Reviews

A rather nondescript movie which labors to really come to grips with the issues, but there is more to this film than meets the eye, and its worth viewing more than once. Jim Cagney gives an excellent portrayal as the intellectual who seems to have thought everything through, and draws his protégé over onto the dark side, much against the latter's better judgment. Only right at the end are we made aware that whatever higher levels of reasoning may have led the professor down the path of terrorism, all he really wants to do is kill women.

I'd call that a fairly definitive statement about terrorists in general and Cagney makes it in his understated but masterful style. I wonder if his character was based on a real person from that troubled time ?

R. B.

Top stuff. I've only ever seen episode 1 but I'm always on the lookout for the others. I loved the bit where Van Patten tried to use the approved "sleeper touch" technique to subdoo a baddie, and it didn't work !

Van Cleef's arrow-catching stunt was very impressive, and he handled that scene and a lot of other equally unlikely frames like the true pro that he was. Keeping a straight face through the takes must have been hard work at times for a guy who had worked with directors the caliber of Fred Zinnemann and Sergio Leone.

Demi Moore would likely prefer that her appearance in this B-grader remained largely forgotten, but we all have to start somewhere, and the show was probably a lot of fun to make.

R. B.

A low key, but excellent portrayal of the Cambridge spy saga. Later treatments of the story haven't really measured up to this original. The three central characters are well cast, in particular Michael Culver as the unbalanced Donald Maclean, who despite his extreme value as a penetration agent, must have been a real nightmare for his Soviet controllers. Maclean's long-suffering wife is played very well by Elizabeth Seal. The Philby persona is well portrayed as a unique amalgam of outward charm and vulnerability with the hidden core of ruthless fanaticism......He didn't do it for the money and he was never a double agent.

Derek Jacobi plays Guy Burgess as a sinister buffoon and retrobate, which works well in the context of the dramatic representation, but the real-life Burgess was a much more complex individual, with a charming and witty side to his character. He had a wide circle of loyal friends and was very, very well connected. Burgess was once heard to announce for all the world to hear," I am a Comintern agent !" Presumably, everyone who heard that either thought it was just Guy being whimsical, or perhaps some didn't even give a damn if he was a Soviet spy. Such were the peculiarities of the British establishment of the day, which the Russians were able to exploit to their enormous advantage.

Eventually Burgees and Maclean defect to the east together, and the whole ring starts to unravel. The portrayals of Philby's subsequent interrogation duels with Milmo and Skardon are absolutely first rate and true to the facts. Everyone knew he was as guilty as sin, but he ran rings around all of them, got off the hook, and a few years later, slipped away to the USSR himself.

The Russians subsequently decorated him as a hero and he lived out his days in self-satisfied privilege, providing motivational coaching to the godamned KGB football team, and even taking time out to get married again. Later, he was always available to give smug interviews to the western journalist who chronicled his strange, but very successful career. One can't help thinking though, that back in the Stalin era, he would likely have been shot when he arrived in Moscow after defecting from the west.

The great mystery of Philby, and one which the film leaves appropriately unresolved, is how he managed to induce so many clever people to trust him in the first place. I believe he rates a whole movie to himself mainly to explore this central issue.

For now though, I believe that "Burgess, Philby, and Maclean" remains the definitive portrait of the Cambridge spy ring. Very rarely screened nowadays, but it hopefully will turn up on DVD.

R. B.

Top effort all round but guaranteed to give young children the most dreadful nightmares, and possibly not entirely appropriate for the 7.30 pm time-slot the show usually occupies. The original series could be quite scary at times, even in b&w and despite the packing-case sets and the outdoor scenes all shot at the local quarry. However, the new version makes full use of an adequate budget and modern special effects to take things right over the top.

My favorite characters (villains, naturally) are Cassandra ( moisturize me !), and the untitled, but apparently female "electronic life-form" that lives in TV sets and erases viewer's faces !

My favorite scene is when the Daleks finally come face-to face with the Cybermen.

R. B.

A well-made film with many of the right character ingredients. Brando plays the Eastwood-type lead so well that you start to wonder if he may well have made an even better "Man with no Name" than Clint, had the role come his way. John Saxon works hard to make his "evil Mexican" work, and does reasonably well. However, the potential to develop the psychotic aspects of the character, which is strongly indicated in the early part of the film, isn't given sufficient attention by the director in succeeding reels. It needs to be made more clear that Chuy is crazy as well as bad.

Saxon's character definitely deserves a very sticky end and by half-way through the film, we really need to see this guy get it. However, just being picked off from a distance with a rifle is somewhat disappointing for the audience, and even Brando and the girl seem a little let down. Sergio Leone would no doubt have laid on something considerably more sanguine and theatrical.

