Could they not get the rights to use the name Harper? I think if this film could have been viewed as the final chapter of Newman's Harper saga, the viewers could have looked at it in a different light, and gotten more enjoyment out of it.
But then, I'm just a fan of LA-style detective films.
Very disappointing movie, with such a cast, waste of money.
1/10
Except it isn't a Ross MacDonald story.
shareYou've never heard of filmmakers using a famous character from literature and creating a new story around him? Seriously?
shareExcept Ross Macdonald's character was Lew Archer.
But is Newman only allowed to play one LA PI ?
Newman's movies Harper and The Drowning Pool are both based on Lew Archer novels. Newman changed the character's name from Lew Archer to Lew Harper so that it would match with the names of his successful movies The Hustler and Hud. Pretty silly, isn't it?
shareAccording to Wikipedia, the producers had only licensed an adaptation of the first book of the series and not the entire series so presumably they could use the plot but needed a different name for the character. So Archer was out and Harper was in.
Goldman later wrote "so we needed a different name and Harper seemed OK, the guy harps on things, it's essentially what he does for a living".
I agree with the OP that it would have been great (and more resonant for some of us) if Newman had played Lew Archer/Harper in this film. It would have been him as an older man, still detecting, and it would have been very bittersweet. If they had used one of Ross MacDonald's novels as a basis, it would have had a much better plot as well (I love this movie but the plot isn't really up to the Chandler/MacDonald standards).
sharethe scene in the first 10 minutes of the film where Newman's character confronts Sarandon's character @ the pool ... this HAS to be the same pool in Harper / Act I where Newman confronts Robert Wagner & Pamela Tiffin (incredible hotness).
i'd bet on it.