Enjoyed this very silly comedy from 1963 along with some great actors like James Garner, (Henry Tyroon) who is a wheel and dealer, who decides to leave Midland, Texas and come to the big Apple because all his oil wells are drying up and blowing plain dust. However, Henry meets up with Molly Thatcher, (Lee Remick) and he goes completely bonkers and falls immediately in love with her. Molly fights off his advances and only accepts an invitation to dinner in order to sell Henry a business deal her boss, Bullard Bear, (Jim Backus) has assigned her. It is a deal to sell widgets from a company in New England and at the same time Henry wants to drill oil in a town near Boston, Mass. When Molly tells Henry she likes a painting, he buys her an art gallery and if she likes a fancy food establishment, he buys that for her. It is a very dumb comedy, but all the actors make it very enjoyable.
20 Reviews
freewheeling fun, but could have been better
cherold3 September 2005
Wheeler Dealers is a very entertaining movie with Garner as a charming Texan who makes his money in shady deals and clever schemes, staying just this side of the law. Remick plays a stockbroker who is struggling to prove herself in a male dominated industry - it's one of these interesting examples of early feminism in movies; she is treated badly and is smart, but at the same time she basically ties her star to Garner (as do some men) rather than making her own way. Also note that in this period apparently even feminists referred to themselves as "girls." At times Wheeler Dealers approaches brilliance, with some great lines and a clever satire of finance on the highest levels, but unfortunately the movie is far too fond of sitcom-like plot twists and the ending feels rushed and unconvincing, as though the writers just ran out of ideas and decided to quickly dash something off. But the good outweighs the bad, and at its best this is a very funny movie, while at its worst it's still pretty cute.
Let The Caricatures Fight!
boblipton17 January 2023
James Garner's latest wildcat well has come up dry, and he needs money to continue operations. So he flies up to New York City and starts raising cash. His peregrinations around Wall Street bring him to Lee Remick, who's been handed a dead stock to unload; her certain failure will give her boss, Jim Backus, an excuse to fire her. He's reckoned without Garner and his cohort of high-rolling Texans as played by Phil Harris, Chill Wills, and Charles Watts.
Another of my old friends, this movie is like that pal you had as a kid, who modeled himself on Eddie Haskell. Everyone knew he would come to no good, but he was so darned much fun, and here he still is, doing fine. This movie has it all: a good, satiric view of how Wall Street and the tax code operated, everyone a smug caricature ten years out of date when the movie was released, everyone out for a buck, and some fine comic performers, including Louis Nye, John Astin, Pat Harrington Jr., Robert Strauss, and Pat Crowley. What's that, you say? Of course Charles Lane is in it. How can you not like a movie that makes fun of everyone who shows up on the screen?
Another of my old friends, this movie is like that pal you had as a kid, who modeled himself on Eddie Haskell. Everyone knew he would come to no good, but he was so darned much fun, and here he still is, doing fine. This movie has it all: a good, satiric view of how Wall Street and the tax code operated, everyone a smug caricature ten years out of date when the movie was released, everyone out for a buck, and some fine comic performers, including Louis Nye, John Astin, Pat Harrington Jr., Robert Strauss, and Pat Crowley. What's that, you say? Of course Charles Lane is in it. How can you not like a movie that makes fun of everyone who shows up on the screen?
Life in the Oil Bidness
unosuave7 September 2006
I think this film is a rough parody of the life of Tom Brown (Jame Garner) and Joe Roper of Tom Brown Drilling Inc.(TMBR/Sharp) of Midland, Texas.
The company never paid a dividend. They would buy the company stock when it was low and sell when high.
A lot of people do just that. But they flew the corporate jet to New York and convinced Wall Street investors to buy their company stock, which of course made the price increase. Brown and Roper then sold their stock!
Is this insider trading! I enjoyed watching this film.
The company never paid a dividend. They would buy the company stock when it was low and sell when high.
A lot of people do just that. But they flew the corporate jet to New York and convinced Wall Street investors to buy their company stock, which of course made the price increase. Brown and Roper then sold their stock!