Banditto specialist Emilio Fernandez and Alex Montoya give really excellent villainy support and are both duly dispatched by Brando in the usual way. Anjanjette Comer is a little miscast in the difficult role of Chuy Medina's unwilling chattel. I really think she needed, and the audience expects for her, to be able to terminate a few pistoleros on her own account, instead of just being a passive "damsel in distress", and leaving all the rough stuff to Marlon.

The director makes good use of close-ups of faces, eyes, and heaters, but tends not to develop some of the scenes sufficiently. The exception to this would be the scorpion-assisted arm-wrestle, which was very effective. Come to think of it, the whole film tended to go off the boil after this scene leading to a conclusion which was not really a stylistic match to the rest of the film. Would have worked better for me if Brando's character had returned home (a) with the horse but without the girlfriend, (b) with the girl but minus the horse, or (c) with both, but dying from wounds received in the big gun-down. Option (b) probably the best. That way he would have to spend the rest of his life raising a dozen kids and shooing bugs out of the cornfield instead of becoming an asshole rancher and making money.

Not too bad but could have been much better. As it stands, the film tends to be neither fish nor feather, residing stylistically somewhere between the traditional western, the interpretations of Leone and the continental directors and the classic "mayhem in Mexico" works of Sam Peckinpah.

Emilio Fernandez went on to play the memorable bad-ass, "Generalissimo Mapache" in Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch", for which his role in "The Appaloosa " was no doubt a good preparation.

R. B.

A quaint Australian take on the sixties espionage/handsome hero genre. Tony Ward puts in a somewhat casual performance as the lead, but Gerard Kennedy plays the series' perennial bad-ass role "Kragg" exceptionally well, and this part was the foundation for his subsequent success in the local film and TV industry, in which he became an indispensable stock "hard man".

Late in the series, Tony Ward got written out, and "Kragg" switched sides and became a good guy ! However, the show didn't seem to work without the likable Tony Ward, even though his acting was less than inspiring. Many well-known Aussie character actors got their start in shows like "Hunter" and like Kennedy, went on to do well in the boom times of local cinema in the 1970's.

Not a bad production for its time and some episodes would still hold up reasonably well. Interesting viewing as a 1960's Australia period piece. Whatever happened to all those ladies with the cute hairdos, and the guys who never stepped outside without the regulation business suit and hat on ?

R. B.

An Australian-made trash classic, but generally unmemorable save for the presence of Anthony Valentine, who works hard but was never entirely credible in "good-guy" roles. By the time he made this film, he was essentially typecast as the archetypal English upper-crust bounder, especially after his definitive performance as "Raffles" and as the execrable Toby Meers in the "Callan" series.

A good line-up of the stock Aussie baddies of that era, but they don't seem to take the whole business very seriously. I thought the idea of having the crooks use a battered old auto for their transport was quite clever. It certainly would have saved on production costs, and I'd hazard a guess that there was actually only the one vehicle used for the role; They probably picked it up at the wreckers for $2.

Naturally, the villains and their old banger meet an (operatic) bad end and with order restored down under, Mr Tully can head home to the UK.

Not bad viewing on a wet day if you've got nothing to do and need a laugh or two.

R. B.

Definitely one of the creepiest TV shows ever made and very well produced by Quinn Martin. Can't say I've ever really liked it much as it gave me too many nightmares when I was a kid. There was always that underlying vibe that those bad-ass "alien beings from a dying planet" were steadily getting the upper hand and would eventually do us all in. A whole different feeling to "The Fugitive", where you always sorta knew that sooner or later Richard Kimble would catch up with the one-armed man and secure justice.

I remember at least one episode where you even got a clue as to what the bad guys REALLY looked like.....very effectively scary; definitely not for under-7's.

For a sixties TV period piece , "The Invaders" holds up pretty damn well today. There was plenty of imagination in the plots and the suspense was very well structured. A lot more realistic and compelling than later shows of the same genre like "V" which I was never able to take seriously after the rat breakfast scene.

Not sure how well "The Invaders" would adapt as a movie feature though; part of the show's appeal was in its weekly dose of worry. In movie form, you would need to see a resolution one way or another, rather than be left in unending suspense. It would be difficult to prevent it from turning out as just one more standard "invasion from the stars" flick with heroes doing their hero stuff and kicking the ghastly villains off the planet by the end of the final reel.

I'd rather see a continuation of the series made someday with the same spooky feel about it , perhaps with David Vincent's grandson in the hot-seat, or something like that. They'd certainly have to re-use that unique "aliens at work" signature piece from the original soundtrack.

R. B.

Good entertainment in the ever-popular bad-ass cop/hoodlum buddy genre. I really dug the biker heavies, and the thing with the bus was a masterpiece. I wonder how many old buses they trashed to get that sequence just right? Much like the car chase in "Bullitt"; its the part you remember years after you've forgotten the plot of the film.

Nick Nolte is excellent as the tough but rather dumb cop commuting between mayhem zones in his tired and much abused Cadillac convertible. Most of the western-style action takes place in sleaze-bag honky-tonks and a brothel. Quite effective.

