JayDee's Movie Musings

Good review jaydee. I agree with every word you said. Mud just had the impact on me that Take Shelter did on you so our ratings are probably flip flopped.

__________________
Letterboxd

I agree with you JayDee; a pretty good movie mostly because of the performances of the 2 kids, and I also really liked Reese in this. It reminded me of Stand by Me also, and I think I prefer it over Take Shelter just a little.

Nice. Can't wait to see this--should be seeing it this week. I adore Take Shelter, so I'm quite excited to see it.

Mud is one of my favorite movies from last year.

I think McConaughey's performance in The Dallas Buyers Club is obviously superior, but, as a whole, I think Mud is the stronger movie. Too bad it didn't get the same kind of attention.

__________________

Just to prove that I'm not hating on all 70s cinema










Plot - Set in France during the early 1800s, with the Napoleonic War as its backdrop, The Duellists details the epic feud that erupted between Armand d'Hubert (Carradine) and Gabriel Feraud (Keitel), two officers in the French army. When an innocuous incident leads to a duel between the two men, it sets off a rivalry that will consume the next 15 years of their lives. Across a series of duels the two men continue to fight in an attempt to preserve their honour.

The Duellists marked Ridley Scott's first outing behind the camera on a feature length film. In general it's an accomplished debut with only the odd touch perhaps highlighting his lack of experience. On occasion his direction can feel just a touch over-bearing with a few too many extreme close-ups. I think the film would have benefitted from him just taking a step back and allowing the film to breathe a little bit more. I think the most impressive aspect of his direction can be found in how he presents the five duels that are spread across the film, and the storytelling characteristics that he is able to discern from them thanks to his ability to change his style to match proceedings. The first duel the two engage in is a fairly impromptu affair, with Scott's direction reflecting this. It's very on the hoof and clumsy even, as if the fight has just broken out and Scott has had to scramble to pick up his camera if he wants to catch the action. He employs a touch of shaky-cam and often shoots over their shoulders, creating a bit of a first person perspective. The second duel has been arranged and is a more professional, gentlemanly event. This time Scott's direction exudes a lot more control, setting up in one position for a single shot. By the time the third duel has rolled around the rivalry has become increasingly personal. Whereas the previous two duels had been brief affairs this is clearly a much more epic, lengthy battle. For the only time in the film we join the duel already in progress, finding both men to be absolutely exhausted and bleeding profusely.

When it comes time for their fourth duel, this time on horseback, it has now dawned on D'Hubert that this is never going to end, at least not until one of them is dead. He now recognises Feraud's obsession and realises that he will continue to come at him. So for D'Hubert a great fear now begins to set in as he becomes aware of the great peril his life is in. Scott highlights this by again changing up his style, now plumping for a burst of rapid editing to build up the tension and pressure that D'Hubert is experiencing. He assaults us with a relentless mix of images from the fight itself, from their past encounters and images of Carradine which focus upon his trembling hands, shallow breathing and nervous disposition; all backed by an intense, throbbing score. To further heighten the ominous drama of the situation, the duel is engulfed by a thick mist. The final duel is a tense cat-and-mouse episode that unfolds in a much more calculated, orchestrated manner to mirror the pre-conceived plans that Carradine's d'Hubert holds. The conclusion to both the final duel and the film itself may initially feel a little anti-climactic. It does however make perfect sense within the confines of the story. d'Hubert has the chance to kill Feraud and finally end the whole thing for good, but he allows the opportunity to pass. By the gentlemanly code of the duel however the fact that he still holds a bullet from this duel means that he will forever hold the advantage; he now owns his life. If Feraud ever comes in contact with him he will be a dead man. So while he Feraud is still breathing, in all other respects d'Hubert has killed him. He has taken away his reason for living. For the first time I actually felt a touch of sympathy for the character as Feraud realises that he has wasted 15 years of life for nothing.