Is this insider trading! I enjoyed watching this film.
one of my favorite 60's movies
hbs11 February 2000
I think that "Send Me No Flowers" is the best of these "Technicolor marvel" comedies from the 60's, but this is one of my favorites. (By "Technicolor marvel" I mean those films that were shot in primary colors even more intense than something like "The Adventures of Robin Hood", with unnaturally uniform lighting and sets and locations, but mostly sets, that are DisneyLand-clean-and-orderly. Doris Day seemed to be in about half of those movies, at least in my recollection.)
The movie is about James Garner as an oil-man having a run of bad luck, so he goes to New York to make some quick money. He finds big bucks and romance, and it makes me laugh. The fact that Louis Nye plays a parody of Jackson Pollock, and that Phil Harris, Chill Wills, and Charles Watts act as a sort of Greek chorus to Garner will give you some idea of how inconsequentially silly this movie is. There's even a securities trial at the end (the judge makes a comment at the beginning that is just thrown away -- I missed it the first time I saw the movie -- which I laugh about every time I think of it).
The movie is about James Garner as an oil-man having a run of bad luck, so he goes to New York to make some quick money. He finds big bucks and romance, and it makes me laugh. The fact that Louis Nye plays a parody of Jackson Pollock, and that Phil Harris, Chill Wills, and Charles Watts act as a sort of Greek chorus to Garner will give you some idea of how inconsequentially silly this movie is. There's even a securities trial at the end (the judge makes a comment at the beginning that is just thrown away -- I missed it the first time I saw the movie -- which I laugh about every time I think of it).
Another Dumb Comedy From the '60s
ccthemovieman-113 June 2007
Boy, usually we think of very-dated movies being from the decades, perhaps of the 1920s through 1950s, but this 1960s can be the absolute worst in that regard as that decade was undergoing such radical cultural changes. What was "hip" or "cool" back then looks so stupid now, it's embarrassing to watch. This movie is a prime example.
This isn't quite the bra-burning days later in the decade, but the feminist message was a big part of this story, that women can wheel and deal on Wall Street, too. Well, that's fine but most of the characters in here acted so arrogant and stupid that the movie is annoying. Yet, to be honest, remember liking this in 1963 at the movie theater. Times - and us - change. Now this just looks like the typically-dated and immature 1960s.
One thing that hasn't was my fondness for Lee Remick's face (not her politics). She was pretty to look at in 1963 and just as attractive when I saw this on VHS in the late 1990s. She was a good poster "girl" for the feminist movement.
I can't say I was enthralled with the humor of Phil Harris, Jim Backus or Chill Wills in here, although I have laughed at those guys on occasion. Louis Nye, pretending to be an abstract painter riding a bicycle on the canvas, still made me laugh, however. James Garner was the star of the film and it's tough to criticize him, so I won't.
This isn't quite the bra-burning days later in the decade, but the feminist message was a big part of this story, that women can wheel and deal on Wall Street, too. Well, that's fine but most of the characters in here acted so arrogant and stupid that the movie is annoying. Yet, to be honest, remember liking this in 1963 at the movie theater. Times - and us - change. Now this just looks like the typically-dated and immature 1960s.
One thing that hasn't was my fondness for Lee Remick's face (not her politics). She was pretty to look at in 1963 and just as attractive when I saw this on VHS in the late 1990s. She was a good poster "girl" for the feminist movement.
I can't say I was enthralled with the humor of Phil Harris, Jim Backus or Chill Wills in here, although I have laughed at those guys on occasion. Louis Nye, pretending to be an abstract painter riding a bicycle on the canvas, still made me laugh, however. James Garner was the star of the film and it's tough to criticize him, so I won't.
Chez Henri Tyroon
bkoganbing7 April 2004
This may be the best comedy movie to come out of the 1960s. Wheeler Dealers features James Garner at the top of his game, Lee Remick doing her best Doris Day imitation, and a wonderful cast of some of the best character actors ever assembled.
