Why California Split remains among the most obscure of Robert Altman's extraordinary 1970s oeuvre is a mystery. Its stars -- Elliot Gould and George Segal -- were at the top of their form, free and comfortable working in Altman's off-the-cuff, low-key style. Its supporting cast -- Ann Prentiss, Gwen Welles and especially Bert Remsen, as the cross-dressing old jane "Helen Brown," -- is memorable. And its full gallery of extras (many drawn from the therapeutic community Synanon) populate a surreal gambling netherworld in California and Nevada. Altman is working in highest gear with the layered, semi-improvised and alluringly murky style he pioneered. As in Altman's best work, the story just sort of happens, without much distinction between foreground and backdrop, principal characters and walk-ons. Lacking the rigid and didactic "dramaturgy" of its competitors, California Split endures as one of the most probing examinations of the soul and psyche of the abnormal gambler ever filmed.
54 Reviews
Sly under-rated early Altman!
shepardjessica-112 December 2004
I worked on the set of this one and it was a wonderful experience. This gambling tale is light and sad with ensemble acting all around. George Segal (always good) and Elliott Gould (sometimes good) make a great team of "losers" who just can't resist their addiction. Bert Remsen has a great supporting role, along with Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles - ditzy hookers.
An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Mr. Segal. I don't think this made a dime unfortunately. A must for all Robert Altman fans. I'm sure this is available now on DVD, so seek it out for an American tale that never quite spins out of control. You won't regret it.
An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Mr. Segal. I don't think this made a dime unfortunately. A must for all Robert Altman fans. I'm sure this is available now on DVD, so seek it out for an American tale that never quite spins out of control. You won't regret it.
some true things about gambling
Iwould26 April 2005
Now I really thinks that this is an amazing good movie. Amazing both for the story and for the actors: they produce a common effort in saying some real true things about gambling. Great directing, too, and great places to shoot the story (how clever to choose the depressing Reno instead of Las Vegas! Atlantic City would have been a good choice, too). Gambling is what people do when they have anything else left to do. Gambling is all about losing, feeling sad, and loneliness. And it's the same if you win or if you lose, no difference. Other films usually show winners, when they solves their common life problems through gambling, or losers, when they ruin their own common life trough gambling. What is shown by California Split is that, if you are a gambler, then there's no space for anything else, say life, love, or hope. And that's both for winners and for losers.
Peak Altman
matt-20123 June 1999
Altman at the absolute top of his form--which is to say among the freest, loosest and sensorily densest great movies ever made in America. Visually and sonically thick as a brick, it also represents some of the highest-flying improvisatory acting you've ever seen. Put the Godard of the early sixties in a polyester shirt, lay him down among the rummies and compulsive cases of the American gambling subculture, and fill him with equal parts beer and caffeine, and you have some idea of this thoroughly amazing, free-and-easy comedy, which has a scary undertow: the scene where George Segal tries to persuade co-addict Elliott Gould of the hollowness of the big win might be the most scarily desolate in any Altman picture.
California fold
st-shot31 May 2021
Bill Denny (Geore Segal) and Charly Waters (Elliot Gould) cross paths at a California poker parlor. Denny is a casual player, Waters a motormouth pro who loves to psyche opponents. When a player suspects the two are card sharks he exacts revenge in a parking lot, further bonding the pair. Denny is soon caught up in Waters world of the professional gambler, one that is far from his dull everyday existence to one filled with pressure, addiction but most importantly excitement.
Director Robert Altman does an excellent job of of establishing a chokingly oppressive mood and setting in this episodic gambling story that spends most of its time at a poker table or race track. It is a somewhat sordid and tawdry existence however that is soon working on fumes for a storyline, Altman's vaunted improvisational form, eventually hamstrung by the banality of the next bet.
Segal and Gould buddy up fairly well but soon grow obnoxious and annoying with their pursuit of big pay days and overlong song and dance duets. The climactic Reno scene pulsates with suspense resulting in a nice offbeat ending but like Bill at the end you might be asking yourself, is that all there is?
Director Robert Altman does an excellent job of of establishing a chokingly oppressive mood and setting in this episodic gambling story that spends most of its time at a poker table or race track. It is a somewhat sordid and tawdry existence however that is soon working on fumes for a storyline, Altman's vaunted improvisational form, eventually hamstrung by the banality of the next bet.
Segal and Gould buddy up fairly well but soon grow obnoxious and annoying with their pursuit of big pay days and overlong song and dance duets. The climactic Reno scene pulsates with suspense resulting in a nice offbeat ending but like Bill at the end you might be asking yourself, is that all there is?
Marvelous: funny, touching, unpredictable
lloyd-schwartz1 January 2005
After seeing some of the so-called "best" films of 2004, what a treat to watch this touching, funny, completely unpredictable film. One of Altman's very best--certainly one of Gould's and Segal's very best performances. It's also the last screen appearance of the enchanting Barbara Ruick (whose best known performance was as Carrie in the movie version of Carousel--she sings the song about "Mr. Snow"--she was married to film composer John Williams)--she plays the delightful barmaid in the Reno gambling joint, and Altman dedicates the film to her. The characters--even the ones who appear very briefly--are so fleshed out, they are completely believable. Altman takes the genre of the gambling movie, in which there usually can be only a happy ending or a sad one, and completely explodes it. I wish Clint Eastwood had watched it before he tried to do a boxing movie, which has the same generic problem.
