Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

bombersflyup The King of Marvin Gardens like its predecessor "Five Easy Pieces" by the same director with Nicholson, isn't much of a film. A so called character study film, where nothing happens.Unfortunately I didn't know, otherwise I wouldn't of watched it. Anyway, the opening monologue by David was interesting, but the film was all down hill from there. The miss America pageant scene brought some joy, if only briefly. All the characters were mostly unlikable, Jason especially. Sally was the only one to show any real heart. It was all pretty pretentious, there wasn't anything here.

moonspinner55 Jack Nicholson plays the host of a radio talk-show program in Philadelphia who is reunited with Bruce Dern, his ne'er-do-well older brother, also a hustler and promoter for black gangsters, after Dern's been jailed in Atlantic City. Meeting Nicholson at the train station is Dern's aging mistress Ellen Burstyn, who is traveling with her comely stepdaughter. A dramatic acting exercise for the three stars is a cautious, interesting effort--but not an exciting one. Producer-director Bob Rafelson, who also originated the story with credited screenwriter Jacob Brackman, aligns all his shots with an artistically jaundiced eye but intentionally shows no heart. He and Brackman are careful to give their principal characters a fully-rounded background (we perceive that each of them has been through a hellish lot), and yet this story of family and unreachable dreams is sluggish and morose, filmed in wintry washed-out color by cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs. Some viewers are intellectually stimulated by Brackman's literate dialogue, and yet the film has been drained almost entirely of humor, so that Nicholson's nebbish (a man we might possibly connect with) merely seems a submissive malcontent, careful with his words but robotic and aloof. ** from ****

tieman64 A 1972 film by Bob Rafelson, "The King of Marvin Gardens" stars Jack Nicholson and Bruce Dern as a pair of brothers. Dern plays a fast-talking idealist, Nicholson plays a morose realist. The two gather in Atlantic City, where Dern attempts to convince his brother that an audacious business venture will prove profitable. Nicholson doesn't believe him.The political and social events of the 1960s and 70s eventually became catalysts for disillusionment. Within the space of a few years, a generation of Americans shifted from optimism, hope and idealism to disenchantment and distrust. "The King of Marvin Gardens", its title an ironic reference to one of the more exclusive properties on the Monopoly board game, captures this Zeitgeist well. Virtually every scene features our duo battling a landscape which refuses to actualise any and all dreams, before the film ends with a bloody climax in which our dreamers get shot down. This makes for grim viewing, but Nicholson's quietly engrossing, and Rafelson constructs a number of strong, surreal scenes.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Go Go Tales".

zetes Bob Rafelson's followup to Five Easy Pieces. It's a fascinating film that really does not succeed. Jack Nicholson stars as a late night radio personality who receives a call from his estranged brother (Bruce Dern) to bail him out of jail in Atlantic City. After he does so, Dern invites him in on a major real estate deal, buying up a small island in Hawaii. There's not much plot from there. The film progresses into a series of vignettes whose relation is often difficult to determine. Basically, Nicholson, Dern and Dern's two girlfriends, Ellen Burstyn and Julia Anne Robinson, hang around Atlantic City doing weird stuff. Each scene is entertaining enough by itself, but the film doesn't really build, climaxes with a typical 70s bummer and, sort of like Five Easy Pieces, ends on an evocative bit. Here, though, it doesn't have any real meaning. Everything about it seems like a really good movie, but it just doesn't add up to be anything in particular.