The Drowning Pool (1975)

Thanks for the memories!

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

A Coleytown, Inc./Turman-Foster Production, filmed on locations in Louisiana and California. Released through Warner Bros: July 1975. U.K. release: September 1975. Sydney opening at the Ascot. 108 minutes. SYNOPSIS: This sequel to "Harper" (1966) is set in New Orleans. This time, private detective Lew Archer (re-named Harper for the movies) answers the urgent call of a former romantic involvement (Joanne Woodward), who claims she is being blackmailed. Soon Newman-Harper is up against a bevy of unsavory characters. — L.J.Q.NOTES: MacDonald's first Lew Archer novel "The Moving Target" (1949) was filmed in 1966. This sequel was adapted from the second Archer novel, but any plans Hollywood may have made for big-screening the rest of MacDonald's work was shelved when this movie failed to click with either critics or public. Nonetheless, the film was actually nominated for an Edgar by the Mystery Writers of America, losing out in the voting to "Three Days of the Condor" (also co-scripted by Lorenzo Semple, Jr). COMMENT: How did the wide-wide anamorphic screen fare in the mid- 1970s? Not too well, if this film is any indication. Director Stuart Rosenberg fails to utilize Scope at all in the dialogue scenes, relying instead on lots of clumsy, TV-style close-ups. He doesn't make much use of the movie's real locations either. The result is simply that "The Drowning Pool" almost completely misses the ambiance and atmosphere of a Ross MacDonald novel.Admittedly, Rosenberg is not alone in his failure. The photographer, the composer, even the production designer offer little help. Fortunately the action spots are powerfully handled. Also on the credit side, are some compelling performances. True, Franciosa is unconvincing, but the rest of the support cast plays far more credibly. In fact, mark down especially forceful delineations from Richard Jaeckel and the three girls in the plot: Linda Haynes, Melanie Griffith and Gail Strickland. Alas, Murray Hamilton exaggerates the villainy, whilst Joanne Woodward is a little too mysteriously bland. However, here's Paul Newman playing Paul Newman again (or at least the smart talking "Cool Hand Luke" Paul Newman), and doing same with charm and effectiveness.OTHER VIEWS: The script meanders from one crisis to another. The direction is equally perfunctory, and the stars generate few sparks. The aura is that of a long, routine TV mystery melodrama... The film is mostly a tepid collection of clichés. — William Wolf in "Cue".

This is follow up to "Harper" and Paul Newman reprises his role as a private detective loosely based on Ross MacDonald's Lew Archer. The plot is based around Harper being a few years older but basically the same style PI you came to like in Harper. He is smart and has a drive to finish a case; even if he ends up in trouble. You get a mix of Joanne Woodward, Melanie Griffith (as a teen), Tony Franciosa (doing a very good job acting) and a stellar supporting cast. There are a lot of twists and turns, a lot of dialog, one shootout - it's Newman as Harper! Set in pre-Katrina New Orleans, "The Drowning Pool" is a rich stew of intrigue, great cast performances and classic MacDonald twists and turns within a dangerously dysfunctional family. Paul Newman completely inhabits Lew Harper's character, the settings are alternately grand and deliciously seedy, and the cinematography is excellent. A very young Melany Griffith place the infant terrible' in this film, not bad for a kid breaking into the movie game. But the chief action focuses on Newman and he does not disappoint. There's also some interesting plot points involving oil off the coast, and the resulting corruption of the police as money was shovelled around to secure drilling rights.Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

"The Drowning Pool" is an unusual film because it's a sequel to a film made nine years earlier. In 1966, Paul Newman starred in an excellent detective film, "Harper". Now here in 1975, Lew Harper is back and working for a family in Louisiana. Like Harper of old, this one is very bright but also far from perfect--and gets the crap kicked out of him periodically.As far as the story goes, the plot is a bit complicated. It's also initially not super-interesting. Hold on...resist that urge to turn it off. This is because despite the many different directions the film goes, by the end of the film it all comes together and there are a lot of exciting moments. One of the best is the water scene-- a huge and impressive bit of camera-work that you just have to see to believe. Another is the ending and the many little surprises that occur. The bottom line is that this is just a film you need to see to understand and appreciate. Well made and well worth seeing.

Stuart Rosenberg directed this underrated sequel to "Harper", set nine years later that sees Paul Newman return as private detective Lew Harper, this time called by an old girlfriend named Iris(Joanne Woodward) to come to her Louisiana home to investigate a blackmailing scheme involving her daughter(played by Melanie Griffith) who has something of a reputation with the local men that someone wants to exploit for their benefit. Harper discovers that the case is more complicated than that, as it involves shady dealings of a wealthy oil tycoon(played by Murray Hamilton) and his wife(played by Gail Strickland) who wants more land for exploration. Can Harper get to the bottom of this case before being driven off by the local sheriff(played by Anthony Franciosa)? Though not as stylish as "Harper", this still features good acting and an interesting story, with Newman as good as ever. There was no third film in this series, which is a shame.