SFPD | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘SFPD’

Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged .44 Magnum, Andrew Robinson, Cliché, Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry (1971) – movie review, General Comments, Harry Guardino, Inspector Chico Gonzalez, Inspector Frank De Georgio, Inspector Harry Callahan, John Larch, John Mitchum, John Vernon, Lt. Bressler, Magnum Force, Movie Reviews, Reni Santoni, Reviews, Ruth Kobart, San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department, Scorpio, SFPD, Strong Movie Recommendation, Zodiac on October 2, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Dirty Harry” (1971) – movie review
Today’s review is for the gritty, genre-defining cop thriller “Dirty Harry” (1971), starring Clint Eastwood as Inspector Harry Callahan (a San Francisco cop with a .44 Magnum and a serious disdain for bureaucracy), Andrew Robinson as Scorpio (a psychopathic sniper who terrorizes the city), Reni Santoni as Inspector Chico Gonzalez (Harry’s rookie partner, assigned to temper his methods), Harry Guardino as Lt. Bressler (Harry’s superior, caught between politics and policing), John Vernon as The Mayor (more concerned with public image than justice), John Larch as The Chief (institutional authority with limited vision), John Mitchum as Inspector Frank De Georgio (Harry’s occasional partner), and Ruth Kobart as the Bus Driver (caught in Scorpio’s final act of terror).

Background: This movie is filmed in San Francisco. I grew up in San Francisco and I enjoy seeing the city in movies (and TV) as it brings back so many personal memories. I first saw “Dirty Harry” in the early 1970s, back when Eastwood was still considered a legitimate “acting” choice and vigilante justice hadn’t yet become a cliché. I’ve seen this movie multiple times – but almost all have been the “sanitized for TV” version. The film is often cited as the birth of the modern antihero cop, and watching it now, it’s clear why. It’s unapologetically confrontational – and his (Harry’s) actions frequently unconstitutional.

Plot: San Francisco is under siege by a sniper / killer calling himself “Scorpio,” who demands ransom or he promises more killings. This is the Hollywood version of the “Zodiac” killer in real life (late 1960s). Inspector Harry Callahan is assigned to the case — a cop known for bending rules, breaking suspects, and delivering justice with a .44 Magnum. As the city panics, Harry tracks Scorpio through rooftops, parks, and eventually a hijacked school bus. The film ends with Harry killing Scorpio and tossing his badge into a gravel pit pond — a symbolic rejection of the system he no longer wants to serve / support.

So, how’s the movie? The acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I like / enjoy the film? Short answers: Good; iconic Eastwood; gritty and effective; several (mostly philosophical); yes — and I still wrestle with that.

Any Good?: Yes — but disturbingly so. “Dirty Harry” is a cinematic classic in tension and character study (where the characters portrayed are almost comically good or bad). It’s also a bit of a cinematic Rorschach test: Is Harry a hero or an badged vigilante? The film doesn’t answer — it challenges you to decide for yourself.

Acting: Eastwood doesn’t act so much as embody — stoic, simmering, and morally unambiguous (the SF version of the “Man With No Name”). Robinson’s Scorpio is cinematically terrifying: twitchy, sadistic, and disturbingly / believably evil. Santoni’s Chico adds a touch of conscience, while Vernon and Guardino play bureaucratic foils. The supporting cast is solid (but again, caricatures), but this is a duel between hunter and predator.

Filming / FX: The film sometimes feel like you’re being pushed down a path instead of led down it. San Francisco is shot like a 1970s depiction of an urban war zone — rooftops, alleys, and shadows. The cinematography is mostly stark and moody. The action sequences are brutal (for their day) but never “really” gratuitous. The film’s visual language is (like Harry) all grit, squint and tension. The FX are okay for their day – mostly fake blood and wounds.

Problems: Several — mostly (legal) philosophical. The film stacks the deck: Scorpio is so monstrous that Harry’s brutality feels justified. But that’s the trick — it’s not a debate, it’s a setup. Also, Harry’s one-liners are iconic but occasionally cartoonish. “Do you feel lucky?” is brilliant; “I’m all broken up about that man’s rights” is chilling.

Did I Enjoy the Film: Yes — and I wrestled with that (now, not back in the day). It’s thrilling, well-made (for its day), and emotionally gripping. But it also makes the viewer complicit. You root for Harry, even when you know you probably / definitely shouldn’t. That’s the film’s genius — and its danger. When you (me) believe police actions are fair and justified, it is easy to support them. When you (me) gain a little more experience in life and realize the actions are not always fair or justified, seeing vigilante police action becomes more troubling… I believe this was the counter-messaging of the 1973 sequel film “Magnum Force“, where Harry has to go against four police officers who are executing criminals who they view to be escaping justice. There, Harry becomes the restraint on police vigilantism.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation — with caveats. “Dirty Harry” is essential viewing for anyone interested in the evolution of the antihero (cop / vigilante), the politics of justice, and the power of cinema to provoke. It’s not “just” a cop movie — it’s a looking glass into its time (1960s-1980s) and the state of society. And sometimes, what you see isn’t comfortable and makes you wonder how much has changed – if any.

