The Last Movie You Watched? ver.2.0

I walk past the High Level Bridge from the film every day. Or as I call it ‘The Get Carter Bridge’.


One of the many perks of working in/near Newcastle city centre! Lunch breaks can be rather adventurous.


Watched the new Arrow 4K of Blood and Black Lace. Absolutely gorgeous with the HDR!


I watched The Emperor Jones (1933) starring Paul Robeson today!

A great showcase for Paul Robeson’s acting abilities “The Emperor Jones” (1933) feels like “Macbeth” transported to the Caribbean especially during the final 16 minutes of the film having Robeson’s character slowly going mad and seeing ghosts in a truly incredible solo acting performance!

This movie offers a great meaty role for Paul Robeson that largely drives the film to its conclusion
and the rest of this movie is pretty fantastic for the most part once it gets going!

One of my favorite discoveries/new to me watches this year! I really should watch more of the handful of films Paul Robeson was in!


I rewatched Dirty Harry. Although it´s obviously no masterpiece, I do really enjoy the film. There have been people that feel that the film is very right-wing in that it not only accepts, but also promotes the approach taken by Harry Callahan, but I don´t think so. Of course, they do kind of make fun of the police´s “softer” approaches to the Scorpio situation, but I always felt that the film had a bit of a neutral position in that regard. It esentially presents two ways of going about the situations the police face: the rather ineffective but lawful and safe version adopted by most of the cops, and the one Dirty Harry uses, being highly effective, but also against the law and possibly causing more trouble to the citizens than is necesary. What do you guys think? Does the film have a clear stance on which method it accepts/condones or is it more neutral, simply presenting them as facts?


The character of Harry Callahan is the personification of what most people feel inside when they see an unpunished injustice. I don’t think right wing or left wing comes into it unless one deals strictly in stereotypes…which is a problem with society today and another discussion all together.

I believe that when most people see some sleazy piece of shit walk away unprosecuted for a crime that the thought crosses their minds that people of that ilk should just simply be put down as they don’t now, nor will they ever, serve any benefit to society. Harry is simply the personification of that baser instinct that most people harbor. He does what most fear to do, not because they are afraid of committing the act itself but because they fear the repercussions that will ultimately accompany the act. Harry doesn’t possess that fear which allows those people to live vicariously through him.


Well, behind all that also lies the potential problem of committing a crime to fight a crime “for the greater good”. This is especially tricky because the greater good can be a very subjective thing. And of course it opens all kinds of doors for abuse of power.

I do agree, however, that I can’t imagine even extreme left wing people would want Scorpio to walk free. :wink:

Imho Dirty Harry is an extremely well crafted cop action thriller. Don Siegel was a masterful director for this kind of thing. It doesn’t come as a surprise that DH went on to become a template for an avalanche of other films, in the US, in Italy, and elsewhere.


I can imagine. That film makes great use of colours


I agree with both of your opinions. One of the key scenes in the film in when they´re at the stadium. We really want Harry to put a bullet in Scorpio, a reas POS who´s wimpering on the ground. But at what cost? What happens when the police, the people tasked with enforcing the laws, not follow the law they´re supposed to enforce?
Also, despite him being called “Dirty” and seemingly not caring about anyone, I feel like even the tough Callahan cares about people. He was the only one willing to help the guy on the roof despite talking a little rough to him (which he did to convince him to get down) and he seems genuinely concerned about Chico´s life (whom he called a spic). So I think that Harry was really human.
A truly excellent film and great to rewatch it. I haven´t seen any of the sequels, but I am turned off by the fact that Siegel didn´t direct them.


Regarding, ‘Dirty Harry’, I wonder if it was ever intended to be as controversial - I mean if it were set in the 1880s wild west, would we even be discussing the violence from the main protagonist?