Of all the characters James Garner has created for the screen, I think I like Henry J. Tyroon the best. Cowboy oilman and conman par excellence, he moves skillfully from one situation to the other in business, but really comes up against it with Lee Remick in the romance department.
The supporting cast is soooo good I don't know where to begin to single anyone out. If put to torture I suppose I'd have to mention Louis Nye, "the boss wrangler of the Henry Tyroon collection", and John Astin the manic SEC investigator.
As Mr. Garner puts it: "Only the taxman loses in a Henry Tyroon deal". Even a the most dedicated and humorless IRS agent will find laughs in this classic comedy.
"I'M INTERESTED IN THE ECONOMICS OF ANY SITUATION"
Of all the characters James Garner has created for the screen, I think I like Henry J. Tyroon the best. Cowboy oilman and conman par excellence, he moves skillfully from one situation to the other in business, but really comes up against it with Lee Remick in the romance department.
The supporting cast is soooo good I don't know where to begin to single anyone out. If put to torture I suppose I'd have to mention Louis Nye, "the boss wrangler of the Henry Tyroon collection", and John Astin the manic SEC investigator.
As Mr. Garner puts it: "Only the taxman loses in a Henry Tyroon deal". Even a the most dedicated and humorless IRS agent will find laughs in this classic comedy.
"I'M INTERESTED IN THE ECONOMICS OF ANY SITUATION"
**1/2
edwagreen9 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Run of the mill comedy where transplanted Texan, Jim Garner, with southern drawl, seems to have the Midas touch in making money despite the fact that his oil wells have dried up, As a result, he goes to New York to try his hand at the stock market and meets female stock analyst Lee Remick.
The good theme of the picture is that it deals with women in the work place, especially here at Wall Street. As her boss, Jim Backus wants to get rid of her so he assigns her to a dead end stock which hasn't been viable in years. Wait until you find out what the stock has been lined to.
You know of course where this shall all lead to regarding the Garner and Remick characters. There is a fling for him at a restaurant and art gallery.
As an art critic, Eliot Reid is wasted here but Garner's pals made up of Phil Harris and Chill Wills are funny here.
The good theme of the picture is that it deals with women in the work place, especially here at Wall Street. As her boss, Jim Backus wants to get rid of her so he assigns her to a dead end stock which hasn't been viable in years. Wait until you find out what the stock has been lined to.
You know of course where this shall all lead to regarding the Garner and Remick characters. There is a fling for him at a restaurant and art gallery.
As an art critic, Eliot Reid is wasted here but Garner's pals made up of Phil Harris and Chill Wills are funny here.
Fast-paced fun
proffate13 September 2001
Good old fashioned comedy that exploits every classic cliche about Texas oilmen. After years playing Bret Maverick, James Garner has the fast-talking con man character down pat. Old timers Phil Harris, Chill Wills and Jim Backus form sort of a Greek chorus of old money Texans eager to see what the brash newcomer's next scam will be.
All the fun is in the wheelin' and the dealin', Garner explains at one point. "Money's just a way of keeping score."
All the fun is in the wheelin' and the dealin', Garner explains at one point. "Money's just a way of keeping score."
Has anyone noticed the "wheeling and dealing" doesn't make sense?
erikpsmith7 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
**this review contains spoilers**
Finally got a chance to catch this movie on TCM the other day, and what a disappointment it was. I mean, this movie seemed like a slam-dunk from the description. James Garner, fresh from Maverick, playing a Texas oilman who isn't above a con or two. And Lee Remick, one of the most beautiful women in the movies, playing a stock analyst. Put 'em in one of those big, glossy Hollywood comedies they made in the early sixties, with all the wonderful character actors who were around at the time, like Jim Backus and Pat Harrington, and you have a heckuva package.
So I always wondered why all the movie-review books gave it a mediocre rating.
Well, now I know. This movie just doesn't make any sense. It's incoherent. Garner and Remick are immensely appealing, and I especially would have liked to have bumped into Remick on Wall Street in 1963, though if I had I wonder if I would have retained the power of speech, so gorgeous she was. But you know, to be successful, a movie needs more than actors. It also needs a storyline that works.