Altman's Warm Up to "Nashville"
evanston_dad5 June 2007
Robert Altman returns to one of his favorite subjects -- men behaving badly -- in this rather slight 1974 effort. George Segal and Elliott Gould play chronic gamblers who meet by chance in a gaming room and embark upon a friendship founded entirely on each man's desire to seek out the next sure thing. They head to Reno, where Segal falls into an amazing streak of luck and wins hundreds of thousands of dollars.....and then the movie just sort of ends, not because the story itself reaches any sort of natural conclusion, but more because Altman runs out of things to say about it.
Like many of Altman's films, "California Split" isn't as interested in telling a story as it is in establishing a tone, and that it does wonderfully. The ending does feel anti-climactic and abrupt, but then again, this is the tale of a gambling addict, whose whole existence consists of looking for and finding opportunities to feed his addiction. That Segal falls into a tired stupor after winning big, and experiences a glum letdown instead of the euphoria any normal person would feel from winning that much money, feels right for someone with an addiction. The obsession isn't with the catch, but with the chase.
I think Segal is the weaker of the two lead actors, though he's got the larger role. He plays up the comic elements in the film too broadly, whereas Gould feels more at home with Altman's sarcastic, off-the-cuff sense of humour. The first time I saw this, I thought there were distinct homoerotic undertones, and I felt that again after a second viewing. Segal obviously has feelings of inadequacy that his gambling helps him overcome, or at least forget. From where does that sense of inadequacy spring? Several moments in the film -- mention of a failed marriage, his reaction to someone calling him a "faggot," an aborted attempt at lovemaking with a ditzy hooker -- suggest that Segal's character has homosexual tendencies that he's trying to suppress, or at the very least that his shaky sense of his own manhood suggests to HIM that he has homosexual tendencies.
This isn't really fleshed out in the movie, but then nothing else is either. "California Split" feels like a warm up to Altman's masterpiece, "Nashville," released a year later, but it doesn't have that movie's sense of scope or amazing cast of characters, so it feels underdeveloped and lightweight.
Still, it kept me interested for 105 minutes, and it is a fascinating look into the chronic gambler's mind, if nothing else.
Grade: B
Like many of Altman's films, "California Split" isn't as interested in telling a story as it is in establishing a tone, and that it does wonderfully. The ending does feel anti-climactic and abrupt, but then again, this is the tale of a gambling addict, whose whole existence consists of looking for and finding opportunities to feed his addiction. That Segal falls into a tired stupor after winning big, and experiences a glum letdown instead of the euphoria any normal person would feel from winning that much money, feels right for someone with an addiction. The obsession isn't with the catch, but with the chase.
I think Segal is the weaker of the two lead actors, though he's got the larger role. He plays up the comic elements in the film too broadly, whereas Gould feels more at home with Altman's sarcastic, off-the-cuff sense of humour. The first time I saw this, I thought there were distinct homoerotic undertones, and I felt that again after a second viewing. Segal obviously has feelings of inadequacy that his gambling helps him overcome, or at least forget. From where does that sense of inadequacy spring? Several moments in the film -- mention of a failed marriage, his reaction to someone calling him a "faggot," an aborted attempt at lovemaking with a ditzy hooker -- suggest that Segal's character has homosexual tendencies that he's trying to suppress, or at the very least that his shaky sense of his own manhood suggests to HIM that he has homosexual tendencies.
This isn't really fleshed out in the movie, but then nothing else is either. "California Split" feels like a warm up to Altman's masterpiece, "Nashville," released a year later, but it doesn't have that movie's sense of scope or amazing cast of characters, so it feels underdeveloped and lightweight.
Still, it kept me interested for 105 minutes, and it is a fascinating look into the chronic gambler's mind, if nothing else.
Grade: B
My second favorite movie about gamblers
pmtelefon14 January 2019
"California Split" always hits the spot. I have to admit that the first time I watched it I had a little trouble understanding all of the dialogue. It's not a problem for me any more. Elliot Gould and George Segal both give great performances. The rest of the cast is also very strong. I do, however, have a problem with one scene. That scene is the Bert Remsen scene. It's not the fault of the always steady Remsen. It's with the tone of the scene. It's supposed to be funny but it's not. It's mean. It's uncomfortable to watch. If Robert Altman had cut that scene out "California Split", it would be my favorite gambler movie. As for now, 1989's "Let It Ride' holds that title.
Loved it!
ledzepp46116 April 2002
I was also lucky enough to see this one on the big screen a couple weeks ago. When I first saw Elliot Gould in The Long Goodbye I thought "This guy can't seriously be considered a great actor." However, after seeing him in M*A*SH, California Split, and again in The Long Goodbye, I realized that the lazy, slob-like attitude is what makes him such a great actor...he is a reflection of US. We are not watching some typical Hollywood actor pretending to be something he is not. Gould's acting is as real and pure as acting can be. We are watching ourselves on screen when we watch Gould.
That being said, Gould is magnificent in California Split as a sleazy gambling addict. I agree with a previous poster that the Altman/Gould combo is stellar! Go see this one if you get the chance!!
That being said, Gould is magnificent in California Split as a sleazy gambling addict. I agree with a previous poster that the Altman/Gould combo is stellar! Go see this one if you get the chance!!