In my eyes the most striking facet of the film was certainly to be found in its visuals and photography. Were I to crown an MVP for the film it would be a neck and neck race between its cinematographer and its location scout. The Duellists was filmed on location across France, England and in my very own Scotland. And at no point, never on a single occasion, did I find myself questioning their authenticity, that they were anything other than locations of early 19th century France. The exteriors are a series of beautiful expanses of rugged nature; extensive landscapes of rolling hills that often include dramatic and picturesque locales and buildings (a derelict house on stilts and grand country homes for example), all backed by sweeping skyscapes. The brief sequences set in small towns also emit a rich personality thanks to some characterful back alleys, streets and taverns. In addition to these vivid exteriors, the film's interiors are just thriving with character and atmosphere thanks to the meticulous eye for detail in the production design and the evocative use of lighting. They are frequently grand and expansive sites brought to life with ornate costumes and furnishings. So many of the film's images, particularly those interiors, feel like snapshots of classical paintings from the era. And these images are captured by some gorgeous photography courtesy of Frank Tidy. He revels in the harshness and beauty of the surroundings, with an almost constant amount of thick fog and swirling mist just adding to the sheer drama of the images. There is also a tremendous episode set in Russia, with its snow-covered landscapes and the sound of the howling wind making for a really savage and brutal sequence that leaves you shivering alongside its characters. While the way it looks is certainly the highlight I was also a fan of how The Duellists sounded. Actual use of music is fairly sparse for large stretches, with the film instead relying on a soundtrack comprised of natural sounds such as the calls of birds and other assorted animals, the slashing and clanging of blades and the aforementioned howling winds during that Russian sequence.

Before starting the film I have to admit to having some reservations about it in regards to the casting. The fact that two American actors had been cast in the roles of French soldiers didn't particularly bother me all that much; this is Hollywood after all, I've seen it plenty of times before. I don't have any problems personally with either Keith Carradine or Harvey Keitel, I think they are both fine actors. However were I the one put in charge of casting a historical, period piece those two names would certainly not be amongst the first that I would think of. In my mind I think of them as very contemporary figures both in terms of appearance and essence who are much more suited to urban environments and exploits. So I was a little wary about their participation. And those apprehensions did bear out somewhat. At no point did they ever really feel like a natural fit in this world for me, like someone who truly belonged. I was certainly never going to mistake them for anything other than an actor playing a part. On those terms however I did think that both men put in fairly impressive turns in their respective roles. Harvey Keitel's naturally aggressive, combative nature is smartly channelled into the character of the brash Gabriel Feraud. He may put on the initial guise of being honourable and noble but before long he more closely resembles a modern day boxer; wild, with a short fuse and a proclivity for trash-talking. Opposite him Keith Carradine is more tactful and reserved in the role of Armand d'Hubert. I also thought Carradine did a commendable job of conveying the growth of his character. While he may not have been looking to engage in this feud, and fear what fate may await him at its conclusion, in some ways he does seem to actually benefit from it. He becomes a stronger, more confident individual who displays a new-found courage and skill in the face of war.

The story is undeniably quite slim and simplistic. I feel that more focus could have been given to expanding the characters of both men, as well as fleshing out the era and the Napoleonic War which acts as the backdrop for this personal rivalry. Instead its focus is purely on the escalating series of duels between the two warring soldiers, though I believe the film does utilise them to make various points. Set at the turn of the 19th century this is a story set in olden times that is fittingly driven by old values, namely those of pride and honour. For an exploit that can easily result in the deaths of its combatants, the act of duelling was an incredibly gentlemanly sport. In one instance a duel is actually halted as one of the combatants needs to sneeze. The longer that their feud goes however these noble virtues of pride and honour are replaced by more unsavoury traits, particularly that of the male ego. With their duels frequently brought to abrupt ends no man feels that he has really proved himself as the other's superior. Both men also become increasingly aware of their growing fame, and how their reputations amongst the people of France and their fellow soldiers have become tied to the duel and its outcome. And while its never explicitly stated at any point I also got a vibe of class to their rivalry. d'Hubert feels very much like a socialite who has grown up with money whereas Feraud feels much more working class, someone who would get down and dirty in the muck.

