Review of Harper (1966) by Tim H — 10 Jan 2008

Pretty damned entertaining and what a cast. I'm going to throw Paul Newman on my "favorite actors" list pretty soon. For Christmas 2 (I'll explain sometime if you ask), I got the Warner release set of the Paul Newman collection, and Harper is the one that caught my eye.

Admittedly, Harper really is just another mystery that is shelved with Classics because it was made in 1966. There's very little memorable about this movie except for the general charisma about it. But that charisma is really quite cool. I sitll have The Drowning Pool to watch, which I hope keeps the same vibe. Yeah, the mystery is engaging and interesting enough, but I can't say it's enough of a twister to throw your brain for a twist like The Usual Suspects. Really, I could see the Warners developing the character of Lew Harper into a Dirty Harry with a personality series, but for some reason or another...it didn't pan out. That's okay. Either way, this movie probably wouldn't have worked without Newman leading the charge.

But really, performance stuff all around. I love Lauren Bacall, and while she is devilish in this part, it's not all that meaty of a role. The real kudos (besides Paul Newman) goes to Janet Leigh. Again, I have always been a fan of Leigh since I first saw her in Psycho, but this movie, although in a minor role, really captures the counterpoint to Lew Harper. She is the defiintion of a foil character. You learn tons about Harper by seeing his interaction with his estranged, soon-to-be ex-wife. It's a really strong choice to put an actress like Janet Leigh in that position.

There are some ridiculous moments. A bit of that sixties swinger commentary is in there and a ridiculous reference to a cult on a mountain takes place, but all these detract from the main point about Harper's main case.

One last point. I'm pretty sure this movie was shooting for an R-rating with some language and violence thrown in there, but by today's standards, this movie is downright chipper and would be PG. It's interesting to look what we consider appropriate then and now.