Altman in his 1970s prime; a gambler-movie classic
Quinoa198417 April 2007
California Split provides a couple of stellar performances through Robert Altman's direction. George Segal, who is an actor I'm not too familiar with (I never watched the TV show 'Just Shoot Me' or his other 70s movies), but here is very believable as the down-on-his-luck Bill Denny, a sometimes magazine writer who can be spotted at the track or in a poker room more often than in his office. He's befriended by Charlie Waters (Elliot Gould), a character who is at first seemingly just that, a real 'character' kind of guy. Gould is terrific at playing Charlie as a fast-talking', smooth-dealing kind of clever player, who sometimes makes bets as arbitrary as the names of the seven dwarfs. He, like Bill, makes bets and usually wins, but then still tries to talk down how much the mugger who robs him in the parking lot should take. He and Bill sort of go aimlessly around through most of the first half of the film, with the only sort of conflict coming up- as opposed to a driving force in the plot- being that Bill owes a lot of money to his bookie, which he has to earn up in Reno. By the end, however, there's something about the gambler's life that is left on a bittersweet note.
The two lead males are contrasted against actresses Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles, who are not really elaborated on much as characters aside from being possible hustlers or prostitutes of some sort. There's even a touching, ironic scene where Welles tries to seduce Segal, but to no avail on either side. Even in the quiet scenes with the main characters, Altman and writer Walsh are adept to make these characters seem always believable, even in their seedy, desperate mannerisms and leaps of thought. They know they mindset and lifestyle of the gambler (both, according to the press notes, were affluent with not only card games but the nature of the gambling man and how he goes about his business). Sometimes the aimless quality about the first half is very funny, Gould's performance especially as the opposite of Segal's straight-laced and high-strung character. Other times there's a scene or two that seem unneeded or a little oddly put in, like an inexplicable scene where a transvestite comes to call at Charlie's place to proposition the ladies, I think, only to get swindled again by the Charlie and Bill. Such scenes though are meant for simple character lift, albeit not totally satisfying when compared to other scenes.
But to see an Altman film, any Altman film, is to see a piece of what Altman at the 2006 Oscars called "one very long body of work." In viewing California Split, I'm reminded as well of how substance, in a matter of speaking, trumps style. It's not that Altman doesn't have some kind of distinct visual style, in general I mean (it becomes, truth be told, more distinct in Nashville and 3 Women). But in several during his career like MASH or Prairie Home Companion, his style doesn't go for being anything more than that of a straightforward, practically objective storyteller, getting the multi-character scenes and layered spots of dialog and conversation without getting in the way. It's almost ironic for the sake of what's going on; his style evokes Howard Hawks's knack of storytelling in the visual sense, of being the unobtrusive sort. But it's in the substance that's different, because Altman isn't really interested in the conventions of stories. He's after character, mood, the little moments in the midst of conversations. He's a great director of actors and of setting, if nothing else.
For the most part, California Split is splendid at telling more about the nature of the mind-set, of the attitude and near existentialism of gambling than any specific story; there aren't any real contrivances holding these characters to the necessities of the script. And the ending gives a few really good questions to ponder: what does winning really mean after going through so much as a loser? Is there a catharsis, or one worthwhile? Altman handles this mood and these characters like a pro, with the end result being one of the most fascinating, unconventional and entertaining films made about the small, maligned world of gamblers.
The two lead males are contrasted against actresses Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles, who are not really elaborated on much as characters aside from being possible hustlers or prostitutes of some sort. There's even a touching, ironic scene where Welles tries to seduce Segal, but to no avail on either side. Even in the quiet scenes with the main characters, Altman and writer Walsh are adept to make these characters seem always believable, even in their seedy, desperate mannerisms and leaps of thought. They know they mindset and lifestyle of the gambler (both, according to the press notes, were affluent with not only card games but the nature of the gambling man and how he goes about his business). Sometimes the aimless quality about the first half is very funny, Gould's performance especially as the opposite of Segal's straight-laced and high-strung character. Other times there's a scene or two that seem unneeded or a little oddly put in, like an inexplicable scene where a transvestite comes to call at Charlie's place to proposition the ladies, I think, only to get swindled again by the Charlie and Bill. Such scenes though are meant for simple character lift, albeit not totally satisfying when compared to other scenes.
But to see an Altman film, any Altman film, is to see a piece of what Altman at the 2006 Oscars called "one very long body of work." In viewing California Split, I'm reminded as well of how substance, in a matter of speaking, trumps style. It's not that Altman doesn't have some kind of distinct visual style, in general I mean (it becomes, truth be told, more distinct in Nashville and 3 Women). But in several during his career like MASH or Prairie Home Companion, his style doesn't go for being anything more than that of a straightforward, practically objective storyteller, getting the multi-character scenes and layered spots of dialog and conversation without getting in the way. It's almost ironic for the sake of what's going on; his style evokes Howard Hawks's knack of storytelling in the visual sense, of being the unobtrusive sort. But it's in the substance that's different, because Altman isn't really interested in the conventions of stories. He's after character, mood, the little moments in the midst of conversations. He's a great director of actors and of setting, if nothing else.
For the most part, California Split is splendid at telling more about the nature of the mind-set, of the attitude and near existentialism of gambling than any specific story; there aren't any real contrivances holding these characters to the necessities of the script. And the ending gives a few really good questions to ponder: what does winning really mean after going through so much as a loser? Is there a catharsis, or one worthwhile? Altman handles this mood and these characters like a pro, with the end result being one of the most fascinating, unconventional and entertaining films made about the small, maligned world of gamblers.
Quirky fun when the spirits are high
moonspinner5523 May 2021
The colorfully eccentric, often salty and irascible gamblers at various casinos and racetracks (and at least one boxing match) set the tone for this Robert Altman-directed drama about two gambling addicts and buddies who chase the cards-and-craps games from Los Angeles to Reno. Elliott Gould is the pie-eyed dreamer, a guy who can bet on horses all day and play poker all night (life is a party for him, even when he loses); George Segal shares similar qualities but is deep in debt and on a downward spiral. The acrid milieu is wonderfully vivid, and the sideline characters who supply the overlapping voices and funny bits of business are as important to that milieu as are the stars. There really isn't much of a story, though the episodes are fun when tempers don't flare up too high (there are a few ugly encounters, and one robbery too many). Joseph Walsh is credited with writing the screenplay (and reportedly collaborated on an early draft of the script with his friend, Steven Spielberg), yet one gets the feeling much of this dialogue is personality and director-driven. If so, Walsh got the last laugh with a WGA nomination for Best Original Comedy.
