I never understood why these Clint Eastwood movies are popular. - Dirty Harry (1971) Discussion

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77571) 7 years ago

He had charisma on the screen...
People liked to see him and hear him speak and he was good looking to boot!
You dont have that...neither do the rest of us...Clint is a born movie star...its in the genes
AND his directorial efforts are award worthy...
There will never be another Clint!

reply

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

The movies are dated by production values typical of the time. People expect a lot more out of run of the mill popcorn action movies nowadays than they did back then. Bruce Lee movies were incredibly popular then, but are almost ridiculous today.

Plus, back then, you'd see a movie once or twice, and then it would be gone for awhile. It had a week long run at the single screen movie theater, and then it was gone until it showed up as a heavily edited for a TV viewing audience movie of the week. And then it was gone again until it randomly appeared somewhere, usually on TV.

And there was a whole lot less to choose from.

Check out the opening credits sequence from Magnum Force, the 2nd Dirty Harry flick, just for a glimpse of how movie making has changed in the years. Compare it to, say, Guardians of the Galaxy's opening credit sequence.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77571) 7 years ago

Hi fish and welcome to the zoo pal!
Always great to meet new MC'ers...
Thats not how reply works tho...
Try again;)

reply

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

Oh..., educate me, please.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77571) 7 years ago

oooh...youre one to keep an eye on then...fun i suppose

reply

[–] RazoulGoozleSmog (169) 7 years ago

Guardians of the Galaxy is rubbish, the opening credits was the only thing that was somewhat good, I don't even know why you're trying to compare Dirty Harry with Guardians anyways.

Plus, I always loved Magnum Force's opening credits, it's pretty stylish, actually Magnum Force as a whole is real stylish. I don't see the problem. Yeah we get it, you don't understand the era at all or its style. Guardians really wants to be a stylish 70s film, but fails wholeheartedly, just like most films that come out these days. That goes for Tarantino too.

reply

[–] gcarras (2772) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gcarras (2772) 7 years ago

These still have fans who weren;t even born..Bruce Lee is a MASTER of the MARTIAL ARTS, dummy!

(And Clint Eastwood is STILL directing...geesus, where were you. Heard of 15:17 to Paris?)

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1525) 6 years ago

"The movies are dated by production values typical of the time. People expect a lot more out of run of the mill popcorn action movies nowadays than they did back then. Bruce Lee movies were incredibly popular then, but are almost ridiculous today."

I think you've got it backwards. I, for one, except a lot more out of the "popcorn films" of today that are generally incredibly dumb with poorly drawn characters and generic pretty boy actors (not to mention Hollywood party girls doing totally unrealistic ass kicking). Movies today, especially action films, just lack the brains and acting charisma that Dirty Harry had in spades. Whatever you think of Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry is actually a smart film with a message that it doesn't beat you over the head with, was expertly directed by Don Siegel, and featured a very convincing and well played psychotic villain. It spawned numerous imitators, including its own sequels, and none of them measured up. I'll take Clint Eastwood over LA wimps playing tough guys like Leonardo DiCraprio.

reply

[–] CyberVerm (117) 7 years ago

My opinion on Eastwood is that while he is certainly a better director than an actor (by far, acting has never been a strong suit) it was his charisma as an actor, not his acting ability that got him to where he is. A lot of his movies might not be incredible but he was never the reason for those movies not being very good, in fact, he was usually the best part about them, the way he delivered lines, etc. So he became the reason to see these movies. All you needed to hear was ¨clint eastwood action movie¨and you were there.

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

You don't think that is manufactured hype? Making the guy
look dangerous and superhuman, somehow people fall for
that silliness and transfer it to the person. I have seen more
than my share of Eastwood movies. Few are good, but there
are a few that are above average. I forgot to mention
"Pale Rider" too, which was OK, but at least it was not the
same old, same old. There is some kind of psychological
bonding that happens with actors and celebrities that I have
never liked. Someone is in a few movies, most of them bad
and then they are somehow experts on products and things,
and can lecture on life and stuff? Talk to a chair, etc? ;-)

reply

[–] CyberVerm (117) 7 years ago

Sorry it took me a while to respond, still getting used to the fact that I am in a new forum (used to go to IMDB forums)

I think you are right that there’s a lot of hype, I think Hollywood sometimes has a weird way of functioning. In life normally one success is usually overshadowed by a lot of failures. As a dad I know this, you are superhuman dad/husband one day for doing something epic but the next day you suck if the internet doesn’t work, it is a constant struggle of doing good things for people to finally see you as good.

Once actors reach a certain spot, or directors for that matter, it seems they can constantly fk up and as long as they have their unforgiven or million dollar baby then no matter how many crapfests they are in, people will always remember those good ones. The fact that M. Nigh Shamalan still has a job kind of proves this.

Then again his last couple of movies weren’t that bad...

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

Shamalan was a good example to prove your point.