This one? Well, it starts out with Garner drilling for oil in Texas, and hitting a dry hole. He discovers he and his company are broke and he needs to go to New York to raise some money. He has some leases that are about to expire.
So he goes to Wall Street and immediately convinces three financiers to put up $300,000. That's all the money he asked them for. So is the problem solved? I dunno. The movie doesn't tell us.
Then Garner goes to a brokerage and tries to sell the owner on buying stock in his company. Okay, so maybe that $300,000 didn't solve the problem. Who knows? Anyway, here he meets Lee Remick.
She has another mission. She has to sell stock in a widget firm or else she'll be fired. She figures Garner is her mark. Okay, not a bad setup. Romance ensues, with all the usual complications.
Here we start seeing the stuff that doesn't make sense. Garner buys a restaurant. I guess he wants to impress Remick. But he's broke, scrambling for cash. Huh?
Then he hooks up with a painter, disappears for a week in Europe and starts buying up abstract paintings. I guess it's because he thinks Remick is into abstract art. There's some blather about how the whole thing is a tax dodge. He can make ten cents on the dollar by donating to museums. But again, he's broke, his company needs every dime. Huh?
Three fellow Texans arrive on the scene, apparently so eager to invest in Garner's schemes that they flew after him to New York in their private jet. Does he pitch them on his drilling venture? No. He sells them on joining the painting scheme instead. Huh?
There's a throwaway line in there somewhere, indicating that the Texans aren't keen on oil ventures. Okay, I'll grant the movie that -- it's a stab at logic -- but Garner never even tries to ask them for money. Here we are at the halfway point of the movie and this is the last time we even get a hint about his problems in Texas. This whole idea is abandoned. We never find out what happens to Garner's Texas drilling venture.
Now we get into an entirely new storyline. Garner, for some unexplained reason, decides to run up the price of the widget company stock. What is the scheme? What is the con? I don't get it.
Is Garner planning to purchase stock on the cheap, then resell it? The final scene of the movie belies that. He purchased four percent of the stock and his buddies purchased 48 percent, and all of them kept every penny. So it wasn't a swindle. Okay, fine. But why does he expend 20 minutes of comedic gyration on running up the price?
Actually, the widget company stock sounds like a steal. Turns out the widget company is a holding company for AT&T stock, bought on the cheap befoie WWI, and the principals have been collecting fat dividends ever since. Why wouldn't Garner try to acquire a controlling interest as cheaply as possible? He could liquidate the widget company and make money by selling the AT&T stock. If this was the plan, that might make sense, but the movie owes it to viewers to explain it. And in this scenario it wouldn't make any sense for Garner to run up the price of the stock. Anyway, Garner doesn't even seem to recognize that the widget company has value. I just don't get it. Huh?
And while this was playing out, I wanted to scream -- what about the Texas drilling venture? Anyway, all this is backdrop to the lovely romance between Garner and Remick, and it all culminates in a securities-fraud trial. The two of them do what they're supposed to, they're cute as heck and all that. But I say the "heart" part of the story doesn't work if the "head" part is a failure.
Finally got a chance to catch this movie on TCM the other day, and what a disappointment it was. I mean, this movie seemed like a slam-dunk from the description. James Garner, fresh from Maverick, playing a Texas oilman who isn't above a con or two. And Lee Remick, one of the most beautiful women in the movies, playing a stock analyst. Put 'em in one of those big, glossy Hollywood comedies they made in the early sixties, with all the wonderful character actors who were around at the time, like Jim Backus and Pat Harrington, and you have a heckuva package.
So I always wondered why all the movie-review books gave it a mediocre rating.
Well, now I know. This movie just doesn't make any sense. It's incoherent. Garner and Remick are immensely appealing, and I especially would have liked to have bumped into Remick on Wall Street in 1963, though if I had I wonder if I would have retained the power of speech, so gorgeous she was. But you know, to be successful, a movie needs more than actors. It also needs a storyline that works.