Split takes the whole pot
bostonred21 October 2000
An amazing sleeper, one that you will appreciate more with each viewing (if you can find it). George Segal and the amazing Elliot Gould perfectly portray the ups and downs, the manic lifestyle that masks the unhappiness of the degenerate gambler. The energy pours off the screen in a series of seemingly free-lanced scenes. You will always remember the poker games, the basketball con, the racetrack and casinos. But most memorable are all the wonderful minor characters; the girlfriends, the bookmaker and even a thief. Most unforgettable to me are Barbara Ruick as the Reno poker game barmaid and Phyllis Shotwell as the quintessential Vegas lounge act. A movie with nonstop action filled with humor and sadness, affection and apathy, all the way to its unrelenting end!
California SPLIT (Robert Altman, 1974) ***
Bunuel197623 August 2006
THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) notwithstanding, my own lack of interest for (and knowledge about) the game of poker - though, as it turns out, it deals with a number of other activities (boxing, basketball, casinos, horse races) where gambling is rife - and my mistaken impression that it was a minor film has kept me away from this one several times on Italian TV but when Sony opted to put it out-of-print, I decided to give it a try regardless.
Well, while it was as easy-going, rambling and plot less as I had been anticipating, it was also surprisingly compelling and very enjoyable. George Segal and Elliott Gould are perfectly cast as the two gamblers forever searching for that elusive winning streak. Segal is the more cautious of the two who, despite run-ins with bullying bookmakers and muggers, invariably finds himself sucked into another bet by his optimistic partner but, by the end of it, even if his luck does turn around, he is a hollow man yearning to return home to his uncomplicated lifestyle as a columnist for a magazine.
I can certainly understand why Elliott Gould took it upon himself to personally ask Sony what was holding up the release of this film on DVD as he is simply terrific and so charismatic in the film as the fast-talking schemer, who thinks nothing of leaving his partner and girlfriend at a moment's notice and relocate to Mexico for a week just because he had had a dream of him winning it big over there and they weren't in it! This was Altman's first experiment with "multi-track" recording (in which various conversations going on at once overlap on each other and create a cacophonous muddle of a soundtrack!) which would henceforth become a trademark of his. Likewise, the director allows his actors the freedom to improvise and open up their characters leading to some memorable routines: betting that they can remember the names of all of Snow White's seven dwarfs (and its hilarious punchline), the ebullient dance Segal bursts into after his first meeting with Gould, etc.
The film also offers notable roles to Altman regular Gwen Welles (as Segal's sensitive girlfriend), screenwriter Joseph Walsh (as Segal's flustered bookmaker), Ed Walsh (as a bad loser who beats both of the leads up after a game, though Gould eventually manages to get back at him) and Bert Remsen (as a transvestite who gets booked by Segal and Gould posing as members of the Vice Squad); it was also Jeff Goldblum's film debut (as Segal's boss!). Besides, its vivid milieu is effectively created through the use of real-life gamblers and addicts.
An unfortunate result of the film's DVD release, however, was the loss of some three minutes of footage (condoned by Altman himself) because some of the music rights could not be cleared; though considerable changes - listed on "DVD Beaver" - appear to have been made, since I had never watched the film before I wasn't affected by them!
Well, while it was as easy-going, rambling and plot less as I had been anticipating, it was also surprisingly compelling and very enjoyable. George Segal and Elliott Gould are perfectly cast as the two gamblers forever searching for that elusive winning streak. Segal is the more cautious of the two who, despite run-ins with bullying bookmakers and muggers, invariably finds himself sucked into another bet by his optimistic partner but, by the end of it, even if his luck does turn around, he is a hollow man yearning to return home to his uncomplicated lifestyle as a columnist for a magazine.
I can certainly understand why Elliott Gould took it upon himself to personally ask Sony what was holding up the release of this film on DVD as he is simply terrific and so charismatic in the film as the fast-talking schemer, who thinks nothing of leaving his partner and girlfriend at a moment's notice and relocate to Mexico for a week just because he had had a dream of him winning it big over there and they weren't in it! This was Altman's first experiment with "multi-track" recording (in which various conversations going on at once overlap on each other and create a cacophonous muddle of a soundtrack!) which would henceforth become a trademark of his. Likewise, the director allows his actors the freedom to improvise and open up their characters leading to some memorable routines: betting that they can remember the names of all of Snow White's seven dwarfs (and its hilarious punchline), the ebullient dance Segal bursts into after his first meeting with Gould, etc.
The film also offers notable roles to Altman regular Gwen Welles (as Segal's sensitive girlfriend), screenwriter Joseph Walsh (as Segal's flustered bookmaker), Ed Walsh (as a bad loser who beats both of the leads up after a game, though Gould eventually manages to get back at him) and Bert Remsen (as a transvestite who gets booked by Segal and Gould posing as members of the Vice Squad); it was also Jeff Goldblum's film debut (as Segal's boss!). Besides, its vivid milieu is effectively created through the use of real-life gamblers and addicts.
