As the story unfolded, I assumed I was watching the filmization of a Ross Macdonald novel. All the characteristics and typical Ross Macdonald touches were there - from the snappy dialogue (when asked to My Night With Maud, the hero replies that seeing a Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; when asked to share the tub with a Hollywood hot-light, the hero replies that he'll keep it in mind for when he's feeling really dirty; when the hero asks Paula, as a plane lands outside the cabin, "Is that Tom now?", she comes back, "It isn't Lindberg!") to the technique of using a multi-stranded, multi-plotted detective story to pull away seamy layer after seamy layer of Los Angeles "society". It's a world in which nobody is as friendly as they seem on the surface, where the thickly-veiled threat is often followed through by naked action. And as too in Ross Macdonald, the plot is damned difficult to follow, part of the reason for this being that it is not regarded as all that important, merely a means to sociological and anthropological ends. I've seen the film twice now and I still can't follow it and it still doesn't make sense. However to judge it on the shortcomings of the plot, is to do the film a grave disservice. It's the characters and the atmosphere that count, Night Moves assembles some great characters, very cleverly and skillfully played and creates a powerful atmosphere abetted by the sharp location shooting by Bruce Surtees, the music score, and the film industry background that runs underneath it all. Yes, Night Moves is a film to see yet a third time!OTHER VIEWS: A confused and confusing plot, realistically acted, but - aside from one or two moments - directed in a disappointingly ordinary fashion. I expected a lot more drama from Arthur Penn. True, there's a bit of exciting action, but it's smothered under reams of dull talk. The photography is deliberately low-key.

Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is a terribly flawed L.A. private detective and former football star. His wife Ellen is having an affair. He gets a case from Arlene Iverson looking for her missing 16 year old daughter Delly Grastner (Melanie Griffith). He discovers that failed actress Arlene needs Delly for her trust fund left to her by her late studio mogul father. Her friend Quentin (James Woods) reluctantly sends Harry to stuntman Marv Ellman. Harry follows the clues to the Florida Keys to her stepfather Tom Iverson and a mother figure in Paula. Harry and Paula are on a boat with Delly diving when she finds a dead man in a crashed plane.This is a lesser known gem from Hackman in the same era as his classic 'The Conversation'. He brings out another compelling character. There is a murky story but the central story is never lost. There are a couple of future stars including a very young Melanie Griffith. This is a world of murky morality and paranoia of secrets.

Don't worry - I'll warn you before I reveal any spoilers. Read on in good faith.Arthur Penn: Great. 18-year-old-naked-Melanie-Griffith: Excellent. Gene Hackman: Awesome. This film: pile of garbage. The acting is great, the filmography is wonderfully dark and moody, most of the dialog is solid. I don't understand how the whole can be so much less than the sum of its parts, but this film manages to pull it off somehow. For context, I am a huge fan of the 1970's European-inspired cinema veritas movement and some of my favorite films are from this time period, and some are by Arthur Penn ("Little Big Man", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Rocky"). But this steaming pile of a film takes "cinema veritas" to the level of "cinema literal": everything you see is exactly what you think it is. The only reason I gave this film a 5 instead of a 1 is because all the individual parts were so good that it kept me watching.Before I get all spoilery, let me recommend some films that you should watch instead of "Night Moves" (which you should NEVER watch, IMO). If you want to see Arthur Penn at his best, watch "Little Big Man" and "Bonnie and Clyde". If you want to see a mix of American cinema veritas at the top of its form watch "Chinatown", "Taxi Driver", and "Easy Rider". If you want to see the reason that Gene Hackman is probably one of the best American actors EVER, watch "The Conversation", "The French Connection", "Unforgiven", "Hoosiers", hell almost anything other than "Night Moves".SPOILERS AHEAD!===========================================I wanted to point out two specific things that I found particularly terrible about this film. The Plot: As I said above, everything you see is exactly what it is. Does it seem like a girl is having a sexual relationship with her step-father? She is. Is a guy crawling underneath car just before it crashes messing with the brakes? You bet. Is the greedy mother setting up her daughter to be killed to inherit her fortune? Absolutely! If the plot itself wasn't so dead-simple and obvious, this might have been forgivable. But when you know exactly what happened before it even happens, it's a travesty. For example, "Chinatown", which this film desperately wants to be, did this very well.The Ending: WOW, I have rarely seen a contrived ending as blatant as this one. It's clear that Penn wants Moseby to pay for his sins, but the behaviors of the characters in the last 15 minutes of the film are completely unbelievable. There was absolutely no reason for Paula to take Moseby to the smuggled loot. There was no reason for Joey to skim the plane along the water and run over Paula. There's no way that Paula wouldn't hear the plane coming! There's no reason that Moseby couldn't have crawled into the driver's seat and piloted the boat. He had one 9 mm bullet wound to the thigh - this would in no way be debilitating enough for his lazy performance at the end of the film, putting the boat into a symbolic circular course and laying down to die. Seriously, this was the worst part of an already terrible film.

Much Admired Neo-Noir from Director Arthur Penn and Starring Gene Hackman and a Very Young and Very Nude Melanie Griffith in Her First Credited Performance. It is a Murky Looking Film with a Murky Plot. Almost All of the Movies from the Early Seventies Look Murky Even when there is No Attempt at Such a Style.But Here it is Murked Up On Purpose with Shots within Shots Behind Curtains and Dirty Glass and Anything Else On Hand that can be Put In Front of the Camera to Symbolize, well, Murkiness. Because in a Noir Things are Never Very Clear and in This One it Never Really Is.Hackman's Private Eye isn't the Most Observant or the Best Private Eye, He is Average at Best and Seems to be Struggling Most of the Time with Character's Motivations and Behavior. He Looks Perpetually Puzzled as the Film Unreels to Reveal the Intricacies of the Plot, and Intricate it is.The Movie is Off Center and Uses its Locations of Hollywood and Florida for Background Contrast where Nasty Stuff is Happening and Nasty People, Who Appear on the Surface to be Friendly, but Are They? Harry Never Seems to Know Who is Who and Which is Which and What is What.There are a Number of Side Characters and Side Plots as this Dense and Deliberately Dower Drama Unfolds. It is a Fascinating Film at Times, Well Written and Acted, the Set Designs are Realistic, Cluttered, and Frumpled. Arthur Penn's Direction is Busy and Ballsy. A Shortcoming May Be the Awful Underscoring. The Ending is Pure Noir.