This one? Well, it starts out with Garner drilling for oil in Texas, and hitting a dry hole. He discovers he and his company are broke and he needs to go to New York to raise some money. He has some leases that are about to expire.
So he goes to Wall Street and immediately convinces three financiers to put up $300,000. That's all the money he asked them for. So is the problem solved? I dunno. The movie doesn't tell us.
Then Garner goes to a brokerage and tries to sell the owner on buying stock in his company. Okay, so maybe that $300,000 didn't solve the problem. Who knows? Anyway, here he meets Lee Remick.
She has another mission. She has to sell stock in a widget firm or else she'll be fired. She figures Garner is her mark. Okay, not a bad setup. Romance ensues, with all the usual complications.
Here we start seeing the stuff that doesn't make sense. Garner buys a restaurant. I guess he wants to impress Remick. But he's broke, scrambling for cash. Huh?
Then he hooks up with a painter, disappears for a week in Europe and starts buying up abstract paintings. I guess it's because he thinks Remick is into abstract art. There's some blather about how the whole thing is a tax dodge. He can make ten cents on the dollar by donating to museums. But again, he's broke, his company needs every dime. Huh?
Three fellow Texans arrive on the scene, apparently so eager to invest in Garner's schemes that they flew after him to New York in their private jet. Does he pitch them on his drilling venture? No. He sells them on joining the painting scheme instead. Huh?
There's a throwaway line in there somewhere, indicating that the Texans aren't keen on oil ventures. Okay, I'll grant the movie that -- it's a stab at logic -- but Garner never even tries to ask them for money. Here we are at the halfway point of the movie and this is the last time we even get a hint about his problems in Texas. This whole idea is abandoned. We never find out what happens to Garner's Texas drilling venture.
Now we get into an entirely new storyline. Garner, for some unexplained reason, decides to run up the price of the widget company stock. What is the scheme? What is the con? I don't get it.
Is Garner planning to purchase stock on the cheap, then resell it? The final scene of the movie belies that. He purchased four percent of the stock and his buddies purchased 48 percent, and all of them kept every penny. So it wasn't a swindle. Okay, fine. But why does he expend 20 minutes of comedic gyration on running up the price?
Actually, the widget company stock sounds like a steal. Turns out the widget company is a holding company for AT&T stock, bought on the cheap befoie WWI, and the principals have been collecting fat dividends ever since. Why wouldn't Garner try to acquire a controlling interest as cheaply as possible? He could liquidate the widget company and make money by selling the AT&T stock. If this was the plan, that might make sense, but the movie owes it to viewers to explain it. And in this scenario it wouldn't make any sense for Garner to run up the price of the stock. Anyway, Garner doesn't even seem to recognize that the widget company has value. I just don't get it. Huh?
And while this was playing out, I wanted to scream -- what about the Texas drilling venture? Anyway, all this is backdrop to the lovely romance between Garner and Remick, and it all culminates in a securities-fraud trial. The two of them do what they're supposed to, they're cute as heck and all that. But I say the "heart" part of the story doesn't work if the "head" part is a failure.
Not on DVD
AWaite41 August 2005
One of my favorites in the 'old comedy' genre. I bring it out for friends and relatives for comfort evenings.
Jim Garner at the top of his form, not long after his Maverick character became a household name, but before Rockford.
Lee Remick looking great, in an intelligent role for a beautiful woman.
It's worth the time just to see the terrific supporting cast of old faces (now mostly passed away.)
The only problem is my VHS version is just about worn out, and it's not available on DVD. Who do we complain to?
Jim Garner at the top of his form, not long after his Maverick character became a household name, but before Rockford.
Lee Remick looking great, in an intelligent role for a beautiful woman.
It's worth the time just to see the terrific supporting cast of old faces (now mostly passed away.)
The only problem is my VHS version is just about worn out, and it's not available on DVD. Who do we complain to?
