L'Inspecteur Harry

In the opening scene of the film, a beautiful young woman swims in a rooftop pool. Poor gal. A shooter (Andrew Robinson) from a nearby building kills her with one shot. Soon, the SFPD will send detective Harry Callahan to investigate the happening. As "Dirty Harry" discovers the place where the shooter did his deed, Harry finds a note. Calling himself Scorpio, the assassin insists the city pay him big bucks or he will kill again; the victim will be a priest or a black American. Pulling his hair out, the mayor decides they should pay but Harry is adamant they should NOT. A compromise posting in the SF Chronicle says they will pay but need more time. Meanwhile, Harry goes to lunch but can't even digest his food without needing to stop a bank robbery nearby! Harry is one cool cop. The top police brass give Harry a new partner named Chico (Reni Santori) but he's rather green. Nevertheless, together these two hatch plans to "catch" Scorpio without paying big money. Unhappily, Scorpio matches them with tricky escapes. Now, a school bus full of children may be in danger! What can Harry do? This gritty, somewhat violent film is taken from the story of the real Zodiac killer. Its a sick, twisted tale but Harry is one admirable detective, played to understated perfection by Eastwood. Santori is quite likeable, Robinson is great as the loathsome killer and other cast members quite fine. Add on good cinematography and a tense, inventive plot and the movie is quite compelling. Its a classic folks! Don't delay in viewing it.

How radically different cinema history, and our collective consciousness, would have been if Frank Sinatra hadn't injured his hand before shooting started on "Dirty Harry". Sinatra was due to play Harry, but had to withdraw, clearing the way for Clint. Given Sinatra's unique brand of self-loathing, Harry would have been an uglier personality than Clint made him. As it is, Lieutenant Callaghan is an ornery anti-liberal cuss of a guy, but he is straight and likeable. Arguably, it was this characterisation which made Eastwood a megastar.

San Francisco in 1971 was ready for stardom itself. The West Coast love-in scene and the gay 'boom', together with McQueen's "Bullitt", raised awareness of San Francisco as an exciting liberal city with a photogenic skyline. The film's funky score by Lalo Schifrin is perfectly-judged, and spawned numerous imitators.

The central narrative concerns a lone nut who is trying to hold the city to ransom. He starts by murdering citizens to extort money from the mayor, then progresses to kidnapping children. This plays cleverly on the inchoate anxieties of Middle America, where law-abiding people were puzzled and alarmed at the 'crime wave' and the threat it posed to them and their families. Crime in the decades before the Kennedy assassination had been compartmentalised by Hollywood. Gangsters were bad, but they killed other gangsters. Now the danger was unpredictable, irrational - and solitary. The lone madman was as likely to strike against me or you as against an institution. Only a single-minded strong man, operating on the fringes of the rules, could combat this new terror.

Harry is a paradox. In one sense, he is an 'outlaw'. He has little respect for formal authority (in the opening minutes, we see him being rude to the mayor) and he carries a strictly non-regulation monster of a gun. Harry is openly racist and mutinous. And yet he is also deeply moral. He conforms to an unarticulated ethical code that is anglosaxon American. He protects the weak and confronts the wrongdoers, no matter how the odds are stacked against him. Indeed, the cowardly bureaucrats who will never reward him or promote him are able to exploit his profound decency. They send him on all the difficult, dirty jobs because they know that his sense of right and wrong won't allow him to walk away.

Early in the film, the famous bank robbery scene occurs. This has become so familiar that it hardly needs elaborating here, but to summarise, Harry foils an armed robbery using icy courage and grim humour - and his magnum handgun. The special brand of Eastwood humour recurs throughout the story (eg, the suicide jumper and the gay called 'Alice'). White anglosaxon America is encouraged to laugh at the undergroups which supposedly threaten it.

When the bad guy 'Scorpio' is cornered, he immediately starts bleating about his civil rights. This is meant to arouse our fury, because we have seen him callously destroying the lives of others, and here he is exploiting the protection of the state. To make matters worse, the state agrees with him. We see the DA and a judge explaining to Harry why the cogent evidence against Scorpio is inadmissible. Just exactly why the DA would call a meeting with a lowly policeman in order to explain department policy is far from clear, but the scene is thematically necessary. Scorpio is using the System against the decent, godfearing people who own it. The liberal apparatus is skewed if it lets a killer walk away scot-free.

