Benutzerrezensionen

I just read "The Moving Target" by Ross Macdonald, the book upon which "Harper" is based. Given that the book was written in 1949 and "Harper" was contemporary (1966) when made, the movie follows the novel pretty darn close. Many of the scenes are done almost verbatim from the book. Harper is more acerbic than Macdonald's Lew Archer, and the novel, of course, fleshes out the characters and their motives a little better. But I think the movie stands up pretty well by itself. It has an outstanding supporting cast and, except for Pamela Tiffin, the acting is good, with high marks especially for Paul Newman and, in my opinion, Arthur Hill. The photography is gorgeous, and I can listen all night to any music by Johnny Mandel. All that and those great one-liners by Newman! I'd give it a 7 or 8 out of ten.

Until CHINATOWN, HARPER was probably the most mature private eye movie Hollywood ever produced. Paul Newman is dynamite as the scrappy, somewhat goofy title character, hired by wealthy Lauren Bacall to find her missing husband. Newman gets more than he bargained for as he runs into one flaky character after another: Shelley Winters as a bloated former child star, Julie Harris as a junkie, Pamela Tiffen as Bacall's extremely bitchy stepdaughter, Robert Wagner as a private-eye wannabe, and, best of all, Strother Martin as nasty, new-age guru. Not much of what happens really ties together, but it's all very fun to watch. The performers are all terrific and the pseudo jazz score is another plus. Featuring Arthur Hill, Robert Webber and Janet Leigh, underutilized as Newman's frustrated ex-wife.

It's a "good" thing. From the go-go music and dancing, to the fearless overacting, to the multiple cameos (that Shelley Winters as an over-eating amorous drunk - wow!) by a who's who of famous actors, this film has everything but snappy editing. Enjoyable mainly for its unpredictability and seeing actors given free reign with their characters (Robert Wagner doing a bad James Cagney out of the blue!).

Enjoyable. If I had reviewed this in the 60's I'd have given it a "5". In 2002, I give it an "8".

This I don't understand-

For years I've believed in how Elliot Gould's Philip Marlowe in "The Long Goodbye" was the first effort at making a P.I. character a whacked out loser with a post-modern attitude. Yet, I'm watching "Harper" today and my jaw is bounding off the floor like a yo-yo. Because in the lead role Paul Newman gives one of the ten best performances I've ever seen, and maybe the best comedic one from a non-comedian actor ever done. Even at the two thirds mark, when 99% of the screenplays usually have nothing new to say about their characters, Lew Harper was still leaving me damn near breathless. How "Cool Hand Luke" is more famous than "Harper", which is never mentioned anywhere as the king-size sleeper it is, bewilders me entirely.

Paul Newman is "Harper," a detective called upon to find a missing husband in this 1966 film based on the book "The Moving Target" by Ross MacDonald. It also stars Lauren Bacall, Arthur Hill, Pamela Tiffin, Robert Wagner, Shelley Winters, Robert Webber, Janet Leigh and Julie Harris.

Bacall, on the suggestion of the family attorney (Hill) hires Harper to locate her husband. Along the way, Harper meets some bizarre characters, including Strother Martin as an alleged religious guru, Harris as a junkie singer and others. There are enough twists and turns to keep the audience interested throughout.

As Harper, Newman turns in another excellent portrayal as he beards Steve McQueen in his den - and wins. His characterization has wit and style throughout - he's the perfect '60s detective with a wife he needs but can't stay with, a home in his office, and a determination to get at the truth despite a great deal of danger.

Though one usually doesn't associate Newman with warmth, he is perhaps more likable in this role than the ubercool McQueen would have been. Newman is, in fact, just plain great as he whips off those one-liners. Though down and out, his Harper plays it as it lays.

The supporting cast is wonderful, top-notch all the way, and the film is accompanied by a terrific musical score. Paul Newman has given us some great portrayals. I put Harper near the top of the list.

