Paul Newman made Harper back in 1966, a pretty good PI movie, it took 9 years to make the sequel The Drowning Pool (1975) with the same character Lew Harper, in an attempt to capitalise when his career was on a bit of a downward path. This looks like he was trying again to rekindle the same flame from Harper, the same type and style of flick but with a different character. It almost worked but not quite.
Its not a bad attempt though, it was obviously a vehicle for Newman despite looking a bit long in the tooth. The best thing about this was the supporting cast, headed by Gene Hackman who did not get that many scenes, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, Stockard Channing, and with young Reese Witherspoon and Liev Schreiber, Channing was particularly good. M. Emmet Walsh who is a seasoned and talented actor only got a short non-speaking role of a dying man who just got shot, so was completely wasted.
It was a bit dreary though, the pace and style seemed to fit Paul Newman's age, and wherewithal, it did not have that vitality that a younger person would bring, it was a good story with a few twists, the actual plot was mostly ok but did have a few gaping holes, e.g the character Gloria with no explanation or reason given to why she was involved ? Direction was ok, not great, photography poor, music was dreary, it lost some of the energy it would have had from being made 30 years before in a different era with a younger Newman.
I gave it a 6 for the supporting actors and intrigue.
Its not a bad attempt though, it was obviously a vehicle for Newman despite looking a bit long in the tooth. The best thing about this was the supporting cast, headed by Gene Hackman who did not get that many scenes, Susan Sarandon, James Garner, Stockard Channing, and with young Reese Witherspoon and Liev Schreiber, Channing was particularly good. M. Emmet Walsh who is a seasoned and talented actor only got a short non-speaking role of a dying man who just got shot, so was completely wasted.
It was a bit dreary though, the pace and style seemed to fit Paul Newman's age, and wherewithal, it did not have that vitality that a younger person would bring, it was a good story with a few twists, the actual plot was mostly ok but did have a few gaping holes, e.g the character Gloria with no explanation or reason given to why she was involved ? Direction was ok, not great, photography poor, music was dreary, it lost some of the energy it would have had from being made 30 years before in a different era with a younger Newman.
I gave it a 6 for the supporting actors and intrigue.