Now I have to admit that I am not a history buff whatsoever; to put it simply I know jack *****. And that is definitely true of the Napoleonic War so perhaps their are allusions to that particular war that went right over my head. And considering that Feraud sports the classic bicorne throughout, Napoleon's iconic hat of choice, I really wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of connection. However I certainly don't think it takes a great deal of effort to see their foolish, futile conflict as a metaphor for and an attack on the pointless nature of all wars. Their whole long-running feud originates from such a small, innocuous issue that the whole thing, to put it bluntly, is just stupid. It gets to the point where the actual reason for their fighting becomes almost forgotten; they now fight just because they fight. For both men, particularly Feraud, it seems to become a test of their manliness. They need to prove their masculinity while at the same time it becomes a quest for power; two traits that you feel are sadly common in the world of war. It's an old adage that if women ruled the world there would be no wars. Watch this film and you may tend to agree.

Conclusion - I may not see a lot of people truly loving this film. I can however see a great number of people admiring it. It's got some solid performances from a couple of surprising sources, some striking direction from Ridley Scott and fine swordplay. The absolute star attraction though, and why I would recommend it to people, is undoubtedly to be found in its dazzling photography and the incredibly palpable atmosphere it creates. The story, characters and themes may not be anything revolutionary but the imagery alone makes this debut effort from Ridley Scott worth checking out.

__________________

You interchanged your Scotts in the conclusion jaydee. Im letting you know just to prove I read all the way through. I know you need that validation sometimes. Good review of a movie I have never even heard of.

Just caught up on your reviews JayDee so here is an overdue

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

If women ran the world there would be more wars, fought over petty nonsense.

__________________

Well The Duellists was a new discovery as 70s films go. Now I think we'll go with a few favourites of mine. These were films I was planning on revisiting for my top 100 list anyway; the fact they coincided with the 70s list was just a bonus.










Plot - A seemingly normal, run-of-the-mill day on the New York Subway system will turn out to be anything but. The Pelham 123 subway train is running to a standard schedule when four men, all brandishing submachine guns, board the train who have their own very unique ideas for the train. With each man donning code names, Mr. Blue (Shaw) leads the group of Mr. Green (Balsam), Mr. Grey (Elizondo) and Mr. Brown, as they hijack one of the train cars and hold its 18 passengers hostage, demanding a ransom of $1 million from the city for their release. With Mr. Blue taking the lead in negotiations, he begins conversing with the New York transit police in the form of Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau), informing him that he has one hour to deliver the ransom or he will start killing the hostages. As the negotiations continue in an attempt to safeguard the safety of the passengers, Garber becomes fascinated with trying to work out how exactly the gunmen plan to escape given that they're in a tunnel and surrounded by the police on all sides. Surely the men are trapped. Or are they?

Something that was rather common amongst the thrillers of the 1970s is that very often they made for great city movies. While there were a few exceptions (San Francisco in Dirty Harry for example) the city in question was frequently New York, with films such as Marathon Man, Serpico and The French Connection being prime examples. Well The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is another you can add to that list. Now that may sound strange given that the large majority of the film is set on a train underneath the city itself, but it most certainly still manages it. There are only a few rare examples of scenes set on New York's streets but they still manage to capture a great deal of atmosphere despite their limited use. While Joseph Sargent does a great job with the subway, managing to extract a great deal of interest and character from the limited surroundings. I also really like the look of the film. Aesthetically it's certainly not a 'beautiful' film to look at, but with Owen Roizman's cinematography taking on a very grim and grubby appearance it feels very fitting as it highlights the urban nature of the film and even gives it a bit of a documentary/docu-drama vibe.

