Night Moves

Director:
Arthur Penn
Release Year:
1975
Classification:
15
Length (mins):
100
Country:
US
Writer:
Alan Sharp
Actors:
Gene Hackman, Jennifer Warren, Edward Binns
Awards:
BAFTA Nomination
Screening Date:
  • 30 Sept 2025
  • Categories:
    Crime, Drama, Mystery, Thriller
    Trailer:
    Summary:

    Los Angeles private investigator Harry Moseby is hired by a client to find her runaway teenage daughter. Moseby tracks the daughter down, only to stumble upon something much more intriguing and sinister.

    Film Notes

    There’s some kind of irony in the release, so close together, of a movie that claims to be inspired by the detective novels of Ross Macdonald — but isn’t — and one that makes no claims but is a triumph in the Macdonald tradition. The first movie was the weary “The Drowning Pool,” in which Paul Newman gave one of his lesser performances. The second is Arthur Penn’s “Night Moves,” with Gene Hackman subtle and riveting as the private eye.

    “Night Moves” is one of the best psychological thrillers in a long time, probably since “Don't Look Now.” It has an ending that comes not only as a complete surprise — which would be easy enough — but that also pulls everything together in a new way, one we hadn’t thought of before, one that’s almost unbearably poignant. The movie is the work of a master (Penn’s credits include “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Alice's Restaurant“), and yet because of an unhappy booking pattern it’s only in a handful of theaters. If you like private eyes, find it.

    The eye this time is named Harry Moseby, perhaps with a nod toward Hackman’s great performance as Harry Caul in “The Conversation,” perhaps not. He’s a former pro football player and a man of considerable intelligence, whose wife (Susan Clark) runs an antique business. He’s a private detective for reasons, vaguely hinted at, involving his childhood.

    A Hollywood divorcee, clinging to the last shreds of a glamor that once won her a movie director (and half the other men in town, she claims) hires him to trace down her missing daughter. Harry takes the case, pausing only long enough to track down his own missing wife — who is, it turns out, having a not especially important, affair with a man with a beach house in Malibu. His confrontation with the man, like so many scenes in the movie, is done with dialog so blunt in its truthfulness that the characters really do escape their genre.

    Harry traces the missing girl to her stepfather, a genial pilot in the Florida Keys, and goes there to bring her back. And from the moment he sets eyes on the stepfather’s mistress, the movie, which has been absorbing anyway, really takes off. The mistress is played by a relatively unknown actress and sometime singer named Jennifer Warren, who has the cool gaze and air of competence and tawny hair of that girl in the Winston ads who smokes for pleasure and creates waves of longing in men from coast to coast. Miss Warren creates a character so refreshingly eccentric, so sexy in such an unusual way, that it’s all the movie can do to get past her without stopping to admire. But it does.

    The plot involves former and present lovers of the girl and her mother, sunken treasure (yes, sunken treasure), conflicts across the generations and murders more complex by far than they seem at first.

    These are all the trademarks of the Lew Archer novels by Ross MacDonald especially the little-girl-lost theme, and Alan Sharp’s screenplay uses them infinitely better than “The Drowning Pool” did — even though that was actually based on a Macdonald book. By the movie’s end, and especially during its last shock of recognition, we’ve been through a wringer. Art this isn’t. But does it work as a thriller? Yes. It works as about two thrillers.

    Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times, June 11, 1975

    ‘Night Moves’ Stars a Private Eye More Complex Than His Case.

    Arthur Penn's “Night Moves,” the director's first film since the epic “Little Big Man” five years ago, is an elegant conundrum, a private‐eye film that has its full share of duplicity, violence and bizarre revelation, but whose mind keeps straying from questions of pure narrative to those of the hero's psyche.

    Over the years we have come to expect our private eyes to be somewhat seedy and second‐rate, beer‐drinking loners with their own secrets to hide. But that seediness, as well as the decency that lurked beneath, has always been in the service of the genre. One never worried about Philip Marlowe's mental health; one does about Harry Moseby's. In fact, Harry is much more interesting and truly complex than the mystery he sets out to solve.

    I can't figure out whether the screenplay by Alan Sharp was worked on too much or not enough, or whether Mr. Penn and his actors accepted the screenplay with more respect than it deserves.

