← Back to Reviews

Dirty Harry

Dirty Harry
Action Thriller / English / 1971

For the Action Movie Countdown.

Never seen Dirty Harry.

"'Do I feel lucky?' Well? Do ya, punk?"

Hot Dogs.

Is it just me or does Dirty Harry feel like the originator of the rogue badass cop trope? I mean this is the early early 70s, all of your grumbly one-liner-slingin' badge with a chip on his shoulder can trace his way back to this, and I think it's fairly easy to see why.

Clit Eastwood is amusingly overserious with his line-delivery, it almost seems like he was poorly dubbed over, but his permanent grimace assures that he really is "that cool". He's also needlessly racist in one scene which is never referred to again.

Our baddie, who goes unnamed?, is suitably creepy, but to be honest I think he rather shot himself in the foot, or stabbed himself in the leg if you will, by immediately engaging in high-profile crimes IMMEDIATELY after he's been vindicated of his crimes on public television. Way to go, just robbing and leaving an old man with a clear description of you and then hijacking a bus and telling the police exactly what kind of vehicle you're in and where you are, that's some remarkably unintelligent scheming coming from the guy who forced a cop to reveal any tag-alongs by racing him phone booth to phone booth.

Honestly, I think the most interesting part of the movie is simply the trope that just won't go away. How do you make a vigilante if not by telling people whose job it is to pursue justice that they can't pursue justice because bureaucracy? They were making movies like this in the 70s and they're still making them now, I THINK THIS IS INDICATIVE OF A PROBLEM.

How ****ED is your justice system when there exists no law to pardon people who've broken the law with good reason? The whole "you can't torture suspects" thing brings me back to a podcast I was listening to not long ago which highlighted this specific issue; there are specific circumstances under which torture would be a reasonable moral imperative, how come we don't get this?

I mean, say there's a terrorist, who's got, say, New York, doomed to be decimated and irradiated by a dirty bomb, set to a timer in an unknown location. The police have the terrorist in custody and he refuses to say where the device is. You have the option to let several million people die or sacrifice the personal comfort of THE ONE GUY WHO'S TRYING TO KILL THEM.

Scale it down and you got one guy withholding the whereabouts of a 14-year-old girl who's suffocating to death. Harry tortures him, obviously GETS the information, they find her corpse, and then they're all "Dammit, Harry, now he walks!"

What!? WHY!? They're acting like there's literally no way for Harry to know this guy is guilty of ANYTHING that has happened and yet they got the whereabouts of THE kidnapped girl! How the **** could he possibly know that otherwise!? What, is he a civilian who witnessed the crime, opted not to report it, and then INCRIMINATED himself when he was run down by a cop investigating his home over THE CRIME IN QUESTION!?

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry
Are you trying to tell me that ballistics can't match the bullet up to this rifle?
Originally Posted by District Attorney Dick
It does not matter what ballistics can do.

I think there was a bit too much female nudity in this.

Final Verdict:
[Pretty Good]