Surprisingly incoherent and boring

disgusting, overrated, pointless

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It's somewhat ironic that Clint Eastwood would become a household name by playing "the man with no name" before transitioning away from Westerns into contemporary movies, and then the movie that made him a superstar for the second time was a larger than life character than be identified first as a classic archetype and cinema icon and as a Eastwood role second.Everybody knows Dirty Harry. The attitude, the scowl, and the one-liners have been mimicked and parodied so many times, and the original movie, and it's sequels, have spawned countless new generations of similar hardcore heroes. Without Harry Callaghan there would be no John Matrix, no Cobra, no John McClane, no Martin Riggs, etc. Is the original film itself any good? Well, it's certainly controversial, even in the present day. Though much of the film's politics seem to be projected into the movie by its audience than actually part of film itself. In reality it's a very straight-forward, laid-back affair with minimalist dialogue, editing, and a subdued style.There's not much in the way of plot, and there's very little detective work or puzzle solving on Harry's part. He's just a blunt tool used for a dirty job, hence the name. For a movie that barely nudges past the 100-minute mark it does feel a lot long, with lingering shots, huge chunks of purely visual storytelling, and a few detours that feel like padding. The central story of a crazed sniper offing random civilians in San Francisco, inspired by the real life Zodiac murder case, isn't strong enough to last the already thin running time.It is a movie that is about style over substance, and for its day it was very slick and high key with gorgeous anamorphic Panavision photography. Does it hold up? Just about. It's not a movie that I watch for the entertainment value, but merely to study how certain classics were made.

Released in 1971 and directed by Don Siegel, "Dirty Harry" stars Clint Eastwood in the eponymous role as a no-nonsense San Francisco detective sick of the liberal constraints on cops and the corresponding pro-thug mentality. With a new partner (Reni Santoni) he seeks a mad murderer (Andrew Robinson) who takes advantage of the libertine protections of the system.I'm a fan of all five of the Dirty Harry films, which are as follows: "Dirty Harry" (1971), "Magnum Force" (1973), "The Enforcer" (1976), "Sudden Impact" (1983) and "The Dead Pool" (1988)."Magnum Force" is my favorite, a rare case where the sequel is superior to the original. The two films compliment each other well because their stories are sort of the inverse of the other. In this film Harry becomes a vigilante cop in order to take down a psycho thug, yet only to a point, whereas in "Magnum Force" he is forced to take down vigilante cops who have gone too far in their efforts to tackle rampant crime. The latter represent Harry if he DIDN'T pull in the reigns after this movie.My second favorite is the nigh-surreal "Sudden Impact" while this one is my least preferred, although I still like it. I just think the stories in the four sequels have more drive. "Dirty Harry" seems languid and hollow by comparison. Moreover, the villain, Scorpio, is so annoying; and the way he gets away with his crimes via legal loopholes and the idiocy of the authorities and their pro-thug system is so aggravating (and, yes, I realize that was the point).The cinematography is great with several high shots of the Bay area. Speaking of which, there's a pervading dead ambiance about the movie with its intermittent insights about the city, the sad hollowness thereof and the meaninglessness of life in general. Harry seems to say eff it, and gets his job done, with or without the sanction of his superiors.The film runs 102 minutes and was shot in San Francisco, with studio work done in Burbank. The screenplay was written by Harry Julian Fink & Rita M. Fink with the additions of several others (e.g. John Milius).GRADE: B

Recently I've considered drastically negatively re-appraising Clint Eastwood's work, both directorially and as a thespian, as a knee-jerk reaction to his constant defense of the more racially-bigoted face of conservative America, but because of what his work has meant to me as a cinephile over the years, plus in tribute to everyone else's work involved in this film, particularly director Don Siegel's, that simply wouldn't be fair.As well, you're basically getting, boiled down in its 103-minute timespan, 45 years after the fact, the main dilemma facing the USA. Whose rights are more important--the good guys' or the bad guys'? If they're equal, should they be considered equal, and what does that mean to the law enforcement and judicial systems? Quite simply, THE most important American-made film of the past 50 years. NOT my very favourite (that's '2001: A Space Odyssey'), but the most significant.And it hasn't aged a single day because of it.

And so here it is: one of the most influential police films of all time, and a film that, along with THE FRENCH CONNECTION, helped to revolutionise the cop movie ever afterwards. This distinctive, gritty thriller was made at the cusp of the '70s, when everything was getting darker and more violent, and this is no exception. In essence, it sees Clint Eastwood tackling a sadistic psychopath who spends half his time as a sniper and the other half abducting and raping children. Yes, it's unpleasant subject matter all right, but with sure hand director Don Siegel at the helm and Eastwood in one of his most iconic roles in front of the camera, it's never less than entertaining.Really, this film belongs to Eastwood. It's his most famous role and he plays it laconic like nobody else can. He's an outsider, an old-fashioned guy in a modern world, and he seems just to have stepped out of the wild west into a time and place he doesn't belong. Full of witty put-downs and smart dialogue, Eastwood owns this movie and it feels lacking whenever he isn't around, which is fine because he's on screen for 95% of the time.Opposing Eastwood is Andrew Robinson in a breakthrough performance as one of cinema's most chilling psychopaths – he certainly gives Anthony Perkins a run for his money! Robinson is scarily brilliant as the anything-goes killer who keeps evading justice until the thrilling climax in which he and Eastwood finally face off. Along the way, they have plenty of run-ins, utilising great choreography. There's a show-off in an deserted football stadium which screams 'epic' and a wonderful action sequence with Eastwood atop a hijacked bus at the climax which works precisely because the star isn't afraid to do all his own stunts. Add in the famous bank robbery sequence – ending with Eastwood's "lucky" speech – and a supporting cast of tough guy actors fitting their roles like a glove and you have one very famous, enjoyable classic.