The film opens with Harper (Newman), unshaven and gradually awakening from a hangover… He puts his head under a faucet, attempts to make coffee but finds none left, and dispiritedly takes yesterday's grounds from the garbage and makes a perfect1y terrible cup of coffee… At once we get Harper's image as an antihero detective without any illusions…

As he is commissioned by Lauren Bacall to trace her wealthy husband who has been kidnapped, the details are filled in: he's tough, ironic, cool, unpleasant and repugnant… Although occasionally given to a moment of sensitivity or remorse, he's most1y sadistic and exploitative…

Harper is a loner, with an air of detachment and an ability to dispatch opponents with a fist and a flippant remark… He swings into action only mechanically… He chews gum constantly, looks around in an uninteresting manner, makes little disapproving gestures, laughs in total disregards, and smiles mischievously…

Harper's dealings with women are based exclusively on coldness, deception and sexual exploitation… He is estranged from his wife and would like to renew his marriage

I'm always checking out those "Top Movies" lists, and for some reason haven't seen this one included. Admittedly, it does look a bit dated in places, but the story is a classic "whodunit." There are plenty of plot twists and surprises along the way, to keep even the most die hard suspense fan happy.

Paul Newman is flawless in his performance, which is why I'm surprised that I haven't heard of the film. Robert Wagner is also engaging, and Lauren Bacall is the right level of coolness, if that's the best way to describe her performance.

If you get the chance, and enjoy good writing, along with acting, this film is for you.

savanna

Another of Newman's own preferred "H" films (c.f. "The Hustler", "Hud" and "Hombre") "Harper" sees him cast as a hard-boiled private detective in and around L.A. in this gritty, contemporary thriller. Obviously riffing off Bogart 40's noir movies, especially "The Big Sleep", to the extent where it prominently casts Bogie's old missus Lauren Bacall, we first see Harper slobbishly rise if not exactly shine from his den and learn that he's recently separated from his long-suffering wife, Janet Leigh. He's been summoned by Bacall's Mrs Sampson to her Bel-Air mansion and hired by her to find her wealthy husband, who has disappeared after stepping off a plane, not that she or her sex-kitten daughter Miranda really care a whit for him, or as it turns out, for each other either.

The daughter, Pamela Tiffin, hangs around with daddy's handsome pilot Robert Wagner but is being set up by dad to marry the family lawyer, safe, conservative, bespectacled Albert, played by Arthur Hill, an old acquaintance of Harper's. Harper follows the scent to Shelley Winters' fast-fading and fat-gaining ex-starlet and her boorish husband, Robert Webber, who tends to call people he encounters "old stick", which of course marks him out as a sinister baddie. Also in the mix is a weird, charlatan guru, Strother Martin, who operates out of an ashram high up in the hills and Julie Harris, a dissolute bar-room singer with a drug habit, who we first see trilling an original Andre & Dory Previn song in her act.

These elements are all mixed in together with a drugs sub-plot, but ultimately it's a case of searching for Sampson and seeing who's still standing at the end. Newman's ticks and flicks can mildly irritate as much as entertain, especially when he camps it up to booze and schmooze Winters for information, but in the main, he's good value and drives the action forward. He gets good support from the quality cast around him and while the direction and soundtrack are fairly de-rigeur, it's a watchable feature which just about holds you till the end, for what is in fact probably the best scene in the film, its freeze-frame conclusion anticipating a more famous one Newman would play a few years later alongside the Sundance Kid.

It lacks the tautness and visual style of Hawks' direction and Newman ultimately lacks Bogart's charisma, making it more "The Big Nap" than "The Big Sleep" but while it didn't exactly get me het-up or leave me completely happy, it was still a half-way decent watch.

H for hope that's okay, Paul...

This is very much like a late 1940s film noir, except it's filmed in the mid 1960s. It has that same edgy dialog and feel to it as private eye "Lew Harper" goes looking for a missing man. His character is based on Ross McDonald's best-selling P.I. "Lew Archer."

In "Harper," all the characters are suspicious and they vary from suave "Allan Taggart" (Robert Wagner) to the coquettish late teen "Miranda Sampson" (Pamela Tiffin) to a lawyer "Albert Graves" (Arthur Hill) who's infatuated with the hot teen and also carries a gun. Then there's the overweight has-been entertainer "Fay Esterbrook" (Shelly Winters), the druggie jazz singer "Betty Fraley" (Julie Harris), the New Age scam artist "Claude" (Strother Martin) and a bunch of gangsters and thugs who are the obvious targets. Of them all, I though Winters was the biggest hoot.