With these people, there are the people, who have talent,
but then there are the people that they become when they
get to be successful. A lot of them understand how much
luck played in their success, even if they did work hard, and
intuitively understand what that means for most people and
they seem to understand and work for the social and national
good.

Others want to make a big deal about great they are, how much
better than others, and demand to live in as a noble class and
work for the denigration of others.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Nice statement. I approve and give a thumbs up.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

"The fact that M. Nigh Shamalan still has a job kind of proves this."

Haha, I have to agree.

reply

[–] gcarras (2772) 7 years ago

"The fact that M. Nigh Shamalan still has a job kind of proves this."
I enjoy his films. His earlier Disney ones (Unbreakable certainly..) and some after (the Universal Stdos sequel to Unbreakable as well as his other for them The Visit).

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

"The Unforgiven" was more violent and bloody than the Dirty Harry franchise, which I thought was more cartoonish but still very engaging for what it they were; revenge films. They're basically the hallmark of a genre that gained steam with other action stars like Charles Bronson, James Coburn, and Gene Hackman with subsequent B-movie fodder to follow in the 80s and 90s.

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

Unforgiven was indeed a classic. I was surprised it was so good. The violence in it was not gratuitous, and it was more than a revenge film don't you think? The guy seeking revenge was seeking revenge for someone else ... that puts it out of the norm of a simple revenge movie.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

I thought the Dirty Harry series were basically revenge flicks not The Unforgiven. TU has a relentless spirit about it that I think inspired writers like Cormac McCarthy and the adaptation of his novel No Country for Old Men.

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

No Country for Old Men ... I thought that movie was dreadful
The moralistic tone of that movie was an excuse to fetishize violence and blood.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 7 years ago

I thought it was deeper than just violence and blood. It deconstructed the mythology of the Western and the revisionist nobility of the cowboy or righteous lawman. It basically humanized it with the reality of the human condition.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

"No Country for Old Men ... I thought that movie was dreadful
The moralistic tone of that movie was an excuse to fetishize violence and blood."

Dude, no. You may not like it but saying that No Country for Old Men is just a fantasy that fetishize violence is a little but over the top. With Coen brothers you always have to watch their movies with a critical judgment and understand what's between the lines, more than what is actually shown. NCFOM is no different. Like the other poster said, the movie is humanized. It's really a different approach on westerns. The characters are not invincible badasses like we usually see in westerns. The pacing is really slow but it really kicks you with suspense.

It is certainly not a movie for everybody but it is certainly not a story that glorify violence and human cruelty. It is a movie about regular Joes that reminds us that in the end, we are all humans.

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1525) 6 years ago

Dirty Harry was not a "revenge film" in any conventional meaning of that label. As with the aforementioned movie The Unforgiven, any revenge that Callahan was exacting was on behalf of other people (Scorpio's victims). Underlying this to an extent was Callahan's revenge against the system (disobeying superiors, torturing criminals, fighting legal loopholes that criminals exploit). You could argue that Scorpio managed to piss Callahan off and that by the end Scorpio's slipperiness made Dirty Harry vengeful, but that still doesn't qualify in my opinion. You could make a better argument that Magnum Force and The Enforcer had more prominent elements of the revenge genre: Magnum Force for the killing of his partner, and The Enforcer for the killing of his longtime friend Frank Digiorgio. Still, I don't think the "revenge" aspect is the main driver of those films either.

A few high quality A-level films that I think are prototypical revenge flicks of the 70s and 80s are:

Rolling Thunder (1977) -- the gold standard of the grindhouse 70s revenge genre
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Death Wish (1974)
Mad Max (1979)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (with the twist that the villain is seeking revenge)
Hang 'em High
The Outlaw Josey Wales
A Fistful of Dollars

In the trashier B-grade realm:

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
The Exterminator (1980)
Definance (1980)

reply

[–] samoanjoes (57055) 7 years ago

The first of the Dirty Harry films is the best.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77571) 7 years ago

Agree
My ranking if you care to see:

Dirty Harry
Magnum Force
The Enforcer
Sudden Impact
The Dead Pool

All good to great actioners!

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

I actually thought The Dead Pool was the best one after the first one. I thought it had kinda of a darker approach and the suspense was effective. And a young Liam Neeson before he became a huge deal in Hollywood.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77571) 7 years ago

I stand my ground on this ranking but you have made an excellent case...ive really considered your points
Ive been due to rewatch these beauties and i have a week off in a couple of months
Thanks for a different perspective on a series i really love;)
Youre cool

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

Argh, jog my memory please...
I was going to say the best Dirty Harry movie was this spoof of the genre where there two guys who were "Clint Eastwood'ing up", with super long pistols ... it was a comedy ... but now I cannot think of the name of the movie! I know that is not much to go by ... I think it was in the 90's but it was totally funny send up of Dirty Harry. I've just seen too many movies to remember them.

reply

[–] GunWillTravel (198) 7 years ago

Before emo and woke, tough and cool was the thing

reply

[–] brux (14730) 7 years ago

I guess thing with it for me was that why do people think it is cool for a movie to show one "tough" looking guy getting shot at by all the bad guys who miss, and then he shoots them with one shot. Or he gets wounded and the next second he is walking around fine ... no shock, no infection ... that is not cool, that is braindead stupid.

reply

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

This is what we call "movies' magic". These kind of action flicks all have this indestructible hero. If you stop at it, it is stupid. But in another way, it is entertaining.