- - - Art
James Garner's The Wheeler Dealers has uneven entertainment value
tavm13 April 2021
After previously watching James Garner's Cash McCall which I thought was an uneven drama concerning tone, I had hoped this comedy of his would be much better. Unfortunately, the tone is more uneven here as there are only a few good laughs concerning some visual touches as the dialogue is deadly when it focuses on various money matters which it does a lot! Garner and Lee Remick aren't bad as a potential loving couple but the romantic scenes don't really feel right. And even with capable supporting character actors like Jim Backus, Phil Harris, John Astin, and Pat Harrington, Jr., there's no room for them to really do any funny pieces. At least Charles Lane-a player from my favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life-has some moments as a judge near the end. Ditto, Louis Nye at various places. So that's something. But otherwise, The Wheeler Dealers has less of a geyser than that oil well at the beginning of this movie...
On-the-mark satire with prophetic qualities (minor spoilers)
christopher_michael_taylor10 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw Wheeler Dealers as a kid in the early 70s and was tickled by the broad comedy of the Texas oilmen scenes and excited by the raw capitalism. The movie got shown regularly for some reason over the next few years and became a favourite of my circle of friends. Only when I saw it much more recently did the prophetic nature of some of the situations strike me.For example, the absurd way the oilmen use and recycle their wealth seems more like the Houston boom days of the 70s than the early 60s. Tyroon is an early investor in Pollock-style modern art and predicts it will one day sell like old masters. When he dreams up the infamous Consolidated Widget scam (the movie helped popularize use of the word with reference to technology) the blind enthusiasm over satellite components could have been straight out of Nasdaq in the late 1990s. And the scene with Ms. Remick decrying the lot of women investment analysts with her peers is startlingly contemporary - indeed I have trouble believing all the female analysts on Wall St. could have filled a room in 1963!All of which is just to say, plus ca change - catch this anachronistic (in the good sense) gem of a movie if you ever get the chance.
Shallow plot has no laughs or sparks
SimonJack18 April 2016
"The Wheeler Dealers" is quite a dumb film. And, it's not because some freewheeling millionaires have their own 727 aircraft. It's the plot with its quick moves and constant buying-selling to everyone's advantage by the hero. James Garner plays the role well, as Henry Tyroon. (Would that be as in tycoon, only spelled with an 'r?') And, most of the cast are fine in their roles. But the plot is so goofy and all over the place. No doubt it's intended to show the unlimited capacity of Henry to wheel and deal in virtually any situation. But that doesn't provide any humor and the film is weak in its portrayal of the romance.
The movie needed to slow down, pick just a few dealings and milk them for comedy with more witty dialog. There just isn't anything in here that induces laughter. Nor is there much spark in the romance. The underlying theme of writing things off, getting around the IRS, etc. was something of the culture in mid-century. I seem to recall it with adults talking about working so many hours each week for the IRS. That went on from the late 1940s maybe through the 60s. But, I think it died out – or at least wasn't among the top things on people's minds after that.
Lee Remick plays Molly Thatcher in a shallow role for her talents. Phil Harris, Chill Wills and Jim Backus are fine in there roles. It was a stretch for me to give this film five stars, but the talent of the cast earn that – even if they aren't used very well here.
Here's a sample of the best comedy this film has to offer. Molly, "Is your word worth anything, or isn't it?" Bullard Bear (play on words with the name of the Jim Backus role), "Well, it varies."
Henry, "You're a rich man, and a rich man can't afford to go broke."
Molly, "Was that Italian?" Henry, "I find that in New York most French head waiters are Italian." Molly, "And you speak Italian?" Henry, "No mam. A little wetback Spanish. Sounds the same."
The movie needed to slow down, pick just a few dealings and milk them for comedy with more witty dialog. There just isn't anything in here that induces laughter. Nor is there much spark in the romance. The underlying theme of writing things off, getting around the IRS, etc. was something of the culture in mid-century. I seem to recall it with adults talking about working so many hours each week for the IRS. That went on from the late 1940s maybe through the 60s. But, I think it died out – or at least wasn't among the top things on people's minds after that.
Lee Remick plays Molly Thatcher in a shallow role for her talents. Phil Harris, Chill Wills and Jim Backus are fine in there roles. It was a stretch for me to give this film five stars, but the talent of the cast earn that – even if they aren't used very well here.