An unfortunate result of the film's DVD release, however, was the loss of some three minutes of footage (condoned by Altman himself) because some of the music rights could not be cleared; though considerable changes - listed on "DVD Beaver" - appear to have been made, since I had never watched the film before I wasn't affected by them!
PLEASE SHUT UP FOR A SECOND
Stay_away_from_the_Metropol28 July 2020
I pretty much despised this movie. A couple of obnoxious, bumbling idiots yell over each other for nearly 2 hours. They're addicted to gambling, but otherwise there is no plot whatsoever. There is no conflict outside of trying not to get in the hole financially due to gambling losses. There are no intriguing themes or character arcs to keep you interested, unless you connect with these types of annoying humans that never shut up, or are that into gambling yourself? These characters remind me of the type of people that I cannot stand being in a room with for longer than 5 minutes. They never stop talking for a second, even if they have nothing worth saying. It feels like it's supposed to be a "buddy film" but if both of the "buddies" are unbearable, then it's hard to make an enjoyable film out of it. It's ok for a film to be plotless if it has a unique or effective atmosphere or mood, but the only mood this movie conjures is irritation.
I read that California Split was the first film to ever use an experimental eight-track sound system for the audio mix, which Altman used to go all the way in with the overlapping of dialogue. Well, it was effective, but only in the sense that it makes you want to turn the volume way down or turn the movie off completely. This all reminded me of last year's UNCUT GEMS, which was the only movie in the history of my 35 years of existence to ever make me nauseous, which was primarily a result of the exact same style of dialogue, only for 2 hours and 20 minutes rather than 1 hour and 50 minutes. The main difference is that UNCUT GEMS had a lot of redeeming values whereas this film has almost zero. Aside from a few goofy jokes from Elliott Gould here and there, some spacey women with good vibes, and a fun scene where a restroom fight interrupts an innocent man just trying to take a poo, there was absolutely nothing that I enjoyed about this movie.
I recently watched Robert Altman's newly restored 1972 film. IMAGES, and fell completely in love with it, so I figured I would explore more of his works from the same era. This one was streaming free on Amazon Prime and had a pretty high rating on IMDb so I figured I'd give it a shot next. I can definitely say it is my least favorite Altman film I have seen. I'm a huge fan of 3 WOMEN and IMAGES. I remember loving THE LONG GOODBYE but I haven't seen it since film school (that was 16 years ago). I really dug THE PLAYER and SHORT CUTS. NASHVILLE and GOSFORD PARK didn't do anything for me. This is the first one I have straight up DISLIKED...and strongly.
I read that California Split was the first film to ever use an experimental eight-track sound system for the audio mix, which Altman used to go all the way in with the overlapping of dialogue. Well, it was effective, but only in the sense that it makes you want to turn the volume way down or turn the movie off completely. This all reminded me of last year's UNCUT GEMS, which was the only movie in the history of my 35 years of existence to ever make me nauseous, which was primarily a result of the exact same style of dialogue, only for 2 hours and 20 minutes rather than 1 hour and 50 minutes. The main difference is that UNCUT GEMS had a lot of redeeming values whereas this film has almost zero. Aside from a few goofy jokes from Elliott Gould here and there, some spacey women with good vibes, and a fun scene where a restroom fight interrupts an innocent man just trying to take a poo, there was absolutely nothing that I enjoyed about this movie.
I recently watched Robert Altman's newly restored 1972 film. IMAGES, and fell completely in love with it, so I figured I would explore more of his works from the same era. This one was streaming free on Amazon Prime and had a pretty high rating on IMDb so I figured I'd give it a shot next. I can definitely say it is my least favorite Altman film I have seen. I'm a huge fan of 3 WOMEN and IMAGES. I remember loving THE LONG GOODBYE but I haven't seen it since film school (that was 16 years ago). I really dug THE PLAYER and SHORT CUTS. NASHVILLE and GOSFORD PARK didn't do anything for me. This is the first one I have straight up DISLIKED...and strongly.
Altman makes the camera disappear in a movie about gambling that still feels fresh 35 years later
chaos-rampant4 September 2008
It's surprising how little known California Split is but even in a career filled with great movies such as Robert Altman's it deserves more recognition. It is Altman the auteur in top form, his quirks and distinctive traits that separate him from all directors of his time emblazoned over every minute of this delightful mixture of comedy and drama.
It's the handling of the subject matter that makes the difference. Sure this is not the first movie to be made about the compulsiveness of gambling and people trying to find meaning and pleasure in empty addictions but it is such a fresh and enjoyable movie one has to sit down and take notice. What makes it work so well? I'll say the success rests on a combination of three things: the infectious chemistry between the two leads Elliot Gould (in a hilarious role) and George Seagal; the fully realized world Altman creates for his characters; and that overall the movie is capable of both belly-laughs and profound sadness but it is always subtle, never says anything more than it has to, leaving just enough for the viewer to participate. Even the bitter aftertaste of the ending is never expanded more than two or three lines and a look on Seagal and Gould's faces and it's then counterpointed with a spin of the wheel and a sweet jazz song as the end credits begin to roll.
This combination of those three things ultimately achieves the most important and difficult thing for any director to master: to make the camera disappear. This is not the first time Altman succeeds in doing so but California Split is still a very good indication of the craftsman at the top of his talent.
The gambling world here is not the glitzy and glossy Las Vegas of Ocean's 11 or Four of a Kind - not it is for gambling movies what The Long Goodbye was for neo-noir. A look inside a crummy, cheap world without prospects and the rent's running. It makes perfect sense then that the last act takes place in Reno and not Vegas and that the bleachy look of Paul Lohmann's cinematography (no Vilmos Zsigmond this time) reflects that there's no glamour to be had here.