Further enhancing its credentials as a great city movie are a number of little subtexts spread throughout the film. The main thrust of the story remains the hijacking and subsequent negotiations, and the film never forgets that. However it does drop in several other connotations, sometimes rather subtly, that reflect issue both social and economic that were affecting both New York and America at large during the 1970s. The negativity in relations to politics at the time can be seen in Lee Wallace's mayor. A bit of an incompetent, bumbling and indecisive fool he certainly doesn't inspire confidence, he's not exactly a leader amongst men. Even the fact that he is sick with the flu could be viewed as a metaphor for the ineptitude of government. Onboard the train we see minor examples of racial tensions flare up. Gender equality in the workplace can also be seen throughout the film. In the transit system itself we see there's a recently hired female member of the staff, much to the consternation of Tom Pedi's Caz Dolowicz. And then when it's learned that there is an undercover cop on board the train there is a discussion about whether they are male or female, and if they're female that it's not going to do much good. Even Walter Matthau's Lieutenant Garber, the good guy of the piece, is shown to be perhaps not a bigot, but someone who has very clear ways of thinking in regards to people, and has not adjusted his views to contemporary times. When he first meets Chief Inspector Daniels, the police officer in charge he had been conversing with on the radio, we can see that he is very taken aback to discover that he is actually black. Similarly when he sees the undercover cop (credited as 'The Hippie') lying face-down on the track he instantly assumes he's a woman just because of his long hair. And of course early on in the film there is the very humorous incident where he is giving a tour to a group of visiting Japanese individuals from the Tokyo Metro system, and begins to insult them because he believes they don't understand English, only to be left dumbfounded when he discovers they understand him perfectly well.

The film also reflects the general apathy that seemed to overtake the country following the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, domestic riots etc. Here it is most noticeably reflected by Dick O'Neill's transit operator who seemingly couldn't give a s*it about the fate of the hostages, instead just concerned with how difficult the whole event is making his job. His attitude is most aptly summed up by his exclamation of “Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?”There are also several quotes, commonly little more than throwaway remarks, that allude to issues that were affecting the city during the era. At one point, when discussing how to deal with the situation, the police commissioner remarks, “We don't want another Attica do we?”,referring to the police response to a prison riot that resulted in dozens of deaths. When the mayor is first informed that there's a problem, his initial response is to ask, “There's another strike taking place?”, referring to the numerous strikes that plagued the city during the decade. There are also little allusions to the Vietnam war and to the fact that the city is completely broke.

Where the film really comes into its own as a New York movie is on the train itself, with the 18 passengers taken as hostages acting as a sample, or a petri dish if you will, of the people of New York as a whole. Admittedly you could accuse some of those on board as being little more than stereotypes, classic stock New York characters, but it works to get the idea across of this city populated by all manner of races, colours, sexes, ages, cultures etc. So amongst the 18 people you've got a young black man dressed like Huggy Bear sitting alongside an old Jewish man. You've got a scantily dressed prostitute sitting beside a single mother of two kids. And you've got a a businessman in a sharply dressed suit sitting alongside a drunken bum. It's a real cross-section of the population. In fact the actual credited characters include 'The Hooker', 'The Homosexual', 'Old Man', 'Spanish Woman', 'The Alcoholic', 'The Pimp', 'The Hippie' and 'The Wasp'. The film actually embraces the notion of stereotypes so that it can then show no matter how different we may be, in such a situation we're all the same. So for all the differences that may divide them, when placed in the middle of a hijacking they all react the same; with great fear.