Here's a sample of the best comedy this film has to offer. Molly, "Is your word worth anything, or isn't it?" Bullard Bear (play on words with the name of the Jim Backus role), "Well, it varies."
Henry, "You're a rich man, and a rich man can't afford to go broke."
Molly, "Was that Italian?" Henry, "I find that in New York most French head waiters are Italian." Molly, "And you speak Italian?" Henry, "No mam. A little wetback Spanish. Sounds the same."
Dealing in Laughs
dancram21 October 1998
Since accidentally catching this film several years ago on cable, I have counted this as one of my favorite films. It is dated by its 60's chauvinism but sports some of the snappiest dialog and humour since George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart wrote. My favorite movie quote of all time comes from this film. I hope you give this a viewing. I promise if you like subtle and not so subtle dialog driven satire, this is a film for you.
the wheeler dealers
mossgrymk7 February 2023
Let me add my agreement with the the majority of the reviews below about this mediocre Kennedy 60s sex/business comedy. Just an uninspired job all around, from the mirthless dialogue by George Goodwin (from his novel) and Ira Wallach that takes clumsy swipes at broad targets such as NYC restaurant religion, art gallery pretension and Wall Street non ethics, to direction by Arthur Hiller that is, at best, borderline sit com in style. And if by chance you at any time fall under the misapprehension that you are watching a film rather than glorified TV, then DeVol's annoyingly cute, perky music will jolt you back to reality.
As far as the acting goes Garner is on "Maverick" autopilot pretty much throughout while Lee Remick, in a comedy, shows why she is a great dramatic actor (Of course, it doesn't help that she is given none of the very few good lines in the screenplay). The supporting cast is pretty much forgettable when it is not idiotically offensive (as in the three obnoxious Texas dwarves/oilmen). And speaking of offensive there is the great Hollywood liberal Garner's referring to Mexicans with a racist slur. Let's give it a C.
As far as the acting goes Garner is on "Maverick" autopilot pretty much throughout while Lee Remick, in a comedy, shows why she is a great dramatic actor (Of course, it doesn't help that she is given none of the very few good lines in the screenplay). The supporting cast is pretty much forgettable when it is not idiotically offensive (as in the three obnoxious Texas dwarves/oilmen). And speaking of offensive there is the great Hollywood liberal Garner's referring to Mexicans with a racist slur. Let's give it a C.
Cute, typical early 60's Hollywood Fluff
jjasper-26 September 2005
A good Sunday afternoon or late night distraction. You can pretty much figure out the entire storyline before it gets underway. If made by MGM we'd have seen this as a Doris Day/Rock Hudson vehicle. Almost as interesting for its take on the earliest beginnings on the (ahem) "career-girl" whose most shocking decision was to put career before marriage even when the marriage prospect was Texan James Garner at his most charming and chivalrous. Given Lee Remmick's modern day interest in feminism, this must be one film she's deeply embarrassed to have made. She did a good job - she did what she was told to do by either studio or director - she's disarming, charming, and feminine in Hollywood's best "we-don't-know-the-50's-have-ended-what-new-era?" style. The set dressing and costumes will make many a middle-aged person nostalgic for mom and the home they grew up in.
Charming, dated fun. If you ever wondered what made Garner a star - here's your answer. Sean Connery's "it" factor without the dark undertones.
Charming, dated fun. If you ever wondered what made Garner a star - here's your answer. Sean Connery's "it" factor without the dark undertones.
bland rom-com
SnoopyStyle28 July 2014
Henry Tyroone (James Garner) is a Texas oilman with a few too many dry wells. He needs to go up north to raise money or else he's going broke. There isn't a complicated deal that he couldn't make or a scheme that he couldn't hustle. In NYC, Bullard Bear (Jim Backus) needs to cut one job and he sets his sights on the only woman stock analyst Molly Thatcher (Lee Remick). He gives her a really bad stock to sell. Nobody takes the women seriously. Tyroone comes in to do a deal and Bear pushes Molly out to sell the bad stock.
