JohnHowardReid Perfectly capturing the flavor and atmosphere of Ross McDonald's novel, "The Moving Target", this movie marks a great improvement on television director Jack Smight's first two movie efforts, namely "I'd Rather Be Rich" (1964) and "The Third Day" (1965). Of course, Smight does have a great cast here, including top-of-the- bill Paul Newman who is a brilliant selection for Lew Harper, and Lauren Bacall, making a welcome re-appearance on the big screen as Mrs. Sampson. The other acting credits are also top hat with Julie Harris, Janet Leigh, Pamela Tiffin and Shelley Winters vying for our attention.Incidentally, IMDb, Ross McDonald spells his name with a capital "D" – or at least he does just that in the British editions of his books!

Blake Peterson I've recently found that I like getting lost in a movie. I don't mean lost like totally confused, blindsided, dizzy, nauseous, a victim of cinematic vertigo: I mean lost in the way one could describe viewing "The Big Sleep" or "Inherent Vice", so ensnared in the labyrinthine tangles of the story that incomprehensibility doesn't seem like such a big deal after an hour or so. When dialogue and actors curl up into the most attention giving halves of your brain and seduce you, there, no matter how hard you try to fight back, isn't any going back. Life doesn't make much sense either, so why not give up skepticism to our greatest entertainers?"Harper" is a neo-noir made in the same mindset as the earlier mentioned "The Big Sleep". It is a sprawling mess of a detective movie we eventually give up on following. But, despite its increasing convulsions into the mind bending atrocities of what we call a plot twist, we can't help but be completely and utterly charmed by the postcard ready, noiry sprinklings of it all. Part of it has to do with Paul Newman, in his prime, giving Humphrey Bogart and Dick Powell a run for their money as a private dick who has long given up on caring about anything besides work. But the other part has to do with Jack Smight, who directs as though the plot isn't rough, as if nothing else matters besides sparkling conversation and memorable character bits. Movies like "Harper" are so alluring to me because everything we've come to know about cinema seems to be flipped onto its back. We have a tendency to think that every "good" film we ever see should be cohesive and popcorn ready; we forget about the unfortunate celluloid wasters who have the personality of a confused teenager or a depressed intellect. But "Harper" is a good film in ways we aren't so usually ready to accept. It isn't good because it is cohesive or popcorn ready: it's good because it seems to resonate even in its most head-scratching moments. Look at the way the actors interact, the way the script allows them to go from mocking politeness to brutal cat talk in the snap of a sharply manicured finger. Irresistible, isn't it, how much an actor beguiled by their material can turn into a fascinating oddity of art museum quality.There's a plot to be found here, but does it much matter? Newman portrays Lew Harper, a private eye so down on his luck that even alcohol couldn't temporarily fix his sorrows. His wife (Janet Leigh) is about to divorce him, he's sleeping in his office, and his business is so awful he can barely make ends meet. Don't be fooled by his handsome composure: underneath his smirk and befitting suits lies a deep hurt even he won't admit to himself. So thank God millionairess Elaine Sampson (Lauren Bacall) calls him up, offering large sums of money to locate her long gone husband, who is either off with another dame, or, heaven forbid, is in danger. It's been a long time since Harper undertook a case with such lurking complexities, but he takes the responsibility of ensuring Mr. Sampson's safety. What else is he to do? Machinations arise: what should have been a fairly straightforward hide-and-seek assignment grows steadily deadly as it appears that Harper's target was involved in things way over his head. Aiding him are Sampson's voluptuous daughter (Pamela Tiffin) and her untrustworthy boyfriend (Robert Wagner). A number of connections (including Shelley Winters, Julie Harris, Robert Webber, and Strother Martin) are deceptively interviewed and a number of double-crosses are made along the way — but, as it turns out, the truth can be found in the areas one originally wasn't going to consider.I could tell you the guy behind Sampson's disappearance (an unexpected shock, certainly!), but I couldn't manage to explain the dot-to-dot intricacies of the relationships between all the other characters that pump intrigue into "Harper"'s plot. But I don't care. The film has too popping of a personality to talk down to, and in an era where films were transitioning from wholesome filth to dreaded hippiedom, it's impressive that "Harper" is at once modern and a throwback. Sometimes it feels timeless, in others an account of a lost era of Californian noir underbellies.William Goldman's screenplay, as complicated as it is, is mostly lustrous, the dialogue written with such snap that it seems hard to find a line anything other than strictly hard- boiled. Not a problem. The actors all seem pleased with the material, even the ones (Shelley Winters, everybody) who have to ignore the self-loathing cool of their co-stars and play their roles melodramatically in order to make some sort of an impression. But the characterizations are seamless, with Goldman making such broad stereotypes as cult leaders, cooing femmes, has-been actresses, and junkie lounge singers seem straight out of a smoke lined detective novel. "Harper" isn't perfect, but one shouldn't automatically expect perfection coming from a detective movie obviously inspired by the convoluted roughness of "The Big Sleep". One should expect inner workings interesting in themselves. Nothing is placed on the table for us to devour. "Harper" isn't that obvious. It would rather us really listen to the words the characters spout out at such a quick pace, notice how sly and clever its central character is. And for that, I can hardly bear finding much fault in it.

AaronCapenBanner Jack Smight directed this stylish mystery that stars Paul Newman as Lew Harper, a small-time but smart private detective about to get a big case when he is hired by a Mrs. Sampson(played by Lauren Bacall) to find her missing husband. Harper was recommended to her by her lawyer and his best friend Albert Graves(played by Arthur Hill) who is in love with her stepdaughter Miranda(played by Pamela Tiffin) who doesn't take him seriously, but instead has her eyes set on a playboy named Taggart(played by Robert Wagner) who offers his assistance to Harper, which will be needed as it turns into a complicated kidnapping case in which everyone turns out to be a suspect... Entertaining film with an intriguing mystery and good cast that also includes Janet Leigh, Robert Webber, Julie Harris, Shelley Winters, and Strother Martin.

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.