moonspinner55 Screenwriter Alan Sharp's 'homage' to 1940s film noir is really just an extension of the hard-boiled detective numbers Paul Newman and Frank Sinatra gave us in the '60s, except "Harper" and "Tony Rome" were a whole lot livelier. Gene Hackman plays Harry Moseby, a modern-day private eye in Los Angeles who is hired by a former-actress to find her runaway 16-year-old daughter. Moseby, a frizzy-haired workaholic who is suddenly distracted by his wife's infidelity, finds the girl living with her stepfather down in the Florida Keys...where he also comes upon a submerged smuggler's plane and a dead body. Hackman is reunited with his "Bonnie and Clyde" director, Arthur Penn, but neither does first-rate work here; Sharp's facetious script (strewn with unfunny 'witty' dialogue, uncomfortable sexual underpinnings and colorless character exposition) doesn't provide us with an involving scenario--and the segues back to Hackman's troubled marriage to Susan Clark seem perfunctory. Penn manages to stage an exciting climax on the water, but he can't iron out the central character's inner-turmoil, and Hackman's work is peculiarly undistinguished. ** from ****

jadavix "Night Moves" is one of the better neo-noirs of the '70s, with Hackman in a similar role to the one Nicholson perfected in "Chinatown" the year before.I think the contribution that the filmmakers of the '70s made to film noir was to create a character who was as lost in the plot as we were. Bogart played a character who was a part of that world. He could manipulate it and duck in and out of it. The private detectives in "Night Moves" and "Chinatown" don't understand it and are fed up with it.The ending of "Night Moves" doesn't have the same punch as "Chinatown", though. It's well handled, but the final twist falls flat because it leaves you with too many unanswered questions. It's entirely possible we're not supposed to understand it, but if this is true, that's not communicated. I didn't find the movie leading up to it incomprehensible enough to indicate this.

PimpinAinttEasy Dear macho males, this film is for you. It has a hero (Gene Hackman) who is a private investigator. His wife sleeps around and he has intense conversations with her and her lover. He does a lot of other macho stuff like look really intense and sit in the kitchen and eat bread without the lights on. His visage suggests that he is not to be messed with and that he can explode any minute. The kind of man who could get away with hitting a woman. The kind of man who attracts teenage nymphs. Anyway, he is hired by an actress to bring back her daughter who is staying with her stepfather. So he travels to the beautiful Key West and then he has an affair with the stepfather's girlfriend and they have some weird conversations like:"First time anybody touched my breast, was a boy called Billy Danruther. The nipple stayed hard for nearly half an hour afterward."They also discuss the two Kennedy assassinations. I am sure you guys would enjoy the really gritty hands on action sequences. They are few and far between, but the final one is amazing. There is James Woods too. But he is too over the top as a stunt man. A young Melanie Griffith prances around in a bikini. Arthur Penn sure made some strange films like The Missouri Breaks and The Chase. This is another one of them. Don't expect The Getaway or anything. There are issues with the pacing. Parts of it are quite boring. But Gene Hackman is very good in a Steve Mcqueenesque role. Best Regards, Pimpin. (6/10)

LeonLouisRicci Much Admired Neo-Noir from Director Arthur Penn and Starring Gene Hackman and a Very Young and Very Nude Melanie Griffith in Her First Credited Performance. It is a Murky Looking Film with a Murky Plot. Almost All of the Movies from the Early Seventies Look Murky Even when there is No Attempt at Such a Style.But Here it is Murked Up On Purpose with Shots within Shots Behind Curtains and Dirty Glass and Anything Else On Hand that can be Put In Front of the Camera to Symbolize, well, Murkiness. Because in a Noir Things are Never Very Clear and in This One it Never Really Is.Hackman's Private Eye isn't the Most Observant or the Best Private Eye, He is Average at Best and Seems to be Struggling Most of the Time with Character's Motivations and Behavior. He Looks Perpetually Puzzled as the Film Unreels to Reveal the Intricacies of the Plot, and Intricate it is.The Movie is Off Center and Uses its Locations of Hollywood and Florida for Background Contrast where Nasty Stuff is Happening and Nasty People, Who Appear on the Surface to be Friendly, but Are They? Harry Never Seems to Know Who is Who and Which is Which and What is What.There are a Number of Side Characters and Side Plots as this Dense and Deliberately Dower Drama Unfolds. It is a Fascinating Film at Times, Well Written and Acted, the Set Designs are Realistic, Cluttered, and Frumpled. Arthur Penn's Direction is Busy and Ballsy. A Shortcoming May Be the Awful Underscoring. The Ending is Pure Noir.