Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

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!

Harper (1966)*** (out of 4)Private Investigator Lew Harper (Paul Newman) is hired by a rich man's wife (Lauren Bacall) after he goes missing for a day. The wife thinks that he's ran off with another woman but soon Harper begins to feel that he was kidnapped.The film noir genre had pretty much dried up during the 50s and many considered HARPER a nice throwback to those days where flawed men got caught up in bizarre crime cases. All of the noir elements are on hand here but of course this was updated to the decade as it was in color, shot 2.35:1 and of course it had some more adult moments. HARPER certainly isn't a masterpiece but it's a fun movie to watch.The best thing going for the film is the terrific cast with Newman leading the way with another strong performance. He certainly has the right attitude for the part and I thought he was very believable in the part. That laid back style certainly shines through. The supporting cast includes a nice turn by Bacall who gets to play her age and does it quite well. Julie Harris, Arthur Hill and Robert Wagner are all good in their roles. Janet Leigh only appears in a couple scenes but she's good as Newman's estranged wife. Shelley Winters is also very good in her small part as is Strother Martin.I've never fully loved the film like some people as I think there are some flaws along the way. One such flaw is the first forty minutes of the movie are good but just nothing overly special. I think it's the second half where things start to pick up and especially once Harper finds himself over his head. Another issue I had with the film is some of the humor, which just doesn't work at all.With those flaws said, there's no doubt that the performances by the all-star cast makes HARPER worth watching.

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.

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.