It's the handling of the subject matter that makes the difference. Sure this is not the first movie to be made about the compulsiveness of gambling and people trying to find meaning and pleasure in empty addictions but it is such a fresh and enjoyable movie one has to sit down and take notice. What makes it work so well? I'll say the success rests on a combination of three things: the infectious chemistry between the two leads Elliot Gould (in a hilarious role) and George Seagal; the fully realized world Altman creates for his characters; and that overall the movie is capable of both belly-laughs and profound sadness but it is always subtle, never says anything more than it has to, leaving just enough for the viewer to participate. Even the bitter aftertaste of the ending is never expanded more than two or three lines and a look on Seagal and Gould's faces and it's then counterpointed with a spin of the wheel and a sweet jazz song as the end credits begin to roll.
This combination of those three things ultimately achieves the most important and difficult thing for any director to master: to make the camera disappear. This is not the first time Altman succeeds in doing so but California Split is still a very good indication of the craftsman at the top of his talent.
The gambling world here is not the glitzy and glossy Las Vegas of Ocean's 11 or Four of a Kind - not it is for gambling movies what The Long Goodbye was for neo-noir. A look inside a crummy, cheap world without prospects and the rent's running. It makes perfect sense then that the last act takes place in Reno and not Vegas and that the bleachy look of Paul Lohmann's cinematography (no Vilmos Zsigmond this time) reflects that there's no glamour to be had here.
No doubt Altman based this on his own experience.
lee_eisenberg5 December 2005
"California Split" portrays compulsive gamblers Bill Denny (George Segal) and Charlie Walters (Elliott Gould). By compulsive, I mean that these guys gamble on EVERYTHING. Needless to say, it occasionally gets them in trouble, to the point where they have to go in for a final showdown.
Robert Altman actually used to have a gambling problem, so I'm assuming that he based this movie on what he experienced during those years. Anyway, it's as relevant today as it was in 1974, a look into the gambling world. Segal and Gould do a good job, as does the supporting cast (including a then-unknown Jeff Goldblum).
Robert Altman actually used to have a gambling problem, so I'm assuming that he based this movie on what he experienced during those years. Anyway, it's as relevant today as it was in 1974, a look into the gambling world. Segal and Gould do a good job, as does the supporting cast (including a then-unknown Jeff Goldblum).
Altman's most loose-limbed movie.
MOscarbradley21 March 2020
"California Split" is Robert Altman's most loose-limbed movie. It's a virtually plotless look at at a couple of gambling buddies, (Elliot Gould and George Segal, both superb), coasting from day to day, losing as much as they win, filmed with so much over-lapping dialogue that conversations seem to disappear into the ether. It's also one of the great movies to explore friendships between men with one foot in the mainstream and the other in the experimental. Consequently, it wasn't really a success, either critically or commercially. Despite the drawing power of its leads people just didn't seem to know what to make of it. It's certainly a brilliant piece of film-making and its lack of structure makes it one of the most 'Altmanesque' of Altman films. It may not be in the very first tier but it still knocks spots of the best of almost anyone else.
Bob Altman le Flambeur
jzappa26 June 2010
Two guys meet in a California poker parlor. They did not know one another before, and they don't know much about one another now, yet they know all they need to know: They're both compulsive gamblers, and the extent of the universe of gambling match the extent of the universe they care anything about. It is an insular world and a flat one, and they are always menaced with careening over the tipping point. They're the lions of this rambling, non-judgmental film by Robert Altman. Their names are Bill and Charlie, and they're played by Elliott Gould and George Segal with candid realism and unadulterated fussy weariness. We don't require any knowledge about gambling to grasp the adventure they pursue to the tracks, to the private poker parties, to the bars, to Vegas, to the gallows of failure, to the scene of triumph. Their obsession is so vigorous that it moves us along.
The disparity is between the deadened nomad of George Segal as opposed to the hysterical burlesque that Elliott Gould drifts through to obscure his hopelessness. We're amused by their hangovers, their bruises nursed with hot shaving cream, the loopy part-time prostitutes who supply them with breakfasts of Froot Loops and beer. We coast smoothly through the racket of their friends, nonchalantly presented through Altman's penchant for overlapping dialogue and downplayed visual openers, so that we're not so much shown new characters as guided to suppose we were already familiar with them. And since Joseph Walsh's screenplay is amusing and Segal and Gould are genuinely engrossing, we have a good time.
However then there are scenes that assume darker implications, like at one point, at the craggy fringe of sleep, inebriated, conquer, Bill and Charlie stick hopelessly to a bar and rather gravely bet with one another on the names of the Seven Dwarfs. And at another time, trapped with their winnings in yet another parking lot by yet another mugger, this one armed, they hand over half their winnings and bet him that's all they have. As California Split rambles along we find that Altman has not made a farce about gambling. He's taken us into an American vision, and all the people we met along the way felt and looked authentic. This movie smacks of a musty rotating fan.
As always, Altman stocks his movie with eccentric peripheral characters, people who have by some means grown to parody themselves. At the exclusive poker game, Gould stands at the bar, analyzes the table, and in a whisper sizes up each player. He's correct about them, but he and we have never seen them before. We know he's right as these people bear their idiosyncrasies and fates on their faces. So do the hookers played with a sort of kindheartedness by Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles. So does one of their customers who's a middle-aged man who likes drag as much as he's frightened of the cops causing a scene painfully mixed of tragic and comic character. Altman's movies invariably appear brimming and abundant, one way or another. We don't have the sense of a stationary screen into which painstakingly delineated characters are inducted single-file as much as a camera delving into a simmering surf of berserk civilized commotion.