There can be very films ever produced that have had so damn many character actors all collected in the one place; I don't think I've ever seen so many wrinkles, scowls and craggy faces. It's an absolute joy to bask in all of the character and colour they bring to proceedings. Leading the film with great aplomb is one of my favourite 'classic' actors Walter Matthau. I honestly don't think I've ever seen any other actor who can do curmudgeonly or world-weary as well as he can. Going purely by appearances, his Lieutenant Garber doesn't seem like a man who is going to pose much of a threat to the hijackers' plans. His wrinkled and crumpled face, slumping frame and the hangdog expression that he constantly wears just giving him such a richness. At the same time however there is a real doggedness to the character, his face belying the intelligence that lies behind it. Indeed had the iconic Peter Falk not landed the role of Lieutenant Columbo, then it's tough to think of a more suitable alternative than Matthau. Additionally he is also responsible for a number of laughs thanks to his dry, sardonic demeanour and line delivery. As the main antagonist that Matthau pits his wits against is Robert Shaw. In the role of the group's leader, Mr. Blue, Shaw is able to create a chilling presence without resorting to any histrionics. Instead he plays the part very calmly but with a great intensity. He creates a great sense of composure for the character, conveying the fact that he is in complete control of the situation. At the same time however he has no qualms about getting his hands dirty. This is a man with ice running through his veins, prepared to put a bullet through anyone who gets in his way, be they friend or foe. As Mr. Green, the motorman without who the plan would not work, is Martin Balsam who is strangely sympathetic as the fairly hapless and out-of-his-depth train driver. Hector Elizondo is terrifically despicable as the psychotic Mr. Grey, a man so violent and out of control that even the mafia kicked him out. He is very much a man from a time before the term 'political correctness' came into existence. In addition to those already mentioned there are just so many character-filled faces stacked from top to bottom of the whole film, all of them feeling like 'real people', with Dick O'Neill (Frank Correll), Tom Pedi (Caz Dolowicz) and Jerry Stiller (Rico Patrone) making particular impressions.

In comparison to many of its fellow thriller films from that decade,Pelham is perhaps not the most action-packed or obviously thrilling film. Instead it concentrates more on being interesting and goes more for a great level of intrigue, which thanks to the razor-sharp script from Peter Stone results in a thrilling film all the same. The storytelling is exceptionally strong, keeping us in the dark right alongside its characters as to how exactly the hijackers plan to get out of this situation. Stone's script is full of sharp, witty and natural dialogue and a fair few surprises; with a electrifying suicide proving particularly shocking. Thanks to the attention to detail in the script in regards to the transit system it's also rather interesting just to see its inner workings with the large control board and all that. Stone's script, Sargent's direction and the editing deserve a lot of credit for being able to maintain the thrills despite the fact that the film is largely stationary, taking place predominantly on the claustrophobic train or in the offices of the transit system. The editing during the sequence where the ransom is being arranged is especially impressive with the film cutting to and fro between the several different aspects to create a thrilling episode; the hijackers, the cops, the transit officials, the mayor and the money counters.

And to end the review it seems only appropriate to talk about the film's terrific ending. Again breaking away from many of its 70s thrillers brethren the film does not end with a massive explosion, an epic car chase or a big shoot-out. Instead it ends on a quiet moment that plays back into what has gone before; Balsam's Mr. Green sneezing to give the game away. A moment made all the more satisfying by the fact that he would not have been caught had he not felt the need to gloat and harangue Matthau's Garber and Stiller's Patrone for daring to question him. It's such a lovely, subtle and very clever conclusion. To paraphrase the classic cliché; the film ends not with a bang, but with a sneeze. And it's all the better for it. Gesundheit!

Conclusion - Too often it seems that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three gets overlooked when it comes to discussions about the best films of the 1970s, and I think that's a real shame as it's a little bit of a gem. With its taut script, sharp direction, fine work in both editing and cinematography and a slew of entertaining performances, there really is very few areas where the film does not impress. Oh and the score! How could I forget David Shire's wonderful score; it's dirty, jazzy sounds fitting the surroundings like a glove.

Great review of a great film you know I love. I loved that you got my favourite quote in the review, too.

Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?

Such a great line.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

This is one of those movies long over due to be seen.

I only saw the weak remake.

