Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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

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)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.

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.