I also saw The Long Goodbye just before this, which looks like a noir, sounds like a noir, but it's not a noir. I don't know what California Split looks and sounds like, certainly not a comedy, but in its own weird, subversive way, it is a comedy. What Altman comes up with is occasionally a sense of naturalism. At the end of California Split we've seen something about organized gambling in this country we hadn't seen before. He draws his visual approach from a deeply conscientious soundtrack, employing ambient sound with painstaking delicacy so that our ears inform us we're moving through these people, rather than that they're taking turns talking to us. Indeed, this is the first film ever to use eight-track stereo sound that wasn't shot in Cinerama. It worked.
Interesting Tidbit: The Tongue of the Great Blue Whale Weighs More Than a Full-Grown African Elephant.
The disparity is between the deadened nomad of George Segal as opposed to the hysterical burlesque that Elliott Gould drifts through to obscure his hopelessness. We're amused by their hangovers, their bruises nursed with hot shaving cream, the loopy part-time prostitutes who supply them with breakfasts of Froot Loops and beer. We coast smoothly through the racket of their friends, nonchalantly presented through Altman's penchant for overlapping dialogue and downplayed visual openers, so that we're not so much shown new characters as guided to suppose we were already familiar with them. And since Joseph Walsh's screenplay is amusing and Segal and Gould are genuinely engrossing, we have a good time.
However then there are scenes that assume darker implications, like at one point, at the craggy fringe of sleep, inebriated, conquer, Bill and Charlie stick hopelessly to a bar and rather gravely bet with one another on the names of the Seven Dwarfs. And at another time, trapped with their winnings in yet another parking lot by yet another mugger, this one armed, they hand over half their winnings and bet him that's all they have. As California Split rambles along we find that Altman has not made a farce about gambling. He's taken us into an American vision, and all the people we met along the way felt and looked authentic. This movie smacks of a musty rotating fan.
As always, Altman stocks his movie with eccentric peripheral characters, people who have by some means grown to parody themselves. At the exclusive poker game, Gould stands at the bar, analyzes the table, and in a whisper sizes up each player. He's correct about them, but he and we have never seen them before. We know he's right as these people bear their idiosyncrasies and fates on their faces. So do the hookers played with a sort of kindheartedness by Ann Prentiss and Gwen Welles. So does one of their customers who's a middle-aged man who likes drag as much as he's frightened of the cops causing a scene painfully mixed of tragic and comic character. Altman's movies invariably appear brimming and abundant, one way or another. We don't have the sense of a stationary screen into which painstakingly delineated characters are inducted single-file as much as a camera delving into a simmering surf of berserk civilized commotion.
I also saw The Long Goodbye just before this, which looks like a noir, sounds like a noir, but it's not a noir. I don't know what California Split looks and sounds like, certainly not a comedy, but in its own weird, subversive way, it is a comedy. What Altman comes up with is occasionally a sense of naturalism. At the end of California Split we've seen something about organized gambling in this country we hadn't seen before. He draws his visual approach from a deeply conscientious soundtrack, employing ambient sound with painstaking delicacy so that our ears inform us we're moving through these people, rather than that they're taking turns talking to us. Indeed, this is the first film ever to use eight-track stereo sound that wasn't shot in Cinerama. It worked.
Interesting Tidbit: The Tongue of the Great Blue Whale Weighs More Than a Full-Grown African Elephant.
Pick a Winner
ed_two_o_nine8 July 2008
This a strange movie that is no means bad but was not riveting either. I came across the film on late night TV having no previous knowledge of it, but it did immediately have that loose Robert Altman feel. The movie is the story of Elliot Gould and George Seagal two compulsive gamblers who meet by chance and form a friendship. There is not that much in the way of a narrative this is more a study of compulsion and the effect it has on people and the seedy world they are forced to habit. Elliot Gould gives a good performance that is well supported by Seagal and the range of supporting characters are good especially the pair of prostitutes. All in all this is not a great movie but well worth a watch and I would certainly give it another go.
an underestimated gem
yohav235 July 2003
a truly wonderful Altman film, in the same vein as the Long Goodbye, McCabe and Mrs Miller and of course Nashville, the culmination of the first part of his career and of a certain kind of American cinema in general. Stand-out performances and improvisations by Gould and Segal. Definitely worth rediscovering
Maybe this is splitting hairs a bit....
mythical_meadow21 February 2005
I couldn't believe it when this came out on DVD. This film, to my knowledge, was never even released commercially on VHS. So, a couple of years ago, wanting to view the movie again (which I hadn't seen since the mid 1970s), I bought a bootleg VHS copy off of e-bay. It was a crappy copy (the movie is sort of grainy looking anyway, like a lot of early 70s movies) but I was grateful to re-live the experience, and it pretty well lived up to my expectations (especially the "one-armed piccolo player" scene, which must be one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen). Anyway, when it came out on DVD, needless to say I nabbed it pretty quickly. However, upon watching it on DVD, I noticed at least one discrepancy from the original version - the absence of Phyllis Shotwell's rendition of "Kansas City". Does anybody know why this was left out? I personally have no idea. I have not listened to the audio commentary yet, but perhaps they might mention it. Anyway, this minor criticism aside, this is a great, funny movie with possibly the most naturalistic-feeling acting and dialogue ever achieved; and personally I find it better than M.A.S.H. in terms of humour and character depth. I don't know why this movie is so under-rated. I admit, I would have preferred a more upbeat ending, but you can't have everything.
