I enjoyed, and felt sick, when I first saw Dirty Harry.
It remains a classic 30 years later. Not perfect, not quite Oscar quality, but still, a combination of terrific acting by Eastwood, Robinson, and the supporting cast, use of cinematography and music (excellent by 70's standards), and a suspenseful story line make this a movie to remember.
My take on two matters in this film differs from most commentators:
1)Harry is really not so bad -- he just "plays" bad. His racism, quiet, and anger is largely put on to intimidate. Yes, he was scarred by his wife's death, but he obviously develops affection for Gonzalez, and is decent to Gonzalez's wife. The only people he really hates are the bad guys.
2) This film was produced by Clint Eastwood's own Malpaso Company. Although his only credit is the lead, his imprint is all over this (and other Malpaso films). Eastwood is a politically active (former Mayor of Carmel) conservative, long-time resident of Northern California, and this film is a polemic against weak-kneed politicians that want to give in to or negotiate with terrorists, and certain excesses of our system of rights, particularly the exclusionary rule (why can't we admit the evidence, as long as "chain of evidence" is unbroken, and discipline the police officers who broke the rules / violated rights, like in the UK?). The real message is that the system should be organized to protect victims, not criminals, so that ordinary police work can put the bad guys away. In such a world, Harry would not exist.
I imagine that people who have a problem with his view of "law and order" politics would not enjoy this film at all, but it is beautifully done all the same.
It remains a classic 30 years later. Not perfect, not quite Oscar quality, but still, a combination of terrific acting by Eastwood, Robinson, and the supporting cast, use of cinematography and music (excellent by 70's standards), and a suspenseful story line make this a movie to remember.
My take on two matters in this film differs from most commentators:
1)Harry is really not so bad -- he just "plays" bad. His racism, quiet, and anger is largely put on to intimidate. Yes, he was scarred by his wife's death, but he obviously develops affection for Gonzalez, and is decent to Gonzalez's wife. The only people he really hates are the bad guys.
2) This film was produced by Clint Eastwood's own Malpaso Company. Although his only credit is the lead, his imprint is all over this (and other Malpaso films). Eastwood is a politically active (former Mayor of Carmel) conservative, long-time resident of Northern California, and this film is a polemic against weak-kneed politicians that want to give in to or negotiate with terrorists, and certain excesses of our system of rights, particularly the exclusionary rule (why can't we admit the evidence, as long as "chain of evidence" is unbroken, and discipline the police officers who broke the rules / violated rights, like in the UK?). The real message is that the system should be organized to protect victims, not criminals, so that ordinary police work can put the bad guys away. In such a world, Harry would not exist.
I imagine that people who have a problem with his view of "law and order" politics would not enjoy this film at all, but it is beautifully done all the same.