Coburn is good in a small role as the head of the final poker tournament. Character actor Graham Greene fares the best as the Indian fed up with having to act like the cliché of the Indian for a rich foreigner. That scene has some of the biggest laughs (when it doesn't feel like a sitcom).It's not a complete bust, there are some clever moments here and there, and while gut busting laughs are few, there are plenty of moments that are worth a grin. It is however, a little too convoluted for its own good; the twists eventually become too numerous and tiresome, and they drag the movie on for far too long.If anything, "Maverick" proves that there is a difference between attempting at something, and succeeding at it. It accomplishes the former, but not the latter.