    When we first meet Harry, he is taking on a classic missing‐persons case. It's to find the nymphomaniac daughter of a once beautiful Hollywood actress. The daughter, who is only 16, has been competing with Mummy for boyfriends.

    The girl also stands to inherit the trust fund from which Mummy now gets a sizable income. Why does Mummy seek the return of the child, whom she clearly detests?

    The plot thickens, but in the wrong ways. Harry discovers his wife is having an affair, and we learn that Harry had a terrible childhood, that he has trouble facing things squarely (as a knight moves in chess?), and that for one reason or another, he wants to face things squarely in this particular case. It'll prove something, you see.

    However, they are forced to behave and react in the completely unbelievable ways demanded of private‐eye fiction, when people we know to be sensitive and caring can walk away from a new corpse as casually as if it were a minor social indiscretion. After a while it just seems absurd.

    VINCENT CANBY, The New York Times, June 12th 1975.

    What you thought about Night Moves

    Film Responses

    Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor
    10 (15%) 16 (25%) 25 (38%) 12 (18%) 2 (3%)
    Total Number of Responses: 65
    Film Score (0-5): 3.31

    Collated Response Comments

    118 members and guests attended this screening of Night Moves. We received 65 responses which delivered a film score of 3.31. The percentage response rate is 59%.

    “Whether as a feature of the film's sound-track or the reproduction in the Hall, I found it very difficult to follow the plot. The film was very loud but indistinct. This in combination with the rapid changes in scene made what was a fast-moving film very difficult for me to follow, so I can only mark it as average”

    “The 2 of us found the film disappointing and very difficult to follow I am sure that Hackman's career was not founded on this film!”

    “The film shows its age, I think, and until one's ear became tuned in, the dialogue was often difficult to follow.  This early part of the film, of course, is crucial to finding out who the characters are and their relationships to each other, and bits of background - all the scene-setting stuff.  Did not GFS have a policy of subtitling American films for this very reason? And this story is perhaps excessively convoluted, with twists and turns and changes of direction. That said, a great story, acting and direction, (except the Arlene character), and the surround sound effects were great”.

    “Sound quality awful. Hard to follow the plot. Definitely a guys' film (even if this comment is sexist!!)”.

    “Despite reading about this film, I found it almost incomprehensible in terms of plot. Being sexist, I thought it a guys' film”.

    “Wish I could share the praise lavished on this film, but I found the plot hard to follow. My overriding impression is that (sexist alert) this is a guys' film”.

    “Enjoyed the film but sound quality was poor - not suggesting it was a problem of the screening but possibly the original sound track”.

    “I have difficulty hearing and whilst I wear hearing aids, I found the sound quality on this film very poor and couldn't hear much of the dialogue. I am aware it was an old film and you probably did the best you could with the quality you had available. I wasn't completely sure what was going on as I couldn't follow the conversations”.

    “Good story with credible plot although the fight scenes were not very convincing. A rather laconic Hackman performance I thought”.

    “I would have enjoyed it more if the plot hadn't been so baffling to follow and occasional unnecessary sound effects hadn't been added which muffled the dialogue. Not one of my favourites but still well worth a watch”.

    “I found the dialogue hard to follow at times (subtitles would have been beneficial) which was a distraction. But I felt the film lacked pace and cohesion. I didn't feel empathy for any of the characters and most of them didn't make it to the end anyway. Disappointing”.

    “Bloody awful”.

    “So, what manner of private eye do we have here? On the face of it Harry is only one step away from Marlowe and Spade, his office appears identical, he plays chess (though wrings a decent metaphor out of the game), he walks those mean streets with a purposeful stride. Though his love life his more complicated and he is surprisingly reflective on his wife's affair. The plot is as labyrinthine and confusing as any of Chandler's but in a different way. This is not just about people being economical with the truth, this has the grubby, cynical whiff of Vietnam and Watergate, that the corruption is endless and unbeatable. Time in some respects has not helped. The women's clothing falling off at such regular intervals might have looked avant grade and challenging at the time but now looks lazy and voyeuristic. The psychological interest in Harry's drivers, which we will all be familiar with form more recent detectives (though note this courtesy does not extend to Delly), is rather clunky combined with the action. Hackman is absolutely the best thing about the film, naturalistic and convincing. In the end he's a man from another era though. 'Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown' to quote another great seventies movie. (One last question: how does a man with his arm in a cast fly a plane and fire a machine gun?)”.