There are some illogicalities about the plot. Such an important event as the cash drop is left to two cops working alone, when in reality there would be a massive covert operation. When Scorpio beats the rap, there is no public outcry or media storm, and he is allowed to get on with his anonymous existence virtually untroubled.

However, this hardly matters since the main thrust of the story is the coming showdown between Harry and the bad guy. As the climax approaches, Harry drops out of the police operation. Scorpio is at his manic worst on the hi-jacked school bus, alienating us nicely and suppressing any liberal twitches we may still be feeling. Then we see Harry, standing as upright and sturdy as the Statue Of Liberty ....

For me this is that movie that you love when you're young but as you get older you see the dark side to it.

I mean...it's not exactly Masha and the Bear even on a superficial level but you know what I mean.

As an action movie, this is just timeless. It has a gentle, yet uncompromising tone that immediately puts you in the mindset that you are in an unforgiving, violent world. It's clearly going for the X rating. It's not about elegance, it's just about being honest.

There's something folkloric in this tale of hunter and hunted where it's hard to tell who is the more brutal. That was indeed meant to be the gimmick: "two killers on the loose, one carries a badge".

It's a vivid movie about sadism and unapologetic brutality. Where there is only kill or let others get killed. Harry is a delicious character and Eastwood's cool portrayal, always seeming to be one jolt away from going nuts is captivating.

But in recent years I've had new feelings. Harry seems to personify that kind of cop who hates the 4th amendment, who sees themselves as the only barrier between the innocent and monsters and is devoted to protecting without a thought for who will protect the public from him. It's that counter-counter-cultural thinking wear one wants more power to law enforcement not less. I know the title suggests that these are Harry's negative traits but when watching, these are why we fall in love with him as a character. It's kind of a double bluff. Especially when Harry's violation of protocol is seemingly respesented as necessary.

Scorpio is amazing. He is played with maniacal relish that complements the stony Harry like how the Joker does for batman. But I would say he's scarier. We don't get the comic fantasy as a barrier.

I might be overthinking this movie but it is a fascinating rumination on grey morality and how it's not always easy to tell who to root for. even when you think you've realised that the official heroes aren't always good.

it's a difficult movie to interalize and ultimately, that's why it's brilliant.

There's never been a movie quite like it.

Don Siegel's "Dirty Harry" was arguably the start of the serial killer/cop genre inherent in so many mainstream American movies released today. Setting the stage for countless rip-offs and sequels, "Dirty Harry" was one of the true first of its kind--not only in regards to its genre influence but also in terms of its content. (Full frontal nudity, heavy vigilante-style violence and strong language.) It is, in fact, one of the quintessential 1970s films--capturing the very essence of the typical gritty '70s film style we're all familiar with. If "Midnight Cowboy" began the trend, "Dirty Harry" extends it.

Clint Eastwood delivers one of his finest performances as the titular "Dirty" Harry Callahan. He's got just the right amount of cocky cynacism and inset sense of self-justice and importance to make the character realistic and likable, despite his flaws.

The plot almost seems routine now, but back in '71 it was controversial stuff: Harry is a tough cop trying to track down a mad serial killer in San Francisco, who is murdering victims in an effort to receive ransom money. When he kidnaps a young girl, Harry makes it his mission to disobey direct orders and take on the killer by himself.

It's easy to point at this now and say, "I've seen this already." In many cases film classics can only be graded well for nostalgic purposes, because their imitators have improved upon the original material.

Not here. The original really does still remain (one of) the best.

Siegel would later follow up "Dirty Harry" with another examination of criminals and cops, and would also team up again with Clint Eastwood. This is probably his best film, which is saying a lot. Its reputation precedes it, but in this case, the strength of the film itself really is deserving of its popularity. The final speech is awesome stuff.

Another film inextricably linked to a star cast as a last-minute replacement; it's impossible now to imagine how it would have turned out had Sinatra not dropped out and Harry Callaghan will forever more be Clint Eastwood.

As it stands San Francisco looks an urban hell with suitably nightmarish music by Lalo Schifrin and grimacing gargoyle Scorpio seems completely at home (evidently he killed for feral pleasure rather than merely attention like his inspiration Zodiac).

As for Harry himself his cynicism was aptly demonstrated by the famous speech that bookended it: evidently he knew precisely how many shots he'd fired, the first he was purely feigning ignorance for fun, the second time he was in deadly earnest about to commit judicial murder.