Along the way, Newman wins all the verbal bouts but loses the physical contests. He zings everyone with some great put-downs, but takes a physical beating a few times, too. He sports a nice shiner in the last half of the film.

This film will put you smack into the time period, when people danced "The Frug" and referred to cops as "the fuzz." People were starting to wear Beatle-type haircuts, although you'd never find Newman giving in to that counterculture fad. In here, at least, he's old school, tough, relentless and suspicious of everyone......which, at it turns out, is as it should be.

The DVD is now part of the Paul Newman Collection and it's shown with a very sharp 2.35:1 ratio transfer, very much showing off Conrad Hall's cinematography. Johnny Mandel's music score adds to the "coolness" of this film, too.

Private dick in Los Angeles is hired by the invalid wife of a philandering millionaire to find her absentee spouse, but soon the police become involved once the wealthy man's disappearance turns into a kidnapping case. Ross Macdonald's detective novel "The Moving Target", given a modern-day updating by screenwriter William Goldman, would seem to be prime material for a glossy murder-mystery throwback--and yet Goldman is far too crass in developing this group of decadent suspects, none of whom elicit much genuine interest. Paul Newman's detective is another matter; a smooth, slick player (and gum-chewer!) who uses funny voices on people to pump them for information, Harper (named Archer in the novel) is supposed to be the 1966 equivalent of Bogart's Marlowe from "The Big Sleep", and yet it's clear Newman isn't invested in the creation. This shapeless character is even less intriguing than the "rich bitches", gurus, drunks and junkies he's investigating, although Newman's joshing friendship with attorney Arthur Hill is well-sustained to the end. Johnny Mandel's music is lively, and the lush cinematography by Conrad Hall gives the movie a candy-coated sheen, but the case at hand is rather perfunctory. Followed in 1975 by "The Drowning Pool". **1/2 from ****

I first saw this film when it came out, at age 12, and chewed my gum like Paul Newman for the next 20 years.

What's remarkable about that is, I "got" the film at that time, recognized its depth (as well as its superficialities), loved it; and having seen the film several times over many years, the basic experience hasn't changed.

This is probably the most accessible "hardboiled" detective film ever made, yet it never panders - it depicts a rough world straight on, and doesn't particularly like - or condemn - any of its characters. Is it the classic that "The Big Sleep" is? No, because its world is smaller than that of Chandler/Faulkner/Hawks, even though it glitters more; and Smight is a solidly competent director but not an 'auteur' - which works in the film's favor: Smight just gets on with the job and tells his story, he doesn't stop for extra flourishes.

But, although all the acting in the film is top-quality, it is Newman's performance that carries the film over the top: witty, cynical, detached, yet with glimpses of passion and commitment, Newman uses Harper to define pre-hippie cool once and for all.

Historical note: although this is not "The-Maltese-Falcon" classic noir film, the detective film was believed to be a genre of the past (at best fodder for bad TV) when this came out. "Harper" kept alive what many thought a dead tradition. The reviewer who wrote that this film made the Elliot Gould "Long Goodbye" possible is right on the money; and when nine years later Jack Nicholson starred in Polanski's tribute to the genre - "Chinatown" - it was Newman's performance here that he is referencing, not Bogart. That makes this an important film, and one should give a second look to a film that influenced so many others.

Paul Newman, who was very popular in the 1960s, had a series run of successful "H" movies: "The Hustler" (1961), "Hud" (1963), "Harper" (1966), and "Hombre" (1967). "Harper" is based upon a Ross MacDonald book ("The Moving Target") about fictional private investigator Lew Archer of southern California. The movie cast is impressive enough, with old pros like Lauren Bacall, Janet Leigh, Julie Harris, Shelley Winters, Strother Martin, and others working with Paul Newman's Lew Harper. It was said that the last name of Lew Archer was changed to Harper to satisfy Newman's insistence on another "H" movie.