The remake's OK, but it's an excellent example of contemporary Hollywood cinema. A fast edited, colour enhanced remake of a better film which took its time to build to a satisfying climax. No one seems to be arrested anymore. They either get away or they die.

Thanks HK. I knew you'd approve of the positivity but glad to see you appreciated the quality of the review as well.

Well obviously I certainly recommend you give it a watch.

I actually watched the remake recently as well, just after watching the original. Like you I thought it was ok (would rate slightly higher than you did in the movie tab) but no comparison. I think their respective endings tell you everything you need to know about the films really. As I pointed out in the review the original ends on a really clever, novel little note. The remake goes more for your standard big action chase and shoot out.

Following on from The Taking of Pelham One Two Three we have this, just my second ever reprised review. As on that first occasion (Lars and the Real Girl) I used the original review as a template and then built on that.









Plot - Bang! With the shot of a rifle, a crazed killer by the name of Scorpio (Robinson) announces his presence to the city of San Francisco. Threatening to strike and kill again unless the city pays his ransom demands, Scorpio also comes to the attention of SFPD Homicide Inspector Harry Callahan (Eastwood). Callahan; known to his peers by the nickname 'Dirty Harry' because he gets every dirty job going, is not your standard police officer. His view of the law and of justice is very black and white; if you break the law he will bring you to justice, and he's not overly concerned about sticking to the letter of the law to achieve said justice. Assigned to the case alongside his new partner Chico Gonzalez (Santoni), Callahan's pursuit of Scorpio turns into an ever more personal game of cat-and-mouse.

“I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?”

A terrific and truly iconic piece of dialogue right there. One of the most iconic and oft-imitated movies quotes of all time in fact. Would it have carried quite as much power, and proved so long-lasting however had Frank Sinatra been the man delivering it? Unlikely. As the first choice for the role however it could very easily have happened. Well all I can say is thank goodness it didn't. The reason that I say that is that every so often there is a performance that comes along, that after you've seen it you just can't imagine how anyone else could have possibly inhabited the role. Well this is most certainly one of those performances. In the role of renegade San Francisco homicide detective Harry Callahan, Clint Eastwood just oozes cool, charisma and a ruthless machismo that allows him to completely own the role. As a man whose policing methods and attitudes would seem more at home in the Wild West, Harry is a man struggling to find a place in this modern society for his unique approach to the law, with Eastwood playing this frustrating struggle with a terrific intensity. And quite simply the man is bad-ass. With his sarcastic drawl, imposing stance and tough-as-nails glare he's not someone you'd be in a hurry to get into a fight with.

As a film, Dirty Harry is a terrifically taut and spartan offering from Don Siegel. It's a relatively simple story, told in an extremely straightforward manner which barely wastes a minute. We open with the killer's first strike against the city, and from then on the film is almost solely concerned with the ever escalating conflict between Scorpio and Dirty Harry. Outside of a single line about his late wife we don't really learn anything about Harry's personal life. We don't get to see his home life, we don't see what motivates and drives him, what it is that has crafted his current character. And to be honest it doesn't really feel like we have to see any of it. The character is just so unshakable and determined in his actions that we accept it without having to wonder why exactly he is like this. Throughout the film we only get a few breathers from the main story revolving around the hunt for Scorpio to see what kind of cop Harry is, and the actions he takes in the line of his work. We see his unique involvement in a bank robbery and at an attempted suicide. These brief sequences establish that the man is pretty much the ultimate bad-ass who doesn't care who he upsets along as he gets the job done. Oh and even though the story and character aren't given a great deal of exposure in terms of screen time, I enjoy how the relationship between him and Callahan is handled as Gonzalez goes from a useless rookie in Harry's eyes to a cop who has earned his respect and gratitude.

