Watch The Drowning Pool For Free

Such a frustrating disappointment

People are voting emotionally.

A Masterpiece!

Blistering performances.

Paul Newman returns to his private detective role Lew Harper, following 1966's "Harper", in another murder-yarn adapted from a Ross Macdonald novel (wherein the lead character was named Archer). Transplanted from Southern California to the bayous of Louisiana, Harper is up to his aw-shucks smile in trouble while investigating a blackmail plot which involves his former lady-friend (Joanne Woodward), a Southern belle from a prominent New Orleans family living under the thumb of an oppressive matriarch. An intimidating letter soon turns to murder, and the suspects include: the woman's nubile daughter (Melanie Griffith), a wealthy fat-cat (Murray Hamilton), and even the police chief (Tony Franciosa, sporting an oddball walrus mustache). Strictly TV-detective stuff, polished by the classy cast and Gordon Willis' terrific cinematography. It looks good and goes down smoothly, but doesn't leave a trace of itself behind. ** from ****

This is one of the best films Newman made in a very distinguished career. It's his second performance as Lew Harper and this time he is away from his usual California stamping grounds. There are some very fine performances including a knock-out appearance from a very young Melanie Griffith. Ross MacDonald was one of the most thoughtful detective writers, with great plots and strong characterisations. If I had to choose one performance to highlight it would be Tony Franciosa as a tough but decent police chief. But there are no bad performances at all. And in this story, as with many others MacDonald wrote, the motive driving the villainous Kilbourne (brilliantly played by Murray Hamilton,) is big enough to justify the story. But something even darker is at work as we discover. A great and underrated film.

Like a lot of the films that I enjoy, The Drowning Pool can be watched on two levels. It's a Bogart'ish, Nior'ish mystery thriller with only a few lines that come off as maybe trying to be too clever. But that is well balanced out by some class acting and story development along with some unusual sleuthing techniques that we see from the Newman character. The characters and morals, the nastiness and the kindness have an authentic stamp of reality about them that compares well with the sentimental sugariness and lack of reality of so many "violent" modern action/thriller films. That in itself is a reason for watching the film; just for the stark contrast with so many creative works today that claim to show "realism".On another level there is much social commentary going on here. The stifling psychological atmosphere lives up well to the title of this piece as we watch people tear themselves and their relationships apart; driven on, of course, by those who have a vested interest in seeing them fail.There is a key scene towards the end of the film that pulls together all the strings at work on this second level.Well worth it if you're prepared to pay attention.

I assume that the purpose of this film was to explore the on-screen persona of a by than fully established Paul Newman.This means we have a film built upon crystallized notions of style, associated with the comedy effect that comes with it. Basically, the film would live on the audience buying the Newman effect, and accepting that the fact that Newman was on-screen was enough for the film to be worth it. So, they use a stylish noir story, because that allows them to be around, and with Paul all the time, making everything happen around him all the way. He is (literally) our detective. This was released the year after Chinatown. I don't know how much they took this into consideration, but i supposed suddenly noir was fashion again, and so this would make a film as this one even more appealing.I'm not sure whether this worked in its days, but i can say that today this looks (and sounds!) incredibly awkward, and today i wonder how they expected to get away with it. But times change and it is possible that one day this might have sounded relatively appealing to a certain kind of audience. Those would be, i suppose, people of Newman's generation, because his 50 years old might be curious to those days youngsters as much as, say, Harrison Ford was appealing to my generation (i'm 25), but he wouldn't exactly be on top of a world already revered de Niro, Al Pacino, etc.What really sounds bad is, oddly enough, Newman's acting, which is over top and, i would say, lazy. He goes with the tide, does not take himself seriously (and that might be good) but than he spirals into self-parody, which sounds exaggerated and unnatural. Woodward is the only good part here, i think.And the "pool" of the title is a good stunt, i admit. It has an interesting flavour, obviously enhanced by the almost naked bodies, which was clearly the intention, well, not so far away from the premises of any Bond film anyway. But the rest of the thing just drags.Oh, and this was shot in an area that today is on the verge of ceasing to exist in its natural richness. The same oil that mcguffins this story is the responsible today. terrible.My opinion: 2/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com