Dirty Harry 3 was very weak but the first 2 were very good. The first is always going to be the best but the fourth one with Sandra Locke I also enjoyed.
The Movie Thread
- Thread starter Maddox
- Start date
I was excited to see this movie as the trailer made it look really good but it ended up being softcore porn.
One good scene doesn't constitute a good movie. These movies are structurally decent but the bad guy(s) are horribly contrived and the movies are no works of art. They were commercially successful and Clint is obviously a decent enough actor (but ain't no Marlon Brando) and as a director makes structurally sound movies that work from beginning to end, but keep in mind that he is/was a liberal politician from California and that his films and life ultimately reflect the JQ globohomo agenda. He'll do the right versus wrong theme but then water it down with feminism (in The Enforcer he philosophically goes off on Tyne Daly for being a weak woman cop but then she propositions him with out of wedlock sex over a couple of beers, saves his life, and then she dies a hero which hurts our "hard"-hearted hero deeply) and race bating (in Gran Torino he plays a "racist" who ultimately capitulates by unnecessarily martyring himself by going to his death over an Asian-gangs treatment of an Asian kid, his sister, and their family).
That's what I was saying about the Dirty Harry franchise in general... "trashy," and you can see (((they))) are the beginning of DEI in Hollywood and programming our young women (and men) to be rootless, depressed, vengeful sluts via graphic displays of violence and sexuality.
His 1960's westerns were great, slow paced, great cinematography, solid acting, no gratuitous violence with brain matter splashing across the screen, no profanity, no nudity, the sexuality was "suggested" not shown, and the scripts were well constructed from beginning to end.