.
Click here (2 October) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Patterns, Obsession, And The Length Of Uncertainty

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Anthony Edwards, Arthur Leigh Allen, Brian Cox, General Comments, Inspector David Toschi, Inspector William Armstrong, Jake Gyllenhaal, John Carroll Lynch, Mark Ruffalo, Melvin Belli, Moderate Movie Recommendation, Movie Reviews, Northern California, Paul Avery, Reviews, Robert Downey Jr, Robert Graysmith, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Police Department, SFPD, Sharpe, Zodiac (2007) -- movie review on September 3, 2025| 3 Comments »

“Zodiac” (2007) — movie review
Today’s review is for a haunting procedural thriller, “Zodiac” (2007), starring Jake Gyllenhaal as Robert Graysmith (a cartoonist turned amateur sleuth whose obsession with the Zodiac case consumes his life), Mark Ruffalo as Inspector David Toschi (the San Francisco cop whose dogged pursuit of the killer is both admirable and frustrating to watch), Robert Downey Jr. as Paul Avery (a flamboyant and self-destructive crime reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle), Anthony Edwards as Inspector William Armstrong (Toschi’s more measured partner), Brian Cox as Melvin Belli (a celebrity attorney briefly entangled in the Zodiac’s taunts), and John Carroll Lynch as Arthur Leigh Allen (the film’s most unsettling “possible” suspect, portrayed with quiet and yet smug menace).

Background: This was my first viewing of this film. I lived in San Francisco during the period this film depicts. I remember the case / investigation from the news, but I was mostly too young for the events to have much bearing on my life. Mainly what I recall, was the crimes became the fodder for many movie and TV episode scripts over the next decade – and since.

Plot Summary: The film chronicles the real-life investigation into the Zodiac killings that terrorized Northern California in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It begins with the murders, then shifts focus to the journalists and detectives trying to decode the killer’s cryptic letters and ciphers. As the case stalls and the killer fades from public view, the obsession deepens — especially for Graysmith, whose pursuit spans decades and costs him his marriage, his job, and nearly his sanity. The film doesn’t offer closure because, in the end, no killer is ever caught.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? How about the filming / FX? Are there any problems? And, did I like the film? Short answers: Yes-ish; pretty average; nothing special and no FX; a few minor (to me); yes (mostly).

Acting: The acting was okay, nothing special by the three leads: Gyllenhaal, Ruffalo or Downey, and these are three actors I normally enjoy watching. The only acting I found “notable” was Cox, who I did not find matched my memories of Belli. I’m not terribly fond of Cox and this struck me as Cox playing Cox – the same as I’ve found him in most of the roles I’ve seen him in since I started noticing him back in his “Sharpe” (BBC TV series) days. Clarification: I really liked Cox in the “Sharpe” series – which is why / when I noticed him. I haven’t found him interesting since then, but I don’t go out of my way to see or not see his work.

Filming / FX: The film’s visual tone is period-accurate parallels the emotional detachment of the investigation across the decade(s). There are no flashy FX. The murder re-enactments / scenes are not overly visually graphic, but they aren’t particularly muted either. The first shooting is more graphic after the fact (bloodied bodies), another (a cab driver) is barely seen, and a couple by a lake is more graphic in the moment, but only because it is a stabbing murder and not a shooting.

Problems: For me the two “issues” are not entirely a film problem as much as a directorial or resolution issue. This is a long film and I was tempted to concentrate so as not to miss subtle clues. I grew fatigued because there really are no “subtle” clues. This is a long (duration) movie because it’s a long movie and afterwards I felt I could have walked away and had a sandwich, come back and not missed much. Really, it’s a series of breadcrumbs which lead you to more breadcrumbs until the bag is empty. And, why? Because they imply they (the cops) have found the guy, but then they’re never able to prove it. In the movie, they match the “story” timeline with the person who they believe committed the crimes, but they never prove it. The suspect dies and the crimes stop. But do they? We never really know, because “Zodiac”, whomever he is may have continued committing crimes and simply stopped advertising (taking credit for) them.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes, though “enjoy” feels like the wrong word. It’s a long masterclass in procedural storytelling, and a long meditation on obsession, ambiguity, and the limits of institutional justice. It’s not a popcorn movie — it’s a film that offers a possible solution but no definitive answer.

Final Recommendation: Moderate. This is a long movie which is ultimately unsatisfying (to me, anyways). Highly recommended — especially if you’re drawn to true crime, investigative journalism, or psychological thrillers that resist easy answers. “Zodiac” reminds us that sometimes, the most terrifying thing in a story is that we don’t always end up with an answer at the end.

.
Click here (3 September) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.