It's a bland rom-com. Lee Remick is really pretty but she doesn't have a comedic side. James Garner is a cad. They have limited chemistry. At least, he's playing his character with a smile and a giddy-up. He's the best thing in this movie. Everybody is lying, scheming and selling junk. The money grubbing isn't all that fun or that likable. Director Arthur Hiller has trouble bringing joy into this movie. There is nothing memorable or hilarious. The story throws around a lot of business deals but half of them don't make sense. I guess the writer hopes they go by so fast that the audience won't notice. More than anything, this is just bland.
It's a bland rom-com. Lee Remick is really pretty but she doesn't have a comedic side. James Garner is a cad. They have limited chemistry. At least, he's playing his character with a smile and a giddy-up. He's the best thing in this movie. Everybody is lying, scheming and selling junk. The money grubbing isn't all that fun or that likable. Director Arthur Hiller has trouble bringing joy into this movie. There is nothing memorable or hilarious. The story throws around a lot of business deals but half of them don't make sense. I guess the writer hopes they go by so fast that the audience won't notice. More than anything, this is just bland.
A modern Maverick
VetteRanger11 February 2023
Garner even wears a cowboy hat, though in this movie it's white rather than the black one he wore in Maverick.
And, just like most Maverick episodes, in The Wheeler Dealers he's the consummate "operator". Deals flash in and out along with discussions of tax breaks and depreciation and partnerships and reminders of past successful deals.
Lee Remick is a female stockbroker and (for that era) the only one in her office. The glass ceiling is high and thick here. She's been trapped into selling stock in an obsolete "widget" factory so when she fails her firm can cut costs by firing her.
The funniest part of this movie are the three friends, headed by Chill Wills, with immense confidence in Tyroon and their bids on taking percentages of his deals. Makes us smile every time. :-)
And, just like most Maverick episodes, in The Wheeler Dealers he's the consummate "operator". Deals flash in and out along with discussions of tax breaks and depreciation and partnerships and reminders of past successful deals.
Lee Remick is a female stockbroker and (for that era) the only one in her office. The glass ceiling is high and thick here. She's been trapped into selling stock in an obsolete "widget" factory so when she fails her firm can cut costs by firing her.
The funniest part of this movie are the three friends, headed by Chill Wills, with immense confidence in Tyroon and their bids on taking percentages of his deals. Makes us smile every time. :-)
Did he say that-a-way?
Bernie444421 April 2024
Story Based on Goodman, G. J. W. "Wheeler Dealers, The"
The song "THE WHEELER DEALERS" By Randy Sparks, Sung by The New Christy Minstrels
Henry Tyroon (James Garner) is a rich man, and a rich man can not afford to go broke. So, he is off to New York to do some wheeling-dealing. According to Henry Tyron: "You don't go wheelin' 'n' dealin' for money. You do it for fun. Money's just the way you keep score." And what a score that includes oil, cabs, and widgets.
Lee Remick plays Molly Thatcher, a Wall Street broker who just wants to be one of the boys. Naturally, she is going to see what wheeling and dealing are all about.
There are too many memorable things to quote in this film. However, I still get a thrill watching speculative movies where they say "did aliens build this?" and remembering the speculation statements like "will our government fall behind the Russians in widget production?"
The song "THE WHEELER DEALERS" By Randy Sparks, Sung by The New Christy Minstrels
Henry Tyroon (James Garner) is a rich man, and a rich man can not afford to go broke. So, he is off to New York to do some wheeling-dealing. According to Henry Tyron: "You don't go wheelin' 'n' dealin' for money. You do it for fun. Money's just the way you keep score." And what a score that includes oil, cabs, and widgets.
Lee Remick plays Molly Thatcher, a Wall Street broker who just wants to be one of the boys. Naturally, she is going to see what wheeling and dealing are all about.
There are too many memorable things to quote in this film. However, I still get a thrill watching speculative movies where they say "did aliens build this?" and remembering the speculation statements like "will our government fall behind the Russians in widget production?"
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