The film shares a lot of the same qualities that can be found in many of Don Siegel's other genre films. He just brings such a vibrant energy and style to proceedings, particularly the action scenes. His directing style is not overly fussy or ostentatious; it is very direct and to the point, just delivering a piece of captivating cinema with some dynamic action. Though there are a couple of impressive pieces of camera work including a vast and epic zoom out at the end of the stadium set-piece, which also includes some atmospheric use of shadows to create a strangely eerie aura. It makes for a very vivid and exhilarating ambience, and helping Siegel to establish this atmosphere is the script from Dean Riesner and husband-and-wife team, Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. The plot is very straightforward and treads over greatly familiar ground, while you could accuse the script of delivering a weakly written villain in the form of Scorpio as we never get any semblance of his background or his motivations to commit such horrible acts. Where the script is most impressive is in its creation of a series of colourful characters, and in its rich, vibrant dialogue; both of which add a great flavour. The tough, hard-boiled dialogue is a particular highlight, with Eastwood given most of the film's best lines to growl in his distinctive tones. Alongside the iconic “do you feel lucky?” speech, other personal favourites would be Harry's response to the accusation that he was the man who assaulted Scorpio; “Anyone can tell I didn't do that to him...cause he looks too damn good!”, and when explaining his actions on a previous case; “When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.” Further enhancing the moody and sordid tone is a funky, jazzy and occasionally psychedelic score from Lalo Schifrin, some gratuitous sex

While Clint Eastwood might be the one who truly owns this film and who will forever be associated with it, he certainly doesn't get things all his own way. Fulfilling the other half of this cat-and-mouse battle is Andy Robinson in the role of the psychotic Scorpio, and he certainly makes for one hell of a memorable antagonist. While the character was actually based (albeit loosely) on the real-life Zodiac killer who was terrifying the streets of San Francisco at the time, the character of Scorpio actually feels a lot more reminiscent of a comic book-style villain; his 'cool' moniker and over-the-top nature evoking the serial killers who populated the TV show, “Dexter.” Robinson takes those ingredients and creates a truly vile monster who is extremely hateful. When he's the one on the hunt he is this vicious, sadistic killer; and yet when the tables are turned and he's forced to accept the role of prey he becomes this pathetic, snivelling little creep; begging for his legal rights to be respected and for Harry to be left alone. Robinson makes him into this crazed and lurid creation, all wild eyes and dramatic, exaggerated outbursts and characteristics. The scene where he has taken a bus full of school kids hostage is really rather disturbing as we see him ranting, raving and singing children's songs in a demented fashion. As I said he may not be a very well-crafted villain in terms of depth, so it's left to his actions to power the character and there are a number of striking and disturbing scenes which do so. Perhaps the most powerful being when he pays a man to beat him to a bloody, swollen pulp which really makes a striking impression.

While he obviously establishes the Scorpio character, Robinson also plays quite an important factor in the success of the Dirty Harry character. By creating such a despicable and heinous villain it makes us root for Callahan without question. Scorpio is so horrible that he makes it easy for us to cheer on Harry, overlooking his extreme and dubious actions and penchant to ignore the subtleties of the law. If you were to take the Dirty Harry character and place him in a different context then he could easily be the dirty, villainous cop of another film, representative of everything that is wrong with those in law enforcement. For example if this was Serpico, Harry would be the bad guy of the piece. In fact in addition to being just a great piece of blistering action, Dirty Harry is also an interesting look at the issue of justice and the ridiculous nature of politics. It shows that when justice is served to the letter of the law it can often result in giving criminals too many rights to the detriment of the rights of the victim. In an attempt to apprehend the criminal before they can commit further crimes or cause further harm, the cops may step over the line and do something that allows the criminal to subsequently walk free. We share Harry's frustration and bewilderment at the situation. It's a funny thing when it comes to film and TV. In real-life I am immensely left-wing and liberal, and yet in a pursuit like this where we are shown for definite that the suspect is guilty, I want the f*cker to suffer! I guess it's like some kind of twisted wish-fulfilment. However where the film was once considered controversial and indeed fascist, now it feels like very standard and clichéd fare. Any cop worth his salt these days, whether it be on the big screen or small, has to be a maverick who plays by his own rules. A man not frightened to play 'dirty' as long as achieves the right results.

