Dirty Harry

Deal Score0
Deal Score0

  • In the year 1971, San Francisco faces the terror of a maniac known as Scorpio- who snipes at innocent victims and demands ransom through notes left at the scene of the crime. Inspector Harry Callahan (known as Dirty Harry by his peers through his reputatio n handling of homicidal cases) is assigned to the case along with his newest partner Inspector Chico Gonzalez to track down Scorpio and stop hi

Description
In the year 1971, San Francisco faces the terror of a maniac known as Scorpio- who snipes at innocent victims and demands ransom through notes left at the scene of the crime. Inspector Harry Callahan (known as Dirty Harry by his peers through his reputation handling of homicidal cases) is assigned to the case along with his newest partner Inspector Chico Gonzalez to track down Scorpio and stop him. Using humiliation and cat and mouse type of games against Callahan, Scorpio … More >>

Dirty Harry

This site uses affiliate links and if you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a commission payment.

Tags:

5 Comments
  1. There is nothing special about this film at all……Harry is no vigilanty ; I really thought he was this cop hunting down the bad guys and killing them….he’s just after this one guy.

    I wont recommend this at all…I really am not sweet on this at all.

    One Star….certainly not enough to light up my movie world.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  2. Clint Eastwood has, over the years, quite cleverly hidden a speech impediment that hampered his early forays into acting. His technique is based on an old French teaching about the linguistic problems experienced by some people, such as Jonathan Ross. Both Clint and Jonathan have difficulty pronouncing the letter ‘w’.

    Whereas Rossy just dives on in and has made it a feature of his persona, Clint has used the Fleuron approach where the letter is pretty much negated and often not pronounced at all. In ‘Dirty Harry’, his line about feeling lucky, to the punk, he says, ‘…to tell you the tooth…’, note ‘tooth’, not ‘truth’. To most ears this sounds acceptable and normal but in all of Clints films, use of ‘w’ words is kept to a strict minimum.

    The music in this film is also quite grating, possibly to cover for the woeful dialogue. A chap called Lilo Shafter did the music, and from scant listening it sounds like music from a skin flick from the same era. All in all I cannot see one good thing to recommend this excellent film to others to miss it.

    The story is entertaining, the acting is bad, the special effects are terrible, editing and lighting is adequate given the equipment used but unforgivable in this day and age of DVD’s and MP3’s. All in all, I would give this film 3 stars, minus two for the reasons above, plus 3 for Clints acting, minus 2 for the title, add three for the music, take one for the bloke out of Hellraiser being in it and finally minus 2 for the use of the Fleuron approach to the 23rd, and sacred, letter.

    Ramsey Tupper – (c) 2006 – Re-hashed by Mr Bus
    Rating: 1 / 5

  3. Last night (3/24/04), while editing a novella I’m polishing, I watched “Dirty Harry” on The History Channel. THC (hmmm…) had invited John Milius, Hollywood’s best-known anti-pinko fascist, and the uncredited writer of “Dirty Harry”‘s final script, to comment on the film. Which is rather like having an arsonist discuss his skill at starting fires.

    “Dirty Harry” isn’t drama, it’s propaganda. It isn’t an intelligent consideration of the issue involved — how do you maximize the police’s ability to apprehend criminals while curtailing the legal system’s tendency to trample the rights of the innocent? — it’s nothing more than an attempt to agitate its audience, for all the wrong reasons.

    The plot is obvious, the characterizations crude and implausible. The villain is a sub-human degenerate anyone would loathe, the sort who, as the joke goes, murders his parents, then begs for mercy because he’s an orphan. He isn’t merely psychotic — he not only enjoys killing people, but turning the law against itself. He even pays a man to beat him up and then puts the blame on Harry.

    He’s so impossibly evil that even the most fuzzy-headed bleeding-heart liberal would approve of Harry smashing the guy’s skull to pulp with a tire iron — and then condemn Harry for letting him off easy.

    Both Harry and the audience _know_ the guy is guilty. There is no moral issue when there is no question of guilt. Harry’s actions are morally (if not legally) justifiable, because they seem necessary to save someone’s life, and there is no legal alternative to them.

    But Harry is the “cause” of this particular problem, because his failure to follow proper procedures allows the villain to go free since, as the script so crudely and unsubtly states it, “He has rights.”

    The film’s message is simple — and simple-minded: If “the justice system” can’t protect us from such obvious monsters, how it can it protect us from the less-obvious ones? It can’t, of course.

    Harry’s contradictory nature – he wants to make the world a better place by being a cop, but doesn’t want to play by the rules – is only briefly touched on. His self-inflicted “martyrdom” at the end (discarding his badge in a pit) is actually a veiled condemnation of the police — what good are they when we “need” people like Harry to establish justice?

    Milius’s smirking remark that “some people consider the film fascist,” without contradicting the claim, shows where his feelings lie. “Dirty Harry” implies we should just let cops do their duty, using whatever means necessary, without restraint, and that justice is attained only when _every_ guilty person is punished, regardless of how many innocent people are swept up in the process. If that isn’t fascism, I don’t know what is.

    Should Mr. Milius be reading this, let me explain to him _why_ the Constitution includes protection of habeas corpus, against unreasonable search and seizure, et al. It isn’t to protect the criminal; it’s to protect the innocent against the likes of John Milius, who would have the police do whatever was “necessary” to bring someone to “justice.”

    Sorry, no. I believe the best interests of society are served by occasionally letting the guilty go free.

    Considered only as a movie, “Dirty Harry” is worth four stars. My two-star rating is for its pandering politics.
    Rating: 2 / 5

  4. Phony-looking blood, an interpretation by Eastwood that lacks sufficient humor (and he even punches the famous “six shots” speech in the wrong places), and a really fascist approach to law and order all add up to general mediocrity. So why does it work? Andy Robinson. For a thriller to be effective, you need a good bad guy, and Robinson took Scorpio as far as he could without ever quite going over the top. See it on video, by the way, and skip the TBS broadcasts — it’s not rated R for nothing. (On TV, you lose Eastwood’s one genuinely funny line as well as a horrific shot of Robinson during the beating he’s paid to have done to himself.)
    Rating: 3 / 5

  5. do ya feel lucky? well do ya PUNK!
    Rating: 4 / 5

Leave a reply

Login/Register access is temporary disabled