    “I enjoyed this sun kissed 70's 'Sam Spade' type film with Hackman trying to work out who were the bad guys with a nice open-ended finish to the film. A great testament to Gene Hackman's long and wonderful acting career, RIP”.

    “Thoroughly enjoyed Gene Hackman playing a conflicted Private Eye who never sees the whole picture until it is too late, going round in circles, figuratively and physically at the end. Did I see Peter Wyngarde working in the Art gallery?”

    “An overly complicated plot for an otherwise good film. Think I just about got there in the end! Not a particular fan of Gene Hackman but he put in a strong performance as the complex and reluctant PI. 50-year-old film showed its age and sound was not great, but always good to see these classics. Thanks”.

    “I really enjoyed the film which required concentration to follow the plot but this led to animated conversation at the end! My only criticism was that the sound was not very clear”.

    “Interesting plot twist, however poor sound quality and disjointed story meant that I could not follow some of the story”.

    “1975 and so dated, far more than the 1940s black and white Big Sleep and Maltese Falcon. The involvement and portrayal of the 16-year-old actress was troublesome, and it was hard to find any likeable character to care about. On a technical level, I found the sound rather distorted and this added to my struggle to follow the Byzantine plot”.

    “An enjoyable thriller especially with Gene Hackman and Melanie Griffith. The film directed by Arthur Penn was well executed to the end and kept my focus of curiosity even though the sound quality was distorted in parts”.

    “A very intense, intriguing and entertaining film. Good pace and characters. Ending a bit of a shock but great stuff”.

    “Very enjoyable slice of 70’s neo noir. Great Hackman performance. More of this please”.

    “Attention retaining film. Odd ending”.

    “Good plot with a nice twist at the end. Dialogue was difficult to hear at times”.

    “Sound quality could have been better. Interesting ending”.

    “Gene Hackman was excellent expressing frustrated complex emotions. But how was the plane flown and gun fired! Broken shoulder”.

    “A tribute to Chandlers film noir”.

    “Too violent. Distorted sound presumable because of movies age”.

    “A good story – enjoyed it but the sound was pretty awful I am afraid”.

    “Who says mumbling is a modern phenomenon”.

    “Had me gripped but I found it difficult to follow!! Great ending! Who would have thought?”

    “Of the period. Slow to start and quite confusing”.

    “Impossible to hear dialogue so did not know what was going on”.

    “Great actors and actresses but complicated and unhappy story”.

    “All a bit far fetched if you ask me! Really not sure about it at all until the last third of the film. Some unintentionally funny moments. Audio a little tricky at times”.

    “Sorry without subtitles I didn’t understand the plot at all. I enjoyed the cinematic experience though. There were sub titles on the DVD menu. Couldn’t it be shown? I would like to watch French Connection with subtitles on!”

    “It may have been a good film, but unfortunately, I couldn’t understand half of the dialogue without subtitles. Thanks for the showing”.

    “Would have liked sub titles”.

    “Average but not my cup of tea”.

    “Too much shouting, too much violence. Sub titles would have helped with the plot”.

    “Would have enjoyed the film more of there had been subtitles”.

    “Difficult to hear all of the dialogue. What happened to subtitles? Stange wipe out ending”.

    “Great musical score but confusing story line and the usual difficulty of comprehending the dialogue”.

    “Of its time”. “Confusing plot, stilted dialogue”.

    “Very dated. Overley complicated. Dialogue difficult to understand”.

    “Probably quite a good film but I thought we had agreed to have subtitle on American films. I could not follow the dialogue so have no idea what happened”.

    “Didn’t feel it stood the test of time”.

    “Terrible sound quality. No idea what was going on”.

    We have placed cookies on your computer to help make this website better. For more information please click here

    By continuing to use this site or closing this panel, we'll assume you're OK to continue. You can view our full privacy policy here