It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

"Peeper" is not a bad little film and it will fit the bill if you are looking for a time-passer. There are also parts of the film I really liked (such as the snappy dialog). But it's also a film that has problems. The plot seems derivative (very much like a reworking of "The Big Sleep"), the story is confusing and inconsistent and the actors seem to try their best with a plot that really seemed forced. Because of all this, I certainly will not heartily recommend it.The film is set in the 1940s and is introduced by an actor pretending to be Humphrey Bogart. The story itself then begins. A nutty guy (Michael Constantine) gets a private eye (Michael Caine) to take a case. He wants Caine to locate his long-lost daughter, as he wants to make her his heir. The trail leads to the Prendergast family and one of their two daughters MIGHT be the heiress. To complicate things, two thugs are on his tail and seem ready to kill him--and yet, inexplicably, each time Caine captures them he gives them a chance to escape instead of either turning them into the cops or shooting them. This actually frustrated the heck out of me--and again and again, Caine's character seemed to make dumb decisions. I hate films where you must accept the stupidity of the lead in order to make the plot workable! It's a shame, as Natalie Wood is gorgeous and Caine tries his best. It's just the case of a film that needed a re-write before it was actually made.

It's apparent from the beginning that this isn't going to be a true film noir spoof when a Bogart impersonator, after speaking the opening credits, quotes "Casablanca", which is not a film noir. Michael Caine, as a British private detective in Los Angeles, has too much going on in his office to take on the case searching for an adopted girl whose whereabouts he traces to the Pendergraast mansion in Beverly Hills. Encountering the sleazy Uncle (Thayer David) who refuses to divulge any information, he then finds two young women (Natalie Wood and Kitty Winn) and their trashy mother (Dorothy Adams) whom he questions to determine which one is the adopted member of the family. Of course, Caine ends up in several adventures with Wood, some other sleazy characters, and ultimately on a cruise ship where everything is (most convolutedly) revealed.I've seen hundreds of film noirs and many of the later day tributes ("Chinatown") and spoofs ("Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"), and this is probably one of the worst I have seen. It's certainly not Caine's fault-he is actually the only person in the film to retain their dignity. Natalie Wood is certainly no film noir femme fatale, and lacks true acting chops to take this character seriously. She brays and grins her way eerily throughout her entire performance, and while she is certainly beautiful, it is not a beauty that lights up on the screen. It's also disconcerting to see her on the cruise ship in the film's final with her real-life tragic demise (a few years away) set just miles from where this obviously took place.

This is one of those movies that is just immensely good fun. First of all, it has an excellent cast. Caine is wonderful as the world-weary London private eye adrift in Los Angeles. Michael Constantine, as the ex-con desperate to find his daughter, has never been better. Natalie is very good as the satin-clad femme fatale. And then there's the outstanding supporting cast. In a sense, this film is a tribute to character actors. Even the unappreciated Robert Ito shows up as the sinister Japanese butler.But even given the cast, what really shines is the W. D. Richter's script. Especially our hero's brilliant analysis of the location of a house based on the angle of the sun and the shadows it casts, followed by his discovery that: "I wasn't even close. It was in Beverly Hills."On the other hand, your favorite bit may be the Humphrey Bogart impersonator reciting the credits at the beginning of the film to the accompaniment of a lone trumpet (at least, that's how I remember it; actually, since the other reviewer and I seem to be the only people in the world who have actually seen this film, who's to argue?) It's a sad fact that Peeper has been dumped. It doesn't even appear on most filmographies of Michael Caine. It's not available on video in any form, and I have never seen it appear on television (maybe we can persuade The Mystery Channel to show it, if the tape hasn't disintegrated by now). So if there's a patron saint of forgotten films wandering around this site, why don't you see if you can nudge 20th Century Fox into releasing it. It deserves better.

I like this film. It has a bit of the old 40s, late 30s private eye aspect to it but Michael Caine in his unmistakable London accent puts a new twist on the tale, which includes the very lovely Natalie Wood. the film never clicked and it's now relegated to the back of the pile, no video, no DVD and something that might show up on the late show. But, hey! I liked it and suggest you check it out if it comes across your viewing circumstances.