Lew Harper is a quite unorthodox private eye. Acerbically witty with one-liners, cynical, laid back, and friendless (except for the acquiescent Albert Graves = Arthur Hill) we find comedy as Harper struggles arising in the morning and going through the motions to get his body cranked up. Harper is estranged from wife Susan (Janet Leigh). Through lawyer Graves he is hired by jaded and invalid Elaine Samson (Lauren Bacall) to find her millionaire husband who has been missing for one day. But is the unlikeable (as we will learn) Ralph Samson worth the effort? Harper takes the job as he can use the cash. His California journeys take him across almost every eccentric personality that one can think of in a movie: a gigolo type (Robert Wagner), obese alcoholic actress well past her prime (Winters), spoiled teeny-bopper who likes to dance while standing on a pool diving board avec transistor radio – and with limited acting skills (Pam Tiffin), phony religious cult leader (Martin), drug addict lounge lizard (Harris), and enforcer/strong men (Robert Webber and Roy Jenson). There are also illegal aliens and just about the most clueless state police force ever seen on the silver screen. Now Harper has to discover just what each of these characters knows and to piece the puzzle together. The plot, though, is ultimately rather thin. The most interesting scene occurs when Elaine Harper spears the sunny-side eggs.

Newman plays the cocky character well. And he has many funny lines, like the following scenarios: At a bar he tells the bartender, "Keep the change." The bartender replies that there isn't any. Harper retorts, "Keep it anyway." Another line, to his lawyer: "The bottom is loaded with nice people, Albert. Only cream and bastards rise." And at the end: "Aw, hell!" Newman would reprise the Harper role nine years later in "The Drowning Pool."

Seems like this thing has gone on for about 3 days now. What a convoluted, meandering bore it is! Two stars: one because I get to look at Paul Newman, and another because I get to look at the California coastline (somewhat briefly).

Huge box-office hit, apparently. I actually DO remember the '60s, and people were perennially stoned, which one would have to be to sit through this and find it enjoyable. Stoned people are easily entertained; everything is amusing, and this must explain the popularity of Harper in 1966.

Every character in this thing is unlikable, so it's impossible to invest in the outcome. Basically, who cares about any of it? Did I say boring? Yes, boring is what it is. Even if it does have Paul Newman.

Harper was one of a select few in the sixties that still stand out as eminently watchable films if not for the plot then for a host of other notable features. Newman together with Steve Mcqueen were the cool end of town during the sixties and more or less had the field to themselves.In Harper Newman extends himself in the cool department & delivers a classic performance which ranks with the better films he has made to date. In fact in this role Newman probably tried to do Mcqueen better than the man himself & to a great extent succeeded. Who could resist seeing Pamela Tiffen on that springboard in that bikini if you watched it for no other reason that would not be bad start.The look on Newmans face when he sees the pool for the first time and the laconic looping wave of the arm as he departs the pool after the first encounter with Tiffen & Wagner.The supporting cast should not be forgotten with sterling efforts from the adorable Lauren Bacall & Strother Martin to name a couple.Like many 60s movies which were quickly seen & forgotten this one is worthy of a place in the top shelf as Newman says in the film theres something all bright & shiny. All in all !triffic!

What we have here is basically a Paul Newman show in a noir movie. Newman is good as the cynical , smart ass detective. I have to say that the mystery is intriguing and the answers are surprising. The dialogues are good. The movie also has some nice women to look at – Lauren Bacall ("Key largo") is quite hot despite her age , same goes for Janet Leigh ("Psycho") and Pamela Tiffin is certainly HOT.

The movie is long and unfortunately the pacing isn't always good. "Harper" does seem to drag in few places and I was wondering was it because of the direction or the length. Probably both. "Harper" doesn't have the necessary tension and doesn't really grips the viewer into the movie world. I found myself bored in few places , like the movie was wondering where to go next. Jack Smight could have done better job.

The biggest problem I have is the ending. I'm talking about the very last scene of the movie which is incredibly lame. I was like "WTF ! That's it ?!" after watching the movie. I know that old movies often have unimpressive endings , but this was unintentionally laughable.

