More than iconography here in dynamite Siegel/Eastwood teaming.

The film opens with a shot of a memorial wall in praise of the San Francisco Police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, a SFPD badge is prominent as the camera scrolls down the ream of names on the wall. Cut to a rooftop sniper shooting a girl taking a swim in a swimming pool, cut to the coolest looking cop you have ever seen making his way to the rooftop scene, he stands and surveys the whole of the San Francisco bay area, this is, his area, and we know we are in for a very special film indeed.

Dirty Harry is now something of an institution, the film that pushed the boundaries of cops versus bad guys movies, some of the film's dialogue became part of modern day speak, and it's the film that propelled Clint Eastwood into the stratosphere of super stardom. Often tagged as a fascist film, I think it's more a cynical look at the rights of criminals because Harry is everyone who has ever been a victim of crime, he will do what it takes to take down the criminals festering in society, you break the law and Harry will get you any way he can. Here Harry is on the trail of Scorpio, a ruthless sniper killing at random, Scorpio kidnaps a teenage girl and demands $200.000 from the city or she will die in the hole he has her buried in. Harry is just the man for the job of delivery boy and this sets the wheels in motion for what becomes a personal crusade for Harry to take Scorpio down at all costs.

Director Don Siegel crafts a masterpiece here, creating a western within the big city landscape, the pace is energetic at times yet reeling itself in to provide genuine suspense when needed. Siegel should also be praised for sticking by Andy Robinson as Scorpio, for it's an insanely great performance from him. Yet it might never had happened since Robinson was petrified of guns, but Siegel stood by him and coaxed him through it. The result is a maniacal turn that scares and amuses in equal measure - witness his mad singing during a bus kidnap scene, you will not know whether to laugh or be afraid.

Yet as good as Robinson is, he gives way to a seamless piece of magnificence from Eastwood as Harry Callahan, note perfect and enthusing the role with the right amount of dynamic cool and gusto, it's no surprise that the character became a cinematic legend after such a great acting performance. Finally I must mention the wonderful score from Lalo Schifrin, jazz/electro/beat combinations segue perfectly into each scene with maximum impact to cap off one of the finest films of the 70s, and if you don't believe me then you can go argue with Harry. 9/10

The directing is remarkable but, the most interesting side of this film is the character created by Eastwood, a policeman who decides to take the law by his hand disregarding any kind of right or procedure.

Quite like his characters in the far west ... but in nowadays U.S.

The story itself is, plainly, bad and grotesque.

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.

_"My, that's a big one."_

I'm not sure if I was expecting more or what, this film was _alright_. Maybe the slow-yet-fast/consistent pacing and filmmaking had to do with that, not in the sense of that being a bad thing: but rather in the sense that, what was happening, didn't necessarily make up for it.

Take Nicolas Winding Refn's _Too Old to Die Young_ for example. That's the only work of his I've seen so far, besides _Bronson_. And I don't remember much about its filmmaking. But I'm aware he's done his thing similarly before. That show/long film seemed to almost rely on these super long shots: and the camerawork; it seemed to express passion for one's craft. His style seems to be divisive: a lot of people hated that in the show, from what I've seen, in some of his films, too. I can understand that, but I liked it, possibly because the narrative was captivating.

In this film, that style could've been an aspect more negative than positive. At the same time, the story/narrative didn't seem all that captivating to me. That likely made the directing style stand out more which, in turn, affected the already-lacking captivation in a domino effect. If you're to go that route, the story should carry its weight, or that route will probably have the opposite effect.

The best aspects of this film were undoubtedly the directing, camerawork, the cinematography, and to a lesser extent, the soundtrack. At first, the soundtrack was alright; _different_. But upon some reflection, I concluded that 'different' is good, and it was eerie and all that, fitting each instance. The other aspects were the cream of the crop, though.

I liked that ironic scene with the monologue. The way Clint Eastwood did that scene, said that monologue, and his smirk at the end, were great, and how it came full circle at the end. The first time was so smooth and chill, which added to it tremendously. It's no wonder that moment became a classic. It's very memorable. I'd say that, and how it came full circle, was the best part of the film.

Performance-wise, it seems like people have commended Clint Eastwood. It didn't stand out to me. Neither did most of the performances, but not in a 'these performances are bad' way. But Andrew Robinson's performance was slightly notable, I suppose. Besides him, nobody's performances stood out like a sore thumb, in a good or bad way. They were all acceptable.

**[Upon further reflection, Clint Eastwood's performance was pretty good. I don't know what I was thinking.]**

One thing about the ending that stood out to me was the lack of a score. I'm not too sure how I feel about that. It was a change of pace from the usual; I guess that's good in and of itself. Not only that, it acted as a way to set that feeling of seriousness to what was happening. Yet, I don't know: something was _lacking_. That way of doing things should be utilized more, for sure. It just didn't seem to be cut out for this film.

All-in-all, I'm pleased with this film. It was an alluring watch due to the elements I've mentioned. It could've been more entertaining, but that's not a big deal. It's a good thing that I got lucky seeing this film on Youtube off to the side as I was watching another video. That's the reason why I ended up watching it. Who knows how far down the road it would've taken had that not happened. It'll probably be a while until I watch the next film in the series.

Other thoughts:

- The woman at the beginning sort of looked like Maggie Lawson.

- "Yeah, well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy." vs. "When I see five weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in a park, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy." in _The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!_ I'm guessing inspiration for that line came from this film.

- I was shocked that this film wasn't a one-off but rather the first film out of a film _series_. Not even a trilogy: a _series_. I did not know that. At all. I think that was a mildly good thing, though. If I had known, I probably wouldn't have watched it yet. Film trilogies and film series make me feel obligated to watch all of them in a row.

I have the feeling its main character inspired at least a dozen other movie protagonists.
Its best asset is easily the soundtrack, and stylistically it has aged pretty well in general, some great, atmospheric visuals in here.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t take nearly enough risk with the storytelling. It’s a very straightforward police procedural that doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles. Because of that, it has lost a lot of its charm with age, certainly more so than a lot of other classics from the New Hollywood era.
I also don’t like the fascist messaging we have going on in here. Sure, a lot of action movies have fascist undertones boiling under the surface. But when you look at a character like Batman, it kinda works because he operates in a world where everyone and everything surrounding him is compromised. Here we have a protagonist who places himself above the law because it’s an inconvenience to his job. I might let that slide if they’d let it hang in the background, because that’s what most action movies end up doing (ignore the moral implications of what you’re seeing), but this thing makes a very conscious effort to constantly draw attention to the fact that our protagonist needs to be dirty in order to do his job well, it integrates it into the story and rewards him for it.
So, while that part of the movie hasn’t aged well, there are still a lot of good scenes.

6/10