Magnum Force (1973)

"Man's got to know his limitations."

The follow up to DIRTY HARRY is also a response to the critics who charged Eastwood and Don Siegel with being fascist. In MAGNUM FORCE the bad guys are a team of rogue cops who dispensing vigilante justice on the criminals of Sodom by the Bay (aka San Francisco). Harry's foil this time is Hal Hoolbrook as Lt Briggs and a team of rookie cops that include David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven and Robert Urich. John Mitchum (brother of Robert) returns as Frank degeorgio and look for Albert Popwell (the banker robber in DH, "I got's to know!") as a pimp with a new use for drain cleanerand Mitchell Ryan as a red herring. Not as good as the original, still an entertaining ride. Nice finale at the ship graveyard. Scripted by John Milius and Michael Cimmeno and with a score by Lalo Schiffrin. November 4, 2008

It's the Colt Python .357 magnums vs. the Smith and Wesson Model 29 .44 magnum

Well not really. As a matter of fact, Dirty Harry doesn't even use his magnum to dispense the rogue cops. Davis (David Soul) is drown-fu'd, Grimes (Robert Urich) is car-fu'd, Astrachan (Kip Niven) is chop-fu'd and Lt. Briggs (Hal Holbrook) is bomb-fu'd by Harry. Sweet (Tim Matheson) is shotgun-fu'd in an ambush by the bad guys while serving a "Warrant"

The really good parts were the shooting range introductions of Dirty Harry to all the rogue cops (minus Rogue Boss - Briggs). Where Harry tells the traffic cops he uses "light specials" - meaning .44 Special ammunition; which I don't believe, due to the recoil of the gun. He's using full-power magnums, alright. Officer Sweet (Tim Matheson) gets to shoot Harry's big gun. "It was just a little heavy, I missed one" says Sweet.

Also, the combat pistol-shooting championships pit the Colt blue steel 4-inch .357 magnum 125gr JHP's and HKS speedloaders of David Soul vs. The Smith and Wesson blue steel 6-inch Model 29 .44 magnum using 180gr or 210gr jhp's and Safariland speedloaders of Clint Eastwood. Yarrrrrs, mateys! Those were the days when "real men" fired full-power magnum loads, not your pip-sqeak 9mm's in later movies.

Robert Urich in his pre - "S.W.A.T.", "VEGAS" and "Spenser For Hire" days. Tim Matheson in his pre - "Animal House" days. David Soul in his pre - "Starsky and Hutch" days (although he did end up using a Colt Python 6-inch .357 magnum on that show). Kip Niven in his pre - Jacklyn Smith days. And Hal Holbrook in his pre - Dixie Carter "Southern Comfort" days.

Oh, the plot or the premise of this movie? Read the other reviews. September 16, 2008

THE MOST UNDERRATED DIRY HARRY FILM

Funny Games was a difficult film to review. On one hand there are numerous outstanding elements to this horror/psychological thriller. On the other hand, the Director tries to be a bit too cute and threatens to drag the entire film down the drain. Funny Games is a shot-for-shot remake of the original Austrian film (also directed by Michael Haneke) that came out in 1997. Haneke remade the film in order to reach a broader U.S. audience who typically eschews foreign movies.

Naomi Watts and Tim Roth play Ann and George who, along with son George Jr., have come to stay at their lakefront vacation home. Their idyllic holiday soon turns to horror with the arrival of two young men who look like they just walked off the campus of some Ivy League school in their white, preppy golf attire. Under the pretense of wanting to borrow eggs for a neighbor, they break George's leg with a golf club and soon put the entire family through an excruciating series of mind games, and mental and physical abuse.

Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brady Corbet) are truly terrifying because they are the antithesis of what we normally think of when it comes to screen psychos. They appear innocent, almost angelic in their appearance, even down to their white golf gloves and their baby faces. Their unfailing politeness, even as they torment and threaten the family is unsettling to say the least.