One of the most distinctive elements of 1970s cinema were the copious amount of thrillers that populated the decades, with many of them still regarded as classics. While Dirty Harry is one of those films that holds such a reputation, it actually stands out from many of its contemporaries however. Whereas most thrillers of the 1970s tended to lean to the left and be critical of authority/establishment, Dirty Harry goes in the opposite direction. In a landscape of anti-nuclear (The China Syndrome), anti-government (All the President's Men) and anti-establishment (Dog Day Afternoon) sentiments this film certainly seems to stand out as a bit of a wet dream for those of a right wing persuasion. Perhaps the fact that the film was produced and released before the events of Watergate and Attica, and before the end of the Vietnam war, means that while there may only be a few years difference between this film and most of its cinematic peers, it's a product of a very different time.

Another area in which Dirty Harry excels is as a 'city movie.' As I've mentioned a few times on here, when it comes to city movies my favourite location would have to be San Francisco. I just love the city's iconic steep hills, unique architecture, eternal sunshine, diverse population and the cool, artistic vibe that the place has. And Dirty Harry proves to be a great example. Though it does actually eschew your typical example of the San Francisco flick. The large majority of films make use of the city's climate to showcase it in perennial sunlight, and the film does do so on occasion to show off some great scenery and shots of the cityscape. In general however this film goes the opposite way by spending a large degree of its time on the streets at night, revelling in the city's lesser-seen, seamy underbelly of undesirable characters and grimy locales. This just adds to the film's atmosphere and sense of menace. It transforms the city from this place of beauty and culture into a place where evil like Scorpio can be lurking round every corner. The film also finds success by avoiding the tourist traps and utilising some lesser-used locations as the settings for its set-pieces; the football stadium where Scorpio lives and the rock quarry where the final face-off takes place for example. With the city populated by a melting p of various ethnicities, sexual preferences and subcultures (gotta love those hippies!) it adds a great deal of colour and character to proceedings, as well as feeling like a real time capsule of the city from that period.

And to cap things off I love the film's finale where the final face-off with Scorpio really highlights the old-fashioned values of Harry Callahan. In fact the sequence could just have easily taken place in any of the numerous westerns Eastwood has appeared in over the years, such is its strong Wild West vibe. Even the setting of a rock quarry makes the film feel of a different time. After we see Harry gun down his target he takes his badge and throws it into the river; a badge that looks tremendously like an old sheriff's star-shaped badge. He then walks off into the sunset never to be seen again. Except for you know, the four subsequent sequels he appeared in! The knowledge of the sequels may dilute the power of its ending slightly but it still resonates. Even the movement of the camera seems to allude to the fact he is a man out of time, that he would be more comfortable in the environment and era of the old West. Having been out in the middle of nowhere at the quarry, the camera then pulls back and lifts into the sky to reveal the civilisation that has encroached all around; the freeways, the skyscrapers, the automobiles etc which show this is a modern world where Harry's brand of justice no longer belongs.

Conclusion - Dirty Harry is a thrilling, searing slice of action. It remains one of the truly great cop movie, well deserving of its iconic status. It's a film that set the benchmark and template for so many cop and action films to follow, particularly in the 80s with the arrival of Stallone, Schwarzenngger, Seagal etc. When it came to portraying a loose cannon cop who plays by his own rules however, arguably no-one did it better than Clint Eastwood and Harry Callahan.

I LOVE Dirty Harry! One of my all time favorite films! And a classic with my favorite actor of all time!

I have never watched a Dirty Harry film. Something I should remedy at some point, I have just never gotten interested enough.

Two months ago, Dirty Harry probably would've made my 70's list, but I've seen too many great movies since then that have bumped it down a bit.

Anyways, great review of a great film!

Ditto

Great review of a film I really like.