EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

ThiefHott Too much of everything

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

charlywiles Newman is absolutely terrific as clever, cynical private-eye Lew Harper and it is one of his very best roles. The cast also features Lauren Bacall, Robert Wagner and Arthur Hill, but it's Shelley Winters, as a boozy Hollywood has-been and Julie Harris, as a love-starved "musician," who really stand out in support. William Goldman's witty, intelligent script wonderfully adapts Ross Macdonald's novel "The Moving Target" and the film is a throwback to the Bogart/Raymond Chandler potboilers of the 1940's. The film is 1960's stylish, however, and helped to revive the detective genre for a new generation. It is just great fun and the movie's success, as well as films like "The Hustler" (1961) and "Hud" (1963), endeared Newman to film projects that began with the letter "H" (although that didn't seem to work with 1984's "Harry & Son"). The recent picture "The Nice Guys" (starring Russell Crowe) tried to recapture the magic of this film, but failed miserably.

romanorum1 Paul Newman, who was very popular in the 1960s, had a series run of successful "H" movies: "The Hustler" (1961), "Hud" (1963), "Harper" (1966), and "Hombre" (1967). "Harper" is based upon a Ross MacDonald book ("The Moving Target") about fictional private investigator Lew Archer of southern California. The movie cast is impressive enough, with old pros like Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Julie Harris, Shelley Winters, Strother Martin, and others working with Paul Newman's Lew Harper. It was said that the last name of Lew Archer was changed to Harper to satisfy Newman's insistence on another "H" movie. Lew Harper is a quite unorthodox private eye. Acerbically witty with one-liners, cynical, laid back, and friendless (except for the acquiescent Albert Graves = Arthur Hill) we find comedy as Harper struggles arising in the morning and going through the motions to get his body cranked up. Harper is estranged from wife Susan (Janet Leigh). Through lawyer Graves he is hired by jaded and invalid Elaine Samson (Lauren Bacall) to find her millionaire husband who has been missing for one day. But is the unlikeable (as we will learn) Ralph Samson worth the effort? Harper takes the job as he can use the cash. His California journeys take him across almost every eccentric personality that one can think of in a movie: a gigolo type (Robert Wagner), obese alcoholic actress well past her prime (Winters), spoiled teeny-bopper who likes to dance while standing on a pool diving board avec transistor radio – and with limited acting skills (Pam Tiffin), phony religious cult leader (Martin), drug addict lounge lizard (Harris), and enforcer/strong men (Robert Webber and Roy Jenson). There are also illegal aliens and just about the most clueless state police force ever seen on the silver screen. Now Harper has to discover just what each of these characters knows and to piece the puzzle together. The plot, though, is ultimately rather thin. The most interesting scene occurs when Elaine Harper spears the sunny-side eggs.Newman plays the cocky character well. And he has many funny lines, like the following scenarios: At a bar he tells the bartender, "Keep the change." The bartender replies that there isn't any. Harper retorts, "Keep it anyway." Another line, to his lawyer: "The bottom is loaded with nice people, Albert. Only cream and bastards rise." And at the end: "Aw, hell!" Newman would reprise the Harper role nine years later in "The Drowning Pool."

tieman64 Released in 1966, "Harper" attempts to replicate the tone and style of early gum-shoe noirs. Predating the first wave of coloured neo-noirs ("Chandler", "Marlowe", "Chinatown" and "The Long Goodbye"), the film stars Paul Newman as a down-on-his-luck private detective. Lauren Bacall co-stars, her presence recalling the classic Bogart/Bacall pairings of the 1940s and 50s.Filled with the genre's usual assortment of villains, millionaires, femme fatales, lost lovers, kidnappings and ransoms, "Harper's" plot is entirely conventional. Its attempts to capture the tempo of the 1960s are also unintentionally funny, the film more camp than cool. Compared to the more radical noirs of the 1960s and early 70s ("The Spy Who Came In From The Cold", "Blow Up", late Hitchcock, early Pakula etc), "Harper's" positively archaic.6/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Cutter's Way", "Out of the Past" , "To Have and Have Not" and "Young Man With a Horn".

gerdeen-1 I'm a great admirer of Ross Macdonald's mystery novels (though I have not read the one on which "Harper" is based). And there's certainly a lot to like in this film, including Paul Newman's standout performance and the sunny sights and cool sounds of California in the 1960s. But in comparison to the noir classics of the 1940s, this one is rather weak.The problem is with the slow beginning. Harper is hired to find out whether a millionaire has disappeared. It's not even clear that the man is actually missing, let alone that he is in any danger. And for the first 40 minutes or so, nothing much happens, except that the detective meets various characters, none of whom seem terribly concerned about the possible mystery. It's easy for the viewer's attention to lag. Once the action starts, the plot is much more fun, but if you're like me, you'll find yourself unclear about some of the clues that were strewn around in the beginning. And you'll have to think back on just who some of these characters are, and how they are linked to one another. Truly cerebral mystery fans may get into "Harper" from the beginning. I respect their ability to do. But I think the movie would have been more enjoyable with some of its action and suspense coming earlier. If you find the first 40 minutes a bit unclear, try watching them again before you watch the rest of the film. If you're willing to do so.