SimonJack
When this movie came out in 1966, it was 10 years since Paul Newman's hit role in "Somebody Up There Likes Me." He was now a major Hollywood star. Newman was a versatile actor who could play well in any number of genres. In this action-crime thriller, he plays Lew Harper, a private eye. "Harper" is a complex mystery drama with a huge cast of prominent screen and stage names. Lauren Bacall plays Mrs. Sampson, Julie Harris is Betty Fraley, Janet Leigh is Susan Harper, Pamela Tiffin is Miranda Sampson and Shelley Winters if Fay Estabrook. On the male side, along with Newman, are Arthur Hill as Albert Graves, Robert Wagner as Allan Taggert, Robert Webber as Dwight Troy, Harold Gould as the sheriff and Strother Martin as Claude. All do very well in their roles.The movie is based on a 1949 novel by Kenneth Millar under his pen name, Ross Macdonald. The book title, "The Moving Target," is a good description of the film and the character of Harper. Macdonald's Harper is similar to the hard-boiled Sam Spade of Dashiell Hammett's "Maltese Falcon." But, Macdonald introduces a psychological twist in this story. And the script is peppered with short witticisms and sardonic comments by Harper.Here are some samples, beginning with my favorite exchange in the film. Miranda, "What do you do this kind of crummy work for anyway?" Harper, "What, are you trying to be funny? I do it because I believe in the United Nations, and Southeast Asia, and think it's funny if your life depends on what goes through the Panama Canal. What about the English pound? Tell you something, baby, so long as there's a Siberia, you'll find Lew Harper on the job." Miranda, "Are you putting me on?" Harper, "Geez, I didn't think so." (He looks away to hide his smile and keep from laughing.)Harper, "I used to be a sheriff until I passed my literacy test." Sheriff, "If I wanted to be ugly
" Harper, You are ugly." This is a first-rate detective mystery with plenty of action and intrigue. It's all the better because it isn't loaded down with gratuitous sex scenes that detract from the engaging story.
Armand
for atmosphere, performance of Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall nuances of character. for music - testimony about a period taste -, for humor and for the smart solutions to do a thriller very different by classic recipes. it is a special film for the courage to be smart one. and for the large dose of fresh air in a genre who seems have steel rules. a special film for its actors and director science of detail/nuances. and for the rare complex image of hero - short apparitions of Janet Leigh as inspired spice for story. a film who preserves flavor of old fashion of crime and few brilliant innovations who gives to it charm, color and role of precious memories seed.
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.
Chrysanthepop
Based on Ross MacDonald's book, Jack Smight's 'Harper' is a fine tribute to the 1940's noir genre. It's pretty much treated exactly like a noir film. The dialogues, characters, storyline and even the setup and use of actors contribute. The only exception is that this was made much later (and thus has a more 'modern' look) and it's in colour. Even though the characters are not fully developed and there are very few occasions when the plot got slightly confusing, the film succeeds in building tension and its element of surprise. Moreover it's a cool movie. Humour is also used effectively.Paul Newman's 'Harper' is quite a complex figure. He has women drooling all over him, yet all he wants is to win his ex-wife back. The portrayal of the women is also interesting. Although not all these characters are fully fleshed out, they all have their own struggles. Paul Newman plays the pàrt as though it was tailor made for him. Maybe it was. After all he gave the character his name. The actresses do a fine job too. Obviously, Lauren Bacall stands out (she's also the original femme fatale of the noire genre).Overall, 'Harper' is cool, fun, suspenseful and exciting. 'Too bad they don't make it like this anymore.
AD
