Very Cool!!!

One of the best films i have seen

Absolutely the worst movie.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Paul Newman exudes much of his trademark cool in the role of private eye Lew Harper, in this adaptation (by screenwriter William Goldman and director Jack Smight) of the novel "The Moving Target" by Ross MacDonald. Harper is hired by Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall) to find her missing husband, and discovers quite a few things. One of the most telling is that nobody really liked her husband, described by some as a cruel s.o.b. It would seem that Sampson got kidnapped, and there's no shortage of characters who wanted to be in on the action.The filmmakers here did their part in keeping private eye fiction alive and well in the sunny California of the 1960s. It's an intricately plotted story that keeps its audience on its toes. Among those dubious types encountered by Harper are Sampsons' seductive daughter Miranda (sexy Pamela Tiffin), jazz singer Betty Fraley (Julie Harris), bored gigolo Allan Taggert (Robert Wagner), and drunken former actress Fay Estabrook (Shelley Winters). The excellent collection of actors also includes Arthur Hill, as Harpers' gun-toting attorney friend, Janet Leigh as his estranged wife, Robert Webber as smooth criminal Dwight Troy, Harold Gould as a sheriff, Roy Jenson as a muscleman, and a memorable Strother Martin as a religious cult head.This film is a lot of fun to watch, and is an effective vehicle for Newman, whose Lew Harper is a very calm professional, a man who takes everything in stride. He'll do what has to be done to solve the case, and that extends to playing up to Ms. Estabrook. The screenplay has a respectable amount of witty and snappy dialogue, delivered breathlessly by this cast. In fact, on the whole "Harper" has an appreciable sense of humour.Newman had realized that his films that had started with the letter "H" had been lucrative ("The Hustler", "Hud") and it was his idea to change the name of his character from Lew Archer to Lew Harper, and to name the movie after this person. Almost a decade later, he returned to this part for the sequel "The Drowning Pool".Eight out of 10.

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.

In this tough guy detective movie, Paul Newman plays Lew Harper, an annoying Los Angeles cop investigating the case of a missing person, at the request of wealthy invalid, Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall).The film tries to be an updated 1940s noir film. Most of the various characters lie to Harper. People die. The detective gets beat up a little, but plods along, all determined. And through the slow-moving, muddled plot, somehow all the loose ends get wrapped up. But there's zero suspense and very little mystery. Production design is unappealing. And the background score is irritatingly hip and flighty. Funky, then-current dance fads render the film dated.Harper is not an appealing character. Smug, jaded, and pleased with himself, the character comes across as a cool dude, one who drives a snazzy, but quite ugly, sports car. He's in almost every scene. None of the other characters are interesting. Some of the dialogue is too clever to be believed. And you can see the end coming a mile away, the result mainly of poor acting.Indoor scenes are dark and drab. Outdoor driving scenes use antiquated rear-screen projection technique. The most interesting sequence, visually, is the one wherein Harper drives fast along a narrow dirt road on the crest of a mountain.My impression is that the film, mostly a cinematic vehicle for Newman, gets high marks from viewers who are attracted to all the big-name movie stars, and from people who drool over the lead actor. But the story is boring, cliché-ridden, and totally not interesting.

Despite his impersonations to learn more about the situation, Paul Newman, who gives a good performance, is not the suave, debonair detective that you would think that he would be in this film.The surprise performance here which is a good one is that of Julie Harris. She plays a drugged addicted lounge sisters who congers up a kidnap scheme with the pilot of the wealthy husband of Lauren Bacall.Shelley Winters, frumpy once again, is believable as the wife of the bad guy-Robert Webber.The film is good because it deals with the different situations involving the kidnapping of this wealthy businessman. There are many plot twists here as we come to see that there are plenty of evil people in the mix.