Despite the problem with the direction and lame ending "Harper" is still a solid thriller. I give it 7/10.

When Harper was released back in 1966 it was a big success and one of Paul Newman most popular films of the 60's but I didn't feel it at all .

Struggling private eye Lew Harper takes a simple missing-person case that quickly spirals into something much more complex. Elaine Sampson , recently paralyzed in a horse-riding accident, wants Harper to find her missing oil baron husband, but her tempestuous teenage stepdaughter Miranda thinks Mrs. Sampson knows more than she's letting on.

This is a typical mid to late 1960's technicolour movie . It looked great and you can pinpoint the era simply by watching the scenes where the hipsters are dancing but I want more than just style in my movies .

I found the plot confusing . The premise is simple . Look for a missing man but there were so many twists and turns and untrustworthy characters that by the end of the film , I'd lost interest in the outcome .

Paul Newman is great , even If he does look like he's going through the motions and Robert Wagner hams up the screen as he always tended to do .

Harper is a private eye movie that is more style over substance and doesn't hold a light to Newman's other 60's movies such as Hud , The hustler and Cool Hand Luke .

In the weakest of his four "H" films ("The Hustler," "Hud", and "Hombre" are the others), Newman plays a private eye seeking a missing person. Newman is pretty good, although the character is not really well developed. Of the large all-star supporting cast, Bacall comes off best as the sassy woman who hires Newman to find her husband. Hill is also fine as a lawyer who has the hots for wild thing Tiffin. However, all that star power is undermined by a lackluster script, journeyman direction, and drab cinematography. A typical TV cop show has a more compelling plot than this one. It seems to wander aimlessly before reaching an unsatisfactory conclusion.

A highly successful film in it's own right, HARPER is no less considered to be controversial by fans of Ross Macdonald's mystery series (from which this film is based). Not only was Macdonald's detective hero's name changed from "Lew Archer" to "Lew Harper" (long-rumored to be because Newman felt that "H" was his lucky letter after 1961's THE HUSTLER and 1963's HUD), but many fans also felt the film simply did not capture the true feeling of the series of detective books that they had come to love. This is a shame because, when taken on its own terms, HARPER is a whole lot of fun. Either way, the film was a major hit at the box office, so this remains the major exposure of Macdonald's universe for the majority of the public.

I have never read Macdonald's Archer books so I cannot compare them to this picture, but I can say that this film's intelligent, quick-witted take on the detective makes this perfect vehicle for Paul Newman's screen personae. The supporting cast is absolutely star-studded, with Shelley Winters, Arthur Hill, Lauren Bacall, and Robert Webber all perfectly type-cast, and Janet Leigh turning a potentially thankless role into a small little gem. Only Julie Harris (who is woefully miscast) and Pamela Tiffin (who seems inexperienced) really miss the boat here. The script by William Goldman has plenty of good twists and turns, and director Jack Smight indulges just enough in the light kitsch tone without undermining the film's tension.

Paul Newman makes an ideal Lew Harper (Lew Archer in Mcdonald's novels). And, he is in top form. The supporting cast is amazing. This includes Julie Harris, Lauren Bacall, Pamela Tiffin, Strother Martin, Arthur Hill, Robert Webber, Janet Leigh, and Shelley Winters. Leigh , in particular, makes a bit role one of the film's most memorable moments. The mystery has plenty of good plot twists and Smight direction is tight. All in all, a terrific picture.

In the somewhat confusing "Harper", Paul Newman plays the title detective who gets hired to find a kidnapped man. As this was back in Newman's heyday, we might all think that we want to check this out as a historical reference at the very least. The truth is, "Harper" doesn't seem to be much else. It's not any kind of masterpiece the way that "Hud" or "Cool Hand Luke" were. It seems like a way to pass time more than anything, but just how many detective movies can there be? An OK movie, I guess. Also starring Lauren Bacall, Julie Harris, Arthur Hill, Janet Leigh, Pamela Tiffin, Robert Wagner, Shelley Winters, Harold Gould and Strother Martin

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.