But yeah I'm not a big fan of these Rambo-like characters.

reply

[–] somesunnyday (2078) 7 years ago

It's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch a dirty Harry film. The man certainly has charisma in spades.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Eastwood came along at a time when studios were literally starting to die...and literally dying to create new stars.

He was a TV star(Rawhide) who hd gone over to Italy and made several surprisingly successful "Spaghetti Westerns" and Hollywood went nuts to lure him back in the late sixties.

He got a LOT of movies to make from 1968 through 1971: Hang 'Em High(an All-American spaghetti Western), Coogan's Bluff(his first cop action movie with director Don Siegel, who became a mentor), Where Eagles Dare(a blood-splattered WWII Nazi cliffhanger action movie with Richard Burton along for "prestige") Paint Your Wagon(a very big budget musical released in roadshow opulence), Kelly's Heroes(Clint as bland straight man to Rickles, Savalas, and Sutherland)...and two more Don Siegel movies(the action Western Two Mules for Sister Sara and the "arty" Beguiled.) Clint also debuted as a director with the highly sexual psycho thriller "Play Misty for Me."

That's a LOT of movies, and they all came BEFORE Dirty Harry arrived at Xmas 1971. As Eastwood biographer Richard Schickel noted, "Dirty Harry took Clint Eastwood up from being a star to being a superstar."

The film was landmark historic, but few saw it then. It recreated the Western as the "action cop movie." It recreated the Western gunslinger as a ruthless cop(Clint knew that Westerns were heading out, he needed to be a MODERN star.) It postulated a bad guy as being "the worst of the worst"(killing women and children) and requiring the most brutal extermination imaginable. (Scorpio isn't led off in cuffs -- he's KILLED...after earlier being stabbed, stomped on, and beat up.) It upped the ante(yet again) on screen violence while making it satisfying because the hero was doling it out. And it played up the size of Harry's handgun in deeply cinematic ways(the way the gun fills the screen when Harry yells "Halt!" at Scorpio on that football field -- its iconic.) Also noteable: Dirty Harry had a great script ("Seein' as this is a 44. Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and likely to blow your head CLEAN off...you got to ask yourself one question....")

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

"Western star" Clint Eastwood had not been anyone's first choice to play Harry -- Frank Sinatra took the movie first and backed out; Paul Newman got it next and rejected the politics. Steve McQueen thought it was too much like Bullitt. Actors such as John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Walter Matthau and Bill Cosby later claimed they turned the script down.

So Clint got it...and finally found a star persona that the world could love: tough, handsome, whispery, and full of deep, vengeful emotion.

Clint ALSO set out to rebel against Hollywood big budgets, so his 70 movies all look pretty lean and tight -- cheap even. He knew he could get away with that because it was the seventies(cheap and gritty was how movies looked) and he was a big enough star to anchor even the cheapest of movies with total macho charisma.

Clint would return to Dirty Harry four more times between 1971 and 1988(when Harry finally ran out of gas versus the big budget big bang of Die Hard), and he played some other cops in between the returns to Harry: The Gauntlet, City Heat, and Tightrope.

To answer the OPs question, I think that Eastwood's big break was being a star at a time when Hollywood needed new stars..and then he got a megablockbuster in Dirty Harry to give him a vehicle against which all of his other work would be measured.

Key: Eastwood was a star in the late sixties, a superstar in the 70's, and then an icon thereafter, with a career that had highs(Unforgiven), lows(Pink Cadillac, The Rookie) and in betweens as a new generation of stars took the action stage: Gibson, Willis, Norris, Arnold, Sly...and on and on. "I did it," said Eastwood of his action star persona, "its time to let some younger guys take over."

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Eastwood assessed Dirty Harry's lure to male American fans in the main, saying that most men of a certain age were tied down to having to obediently do their jobs, pay their mortgages, and support their wives and kids...and here was a fantasy hero who not only could shoot better than and beat up bad guys but who...crucially...told off his bureaucratic bosses regularly(including the Mayor!). Harry's insults and baits of his superiors was evidently as exciting for whipped men to fantasize about as his prowess with a gun.

reply

[–] Gary O. (1009) 7 years ago

Silly as it might sound, I think that some of the appeal is the Model 29 that Callahan carried.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Clint wasn't a great actor but he had screen presence, charisma that made him entertaining to watch along with a memorable screen persona.

reply