Harper (1966)A Paul Newman vehicle, in a way, based on a million earlier detective dramas. It even has a kind of set up in the first half hour that's a lot like Humphrey Bogart in "The Big Sleep" exactly 20 years earlier, and both starring Lauren Bacall (in obviously different roles). So Newman plays Harper, who is paid to track down a missing husband, and who ends up in a convoluted world of double crossing and surprise bad guys.On some level it's enough to watch Newman act because he's a decent 1960s kind of gumshoe. But it takes awhile to get the plot going, and then awhile to figure out what's going on. The second half has more structure and energy, and by the end it all feels pretty decent. I actually liked a lot the last five minutes in the car, which brings out the personalities of the two and goes outside the box a bit.I've never read the Ross MacDonald book this movie is based on, "The Moving Target," but I've read others years ago and never quite liked them, so maybe the basis here lacks something compared, say, to the classic detective novels of the 1930s by Chandler and others. There is also that mid-1960s Hollywood style at work, with a little manufactured indifference built in, and overly slick.Don't expect much from the other big star, Janet Leigh, who plays the angry wife, then the doubtful wife, then the hopeful wife in a series of clichéd performances. And Pamela Tiffin plays the supposedly sexy daughter in a bikini and her performance is almost as embarrassing as the stereotype she's meant to play—and she's a kind of girl who is dated and awkward to our eyes. But then, Arthur Hill is a nice surprise playing the easygoing lawyer. He ends up anchoring several important scenes.Connie Hall does the cinematography here in just his third feature movie, and you can almost feel him trapped by the conventions (and by little known television director Jack Smight). Late in the decade he would film "In Cold Blood" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" on his way to a stellar New Hollywood career. Which brings us back to Newman, who gets beat up and knocked out a lot, and who is interesting all along.

. . . stinks like skunk weed. If Paul Newman had played Raymond Chandler's private eye hero instead of HARPER, Paul would have used his "pull" to rechristen him "Philip HARLOWE." Similarly, if Newman was tapped for the lead in a third remake of THE MALTESE FALCON, one "Sam HADES" would be chasing the black bird--AS THE NEW TITLE CHARACTER. During the time Paul was pushing around Hollywood writers amid his tyrannical "H Period" (HUD, HUSTLER, HOMBRE, etc.), the title of F. Scott Fitzgerald's masterwork was in danger of being shortened to HATSBY, if studios wished to do a 1960s adaptation starring "Ol' Blue Eyes." Other close escapes spared posterity from HORACE OF ARABIA as "Best Picture" of 1962, and HAMBONES for the top Oscar the following year (though the latter project might have held up better than actual winner TOM JONES does today). It was novelist Ross MacDonald who bore the brunt of Newman's Own hubris, as MacDonald's iconic "Lew Archer" was capriciously transmuted into title character "Lew HARPER" here. This film misfire pretty much killed off Archer's potential on the big screen, as all the king's men couldn't put his reputation back together again.

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.

I'll size up the plot quickly. Private investigator Lew Harper (Paul Newman) is hired by Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall) to find her husband, or rather, find out which woman he's shacked up with. Harper embarks on a 1960's California to find his man. Mr. Sampson's pilot Allan Taggert (Robert Wagner) and Sampson's lawyer, Albert Graves (Arthur Hill), aid in the search at various times.This is one Newman's "H" movies, like Hud and Hombre. "H" must have been Newman's lucky letter, because he had some of his biggest hits at this time. The movie really is Newman's. His magnetism as a leading man keeps us invested in the plot, but not burdened by it.The supporting cast here is excellent, from top to bottom. Bacall, as a bit of a homage to Bogie, is cast as the worried--as if--wife. Her "frigid" remarks and sass help us to understand the character of Mr. Sampson better. Hill plays the lawyer and an old friend of Harper's. He's a great addition to the cast as the square of the group. Wagner holds his own and gives Newman someone to sarcastically call "beauty." Pamela Tiffin as Mr. Sampson's daughter, Miranda, is gorgeous, and that's what she's there for. Then you've got Janet Leigh as the wife who wants to divorce Harper. We've even got Shelley Winters as the former starlet who's put on a few pounds.This movie isn't very well-known these days. I think it's a great private eye flick with Newman on the screen and director Jack Smight at the helm. People go back and forth about the ending, but I think it fits perfectly.