I agree with the previous comments about living vicariously through Clint’s character … wouldn’t we all like to stand on ‘Scorpio’s’ wound and torture the bastard ??? It may not be very ‘NOW’ to say or admit this … but as humans, I think we have natural responses in these cases, which have nothing to do with current social trends.


How very true, my friend. I’ve thought this for years; which is why I think the ‘Harry’ films are more relevant today than ever before. In effect, we are now being ‘told’ to ignore our basic natural/survival instincts, or face the consequences if we injure someone who is trying to rob, maim, or do us injury.

So often the victim becomes the offender, simply by defending their basic right to be safe in their own home, or to walk home safe without being attacked for no other reason apart from sheer f…ing evil.
The old argument of 'being under the influence of alcohol doesn’t cut it with me; neither does ‘the offender has a tough and deprived upbringing’ bullsh…t.

Unfortunately, if we fail to fit in with ‘wokeness’, (which is another word for Political Correctness) for example, we are branded with a ‘phobia’, or the perpetrator of a ‘Hate Crime’, simply because we have a mind of our own.
Speaking of which, why does any self-proclaimed democratic/tolerant country NEED political correctness?
Just a thought…and one which I don’t think the general public ask themselves as they daily accept more and more idiocies that simply do not make sense.

Harry Callahan had a mind of his own, worked outside the box, and got results…but guess what? It tarnished the ‘look’ of the San Fran Police Department…
But…That’s why I’ve always liked ‘Dirty Harry’…he was doing in 1971 what a lot of people would like to do, especially now…in this ‘Alice in Wonderland’ upside down/nothing makes sense world.

By the way, I’m not condoning violence or anarchy of any kind. I hate violence of any kind. I’ll leave that to the mindless yobs/assholes, who only feel safe when they are tanked up on drugs or alcohol, or running in packs like wolves or rats.

As for anarchy, with a capital ‘A’, posing ‘democratically’ in the form of ‘Save this, that, and the other’ protesters…try justifying your cause to the everyday folk that have been deprived, most cruelly, of visiting a loved one, holding the hand of a dying relative, been stuck in a funeral procession, simply wanted to go to work or do some good as an unpaid volunteer…while you sit in the middle of a road dressed like a f…ing tangerine, with a smirk on your face.

Stop scaring the up and coming generation into thinking that the World is going to end…

Bottom line: Sometimes, you need to use first grade manure to bring down the lower grade shit in society… :wink:

Harry Callahan, from ‘Magnum Force’ (1973):
“Briggs, I hate the damn system, but until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I’ll stick with it.”


Very well said, T.



Well spoken!

1 Like

Dirty Harry is essentially anti-statist in tone which makes it implicitly right-wing in the specific American context in that it plays into the somewhat romantic view of government as serving the people and one’s ability to reject that in the event the authorities cease to serve the people.

The concept harks all the way back to the founding fathers and the second amendment with the constitutionalist types championing minarchism as the paragon of American excellence, endorsing the second amendment and so forth.

Harry’s decision to defy state’s tacit monopoly on violence might be seen as his repudiation of the social contract, going back to the state of nature so that justice may be served. This depiction accords with the aforementioned quasi-revolutionary streak and the emblematically American distrust of government.

Harry’s revolt might also be deemed as a commentary on the increase of lawlessness and systemic dysfunction in the 1970s, whereas his distaste for both the ethnic as well as religious minorities could be a depiction of the WASP reaction to the rapidly transforming cultural landscape of the 1970s with the hippie influences seeping into the public life at large and whatnot.

Nevertheless, the oft-levelled criticism of Dirty Harry being a “fascist” film is patently ludicrous in light of fascism’s evidently statist backbone and the fact that Harry’s rebellion is clearly individualist in nature, therefore the motion picture is about as fascist as it is communist to raise taxes for the very rich; he does not set out to dismantle the law enforcement so as to erect some novel edifice of the justice system, he merely goes beyond the bounds established by the law so as to eradicate unequivocally antisocial elements of society. Be that as it may, the certain lenience shown towards vigilantism combined with film’s popularity must have dismayed some people because Magnum Force is a total inversion of the first installment. This is also why it is hard for me to take some of these sequels seriously, Magnum Force is so overzealous in its opposition to vigilantism that it almost feels like a propaganda piece.