The grubby side of gambling addiction
planktonrules25 July 2021
I know that many critics adore the films of Robert Altman. While I have enjoyed some of his films, I have never understood the appeal of many of his movies...including the latest I watched, "California Split".
The movie's style makes it look like the movie is pretty much scriptless....something some Altman fans love...but this, along with the incredible unlikability of the two leads make this a difficult film.
It begins with Bill and Charlie (George Segal and Elliot Gould) playing poker and both winning. However, as the two new acquaintances leave with their money, they lose it even more quickly as they are jumped an beaten up...something that seems to happen a lot to these guys. And, the movie follows them as they go to racetracks as well as Reno...pushing for that big payoff that will bail them out of debt.
The film features a lot of grubby, unlikable sorts...the sorts of folks who are not much fun to watch. Overall, a very unpleasant sort of picture...one that at least does show the very ugly side of addiction. But fun to watch? You have to be kidding!
By the way, if you did watch this film, do you have any idea WHY the pair were arrested after they were beaten and robbed early in the movie? I really didn't understand this.
The movie's style makes it look like the movie is pretty much scriptless....something some Altman fans love...but this, along with the incredible unlikability of the two leads make this a difficult film.
It begins with Bill and Charlie (George Segal and Elliot Gould) playing poker and both winning. However, as the two new acquaintances leave with their money, they lose it even more quickly as they are jumped an beaten up...something that seems to happen a lot to these guys. And, the movie follows them as they go to racetracks as well as Reno...pushing for that big payoff that will bail them out of debt.
The film features a lot of grubby, unlikable sorts...the sorts of folks who are not much fun to watch. Overall, a very unpleasant sort of picture...one that at least does show the very ugly side of addiction. But fun to watch? You have to be kidding!
By the way, if you did watch this film, do you have any idea WHY the pair were arrested after they were beaten and robbed early in the movie? I really didn't understand this.
In the details
mockturtle28 December 2002
As usual, the greatness in Altman comes in the unexpected nuances: the perfect Las Vegas lounge act, with Elliott Gould putting in his repartee like joining a musical theatre number onstage. George Segal "getting down to the oldies" may date the film, along with his sweaters, but this is an enjoyable and surprising movie that exposes the hollowness and joylessness of compulsion without getting all holy about it. The younger working girl's search for feeling with her endless succession of tricks is a more easily noticeable parallel to what emerges as the film's core: George Segal's character finding his capacity for change. The shenanigan with Gould, Segal and the cross dresser strays dangerously close to outtakes from MASH. The film's greatest moment, aside from the surprisingly shattering denouement coming two minutes later, is when Segal has run from $2000 to $82,000. He's rolling everything right at the craps table when this little pea brained moron comes up and puts $1 on the seven. Elliott Gould offers to throw a hundred dollar chip at her to make her go away (if you don't know, the seven ends the streak and betting on it in the middle of a streak should be punishable by water torture). Sure enough, Segal rolls a seven and the streak ends. Everyone looks at the little moron and she says, "I don't care, it's my birthday and I won!" and picks up her $2. That is classic. Looking at Segal's performance you can see shades of what Ben Gazzarra would do decades later in Todd Solondz's "Happiness" as another man who doesn't feel anything.
Two for the road
bkoganbing10 November 2019
California Split to me is essentially a buddy film with a twist. The two men are
Elliott Gould and George Segal. Gould is a professional gambler lives by nothing
else. Segal is an occasional gambler who happens to get into a poker game at
a club with Gould.
A couple of good ole country boys who are losing bad to Gould get the mistaken notion that the guys are working together and give them a good ole beating in a parking lot. But that only cements the relationship.
This is a two person character study as Segal with a 9 to 5 job gets sucked into Gould's world. Can he rescue himself before it's too late because he's the only one who can.
California Split had two persons named Barbara who suffered tragedy. Barbara Colby was shot to death in a still unsolved homicide and Barbara Ruick died on set of a cerebral hemorrhage.
California Split is a great character study of the affects of gambling addiction. It's not a pretty sight with both Gould and Segal.
A couple of good ole country boys who are losing bad to Gould get the mistaken notion that the guys are working together and give them a good ole beating in a parking lot. But that only cements the relationship.
This is a two person character study as Segal with a 9 to 5 job gets sucked into Gould's world. Can he rescue himself before it's too late because he's the only one who can.
California Split had two persons named Barbara who suffered tragedy. Barbara Colby was shot to death in a still unsolved homicide and Barbara Ruick died on set of a cerebral hemorrhage.
California Split is a great character study of the affects of gambling addiction. It's not a pretty sight with both Gould and Segal.
California Split
henry8-314 December 2023
Amateur gambler Bill (George Segal) becomes friends with professional gambler Charlie (Elliott Gould) and together they wander through life gambling, risking all in the knowledge that they will win the big one.
Like so many other Altman films, this has a natural almost fly on the wall documentary feel to it as you wander from scene to scene mostly unable to follow what is being said given Altman's penchant for overlapping dialogue. It's enjoyable because of the great double act of Gould, gabbering away at a hundred miles an hour, so full of confidence and seemingly loving his exciting life and Segal, more reserved and unsure if this is the life for him. Probably underrated, if is extremely likeable.
Like so many other Altman films, this has a natural almost fly on the wall documentary feel to it as you wander from scene to scene mostly unable to follow what is being said given Altman's penchant for overlapping dialogue. It's enjoyable because of the great double act of Gould, gabbering away at a hundred miles an hour, so full of confidence and seemingly loving his exciting life and Segal, more reserved and unsure if this is the life for him. Probably underrated, if is extremely likeable.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