One eerie debate takes place between the young men about whether Ann is physically fit or not. They force her to strip naked in front of her husband although they are respectful enough to cover the son's head so he cannot see. The thing about this scene is you legitimately feel that they really did make her strip to settle their debate, and not just for the cheap thrill of seeing her nude. They allow her to get dressed immediately after. When Ann asks why they just don't kill them, Paul courteously replies that there would be no entertainment in that.

Understand, Paul is not talking about his or Peter's entertainment; he's talking about the audience's entertainment. We are the voyeurs to this disturbing scene and the pair is aware of our presence. Funny Games breaks down that fourth wall of reality. Several times throughout the film Paul looks directly into the camera and speaks to the audience as if they were casual bystanders. At times they are seemingly looking for our approval and other times they are merely informing us of their thoughts. However, it's the infamous "rewind" scene that has caused the most stir with the film. This destroys the audience's usual expectations for a film of this type. Haneke was trying too hard to send the message that ours is a violent society and sometimes we can do nothing but just watch helplessly. The message could have been conveyed without the cheap parlor tricks.

Pitt's performance is engaging and frightening. This is a guy who most men could beat the snot out of and yet you'd never want to turn your back on him. His performance is even better than the one he gave in the equally disturbing 2001 film "Bully". Corbett is also outstanding as the overly sensitive, yet equally psychotic, Peter. Watts, Roth and even Devon Gearheart as George Jr. all adeptly display a sense of fear and helplessness.

This is not a torture porn film. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Most of the violence, certainly the worst of it, takes place off camera and we only hear it happen and listen the anguished cries. Haneke does tend to linger too long on certain scenes such as Ann struggling to get to her feet for about five minutes when her hands and feet are bound. Haneke has made a film that tries too much to be an Art House film rather than a horror film and falls just short of being brilliant.
August 22, 2008

Good Movie But No Leading Actress

This picture was released on December 25 1973 starring Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan, Hal Holbrook as Lt Neil Briggs and Mitch Ryan as Officer Charlie McCoy. Harry gets involved when people that are taken to jail and then release start to show up dead. While detective Dirty Harry Callahan is no great friend of civil liberties, he is dead set against wholesale murder as a solution to legal loopholes. Discovering that the same weapon has committed all the killings, Now Callahan has to find out who the owner of the gun is. This movie was the second of the Dirty Harry films, three additional Dirty Harry installments: The Enforcer (1976), Sudden Impact (1983) and The Dead Pool (1988). I thought this movie was great because of the on the edge of your sit suspense. There's plenty of action and drama involve in this movie also. Based on the action and the suspense itself I give this movie 8 weasel stars. The only thing this movie lacked was a leading woman and that's why it doesn't get a 10.

July 4, 2008

Where's the Dirt?

John Millius congratulates himself throughout the docs and commentary on this picture for offering up a sequel that turns the premise of the first film on its head. Harry the maverick who goes outside the system now faces off against jack-booted vigilante cops. He's right that this is a cool idea, but the character of Harry here has been so changed from the first film that there's not much impact. In Dirty Harry he's a misanthropic loner with more in common with the killer he's stalking than the society he's trying to protect. Here he's a conventional good-guy -- heroic and smooth with the ladies. The bilious self-loathing that contorted Clint's face is gone. (In that picture Harry may speak for the victims but he's always at a remove from them. He watches the dead girl pulled from her torture cell. He offers no compassion for the mother of a victim at the scene of her son's murder and doesn't offer so much as a "It's okay, kids -- sit tight." to the busload of students at the end. He's all about the hunt.)

Also the construction of the story here allows for no suspense because we know who did it right away. There are drawn-out scenes of the crimes and various stakeouts that provide long Clint-less stretches. The airplane scene in the beginning is preposterous and contrived and the climactic chase is fairly tedious. I actually could have done with move David Soul and his band on bikes than Hal Holbrook -- love him though I may. (And note how much Mitchell Ryan looks like Keith Olberman here.) June 29, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...