Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

"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.

I don't think Peeper is a very good film, but I agree that it shouldn't have completely fallen off the map the way it did. It was given a belated if limited DVD release last year.Timing was not on this film's side. Chinatown paid tribute to film noir in classic fashion only a year before it was released; Play It Again, Sam had spoofed it successfully only a year before that. Those two films, not to mention the films of the film noir era, leave Peeper looking very slight indeed.Still, Caine has fun as an almost bumbling detective, and Natalie brings smarts and unparalleled sex appeal to her role as a shady lady. The supporting cast is pretty nigh flawless as well, and production values couldn't be better. The script, unfortunately, doesn't add add up to much.Director Hyams, in a special feature interview, recalls telling Natalie to turn around at the end of a long tracking shot at the end of a long day. She asked what would motivate her to do that and he answered that the camera couldn't follow her if she didn't. She paused and said, "okay, I can feel that". It's too bad that at no point in her last decade did Natalie get to make a movie where character motivation was prioritized, but it's unsurprising to hear that she was a good sport about it.

I just saw this interesting little oddity. This isn't an especially good film, but it's more than good enough to while away an hour and a half. It's a fun little homage to film noir with it's tongue planted firmly in cheek. Great performances by Michael Cine and Natalie Wood as well as an excellent supporting cast plus a well crafted script but the film itself just doesn't quite gel. A big part of that might be due to Peter Hyams, a technically proficient and often overlooked director. Hyams is generally just a director for hire but he really puts a personal touch to every film he directs, although he rarely is given very good material to work with. Peeper was one of his earliest films, and the film's uneven pacing is probably a result of his limited experience. Still, Peeper is a pretty decent film and worth a look. It's a shame the film disappeared after it's initial limited theatrical release, but it is now available on DVD. The print is an excellent digital transfer and there's even about thirty minutes of special features on the making of the film, a nice bonus for a film which has been basically forgotten.