Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Benedito Dias Rodrigues Harper has a great meaning for me,because l was sixteen years old when l watched this picture,never forget Harper making coffee in early morning but don't find nothing in tin can,so he looked at garbage can and get back a used coffee again,after take a coffee he made a gesture which seemingly the taste wasn't good enough,so on the picture is a delight and pleasant entertainment...Harper has to faces all kind of dangers and odd people who came around and in the ending allowed us an enigmatic end point!!! Resume: First watch: 1978 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-Cable TV-DVD / Rating: 8.25

charlywiles Newman is absolutely terrific as clever, cynical private-eye Lew Harper and it is one of his very best roles. The cast also features Lauren Bacall, Robert Wagner and Arthur Hill, but it's Shelley Winters, as a boozy Hollywood has-been and Julie Harris, as a love-starved "musician," who really stand out in support. William Goldman's witty, intelligent script wonderfully adapts Ross Macdonald's novel "The Moving Target" and the film is a throwback to the Bogart/Raymond Chandler potboilers of the 1940's. The film is 1960's stylish, however, and helped to revive the detective genre for a new generation. It is just great fun and the movie's success, as well as films like "The Hustler" (1961) and "Hud" (1963), endeared Newman to film projects that began with the letter "H" (although that didn't seem to work with 1984's "Harry & Son"). The recent picture "The Nice Guys" (starring Russell Crowe) tried to recapture the magic of this film, but failed miserably.

LeonLouisRicci Falling smack in the Middle of the Old Hollywood and the New Hollywood, 1966 was not the Ideal Year for a Neo-Noir featuring a Private Detective in the Hunt among the Upper and Lower Crust of Society.This reeks of a Place in No Man's Land with Sprinklings of the Cultural Revolution raining down on the Plastic Environment of Mid Sixties L.A.Paul Newman is Inconsistent in His Characterization of the Cynical "Gum" Shoe. He Spits it out with Defiance or Sticks it Under the Table, but this "New" form of "Smoking" is just a Prop. In Fact a lot of the Movie looks like Props.From the Spiritual Temple to the various Apartments it seems Staged. As do some of the Characters. Robert Wagner, Shelley Winters, Janet Leigh and Arthur Hill manage to have some Fun with Their Characters, but Julie Harris, Strother Martin, and Lauren Bacall are Miscast and can't rise Above the Misstep.The Awful Generic Music is that what was quickly Found in Elevators Relegating some kind of Hipness to those who didn't have a Clue. The Plot goes here and there Never Settling on a Style. Lighthearted Goofiness is mixed with Torture and Beatings and it doesn't Blend well. There is an Offbeat Ending but even that Surprise, for 1966, can't Forgive all of the Stiffness that has come Before.Added Together it is Average at Best and a Disappointing Failure at Worst. It is a Film Lost in the Time that it was made and resurfaces Today as a bit of an Embarrassment, especially for Newman whose Acting Range is Small, and it is Stretched here Beyond its Boundaries, but so is the Production and Direction.

Maziun 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.