‘The Rookie’ 1990

Not Clint’s finest moment, either as star or director.

It really is dreadful, and I found it painful to sit through.

The dialogue is laughable, to the point of ‘pooping your pants awful’…

He even gets tied up and screwed by one of the baddies…eeek! :unamused:

Love Clint at his best…but this ain’t it. He tries, bless him, and exhibits more facial ticks than I’ve ever seen before in an Eastwood film. I don’t mind a few Eastwood mannerisms; but here, it looks as if he’s allergic to Charlie Sheen!

Picked this up on bluray the other day for 99p…I was curious to know if the years had been kind to it - they haven’t, unfortunately.
Sad to think that this came from the same talent that directed ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ and ‘Unforgiven’…

Still, it is Clint… :wink:


After watching the phenomenal Oppenheimer earlier this week, the wife and I decided to re-visit some old Christopher Nolan today.

We began with Memento and I will have to say that this film doesn’t get nearly the acclaim that it deserves.

This film reinvents the art of storytelling and forces the viewer to actually think without being led every step of the way. Guy Pearce’s performance is excellent and the movie is chock full of memorable characters. It definitely ranks as one of Nolan’s best.

We also watched Insomnia and while it is not on the level of Memento, it is still a film well worth seeing.

Although this film is a re-make (I have to watch the Norwegian original at some point), the performances of Al Pacino (as usual), Robbin Williams, and Hillary Swank are all excellent. In Memento, the viewer is forced into living Pearce’s complete and total confusion but in this film, we are forced to share Pacino’s total exhaustion.

Nolan is unmatched at immersing the viewer into the lives of his characters. All in all, an afternoon well spent.


I enjoyed Emperor as well. Robeson did a great job as Jones. I think he even starred in the musical prior to getting into film acting. O’Neal also shined a critical light on the politics and colonial legacy of the Caribbean.


I watched Dino DeLaurentis’s The Valachi Papers (1972) with Charles Bronson, Lino Ventura, and Jill Ireland. I watched the movie a lot when I was younger. I still enjoy the movie and get annoyed whenever it gets compared to The Godfather (also from 1972). DeLaurentis was probably cashing in on the immense popularity of Coppola’s film. However, to me, to compare the two films is like comparing apples to oranges. The Godfather is based off of Puzzo’s fictional (albeit based off of real life) novel. The Valachi Papers (based off the non-fiction book by Peter Maas) is based on the life and career of Genovese (later Gambino) crime family soldier-turned-FBI protected witness, Joseph Valachi (Bronson). Bronson gives a deeper performance than in his usual one-dimensional stoic killer/vigilante roles from the era. The presence of so many Italian actors gives the movie an air of authenticity. We also see the history of the Mafia unfolding throughout the film, from warring Italian gangs to a national organization. Jill Ireland gives a great performance as Valachi’s wife, Maria. Joe Don Baker has a uncredited bit role as an Irish stickup man at the beginning of the movie.



I agree, it is a solid film with memorable performances. The biggest problem is that it could´ve had better pacing. The film doesn´t drag, but the relationship between Joe and his wife feels a little undercooked.

  1. Allen: Bananas 7/10
  2. Johnson: Knives Out 7/10
  3. Rollin: Lips of Blood 7/10
  4. Browning: Dracula 7/10
  5. Whale: Frankenstein 8/10
  6. Rollin: Fascination 6/10
  7. Wachowski: Bound (cinema) 7/10
  8. Whale: Bride of Frankenstein 8/10
  9. Corman: Haunted Palace 7/10
  10. Lemoine: La maison des milles et un plaisirs 5/10