Excellent action throughout but the broken-glass festival at the end is a little overdone. The fake streetcars are very unprofessional. Why spend so much money and effort on some scenes and then blow it on basic glitches like that? Movie audiences DO notice that sort of thing, just like airplane vapor trails in Westerns, so stay on the ball, Hollywood.

Speaking of balls, my favorite scene in this film is the one where Eddie Murphy gets the drop on Nick Nolte with a basketball ! Either Nolte is a very good actor or he really didn't know it was coming. Maybe both. Try doing 20 takes of that scene sometime.

Perennial villain Ed O'Ross (Red Heat, Universal Soldier) is in there as one of the bad cops and duly gets drilled in the finale. Has Ed O'Ross EVER been in a film where he didn't meet a violent end ? The problem is that as soon as you see him, you just know that he's going to be one of the heels.

I liked this film, and it still holds it own pretty well today for a new generation of viewers, despite the autos and clothes now starting to look a little dated.

R. B.

An All-American gangster movie in the grand tradition. Al Pacino's Tony Montana might be a coke-snorting low-life and remorseless killer, but he's big on honor and family values so the audience can identify with the character to some extent even if we are shocked by his ruthless methods. The film contains some memorable highlights that made it a real winner at the time of its release and it still holds up pretty well despite the dated automobiles and bizarre clothes. The violence is extreme and makes even the most jaded audiences tend to set aside the popcorn and pay attention. Tony has a psychotic, and in due course, murderous jealously of his sister and we are not left in too much doubt as to the incestuous connotations. He suffers rejection by his mother, who regards him as being beyond redemption; surely the hardest of rods to bear for any villain in the traditional mold.

We actually start to feel sorry for Tony and EVERYONE in the movie house cheers when he summarily dispatches the Columbian asshole who is about to blow up a target's car with the kiddies on board.

My favorite scene is the famous "bath" segment , where Tony sounds off at length about the ills of the world while soaking himself in the biggest bathtub in America, coked up to the eyeballs. The message comes through loud and clear: You can have all that money, power, and the woman of your dreams, but if mom won't talk to you, then you're going to be just one sorry pilgrim.

Al Pacino dominates the film in a similar manner to the way Eli Wallach took control over proceedings in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" , but unlike the latter film,"Scarface" tends to suffer from not having a effective foil for the principle character. However, the supporting players all put in some serviceable performances. Michelle Pfiefer is quite effective as the bored trophy-wife and the other hoodlums are all pretty good. As in all the best gangster flicks, the cops have a minor role to play, and are basically just there to tag along and tidy up after the gangland carnage.

Like in those old classics where Jimmy Cagney or Edward G Robinson did their stuff, we all know that that Tony has to get it before the end of the last reel. The finale doesn't disappoint, as he takes his leave us in the traditional style, screaming defiance at his multitude of enemies while blazing away at them with a "Chicago Piano". As with Cody Jarrett in "White Heat", Tony Montana the loner, doomed by his life-style and lack of self-control, is retired undefeated and unrepentant.

A good take on the standard "down side of the American dream" theme, and I found the film more enjoyable than the more sophisticated, but convoluted and laborious "Once Upon a Time in America" My main criticism of "Scarface" is its tendency, probably unconscious, to push the vibe that "crime may not pay, but its a good buzz while it lasts". However, its certainly not the only film with that characteristic, and if gangster movies didn't glamorize the underworld to some extent, would we pay money to go and watch them ?

R. B.

My favorite from the WB gangster flick genre of the 1950's and 60's. Contains the memorable line (from Shultze to henchmen after a confrontation with his dipsomaniac girlfriend), "There should be a law against women drinking".

A real virtuoso performance from Vic Morrow who even gets to SING a number or two in this film (though not terribly well). Morrow is consistently believable as the execrable Dutch Shultz, real name Arthur Flegenheimer, the New York prohibition mobster who dominated the headlines for a time in the early 1930's.

The film is notable in that it does not stray too far from historical fact. The phone-booth gun-down of Shultze's arch-enemy, Vincent "Mad Dog" Coll is totally accurate and Shultz's own messy demise along with a number of his henchmen at the Palace Chop House in Newark is reasonably close to the factual details. Shultz's racketeering masterpiece, the control and expansion of "the numbers" in the early thirties under the direction of genius mathematician turned crook, George "Addadabba"Berman is portrayed quite well. (The real Berman met his end in Jersey that night along with his boss, but the numbers racket went from strength to strength)

Many,if not most of the character players in this film were experienced screen thugs or cops from the Warner stable and they all carry their roles well. The love-interest between Shultz's much ill-used moll and her insipid former boyfriend is a bit on the flat side. We can certainly see why she prefers the despicable Dutchman !

Morrow also has what has to be one of the most unromantic lines in screen history, and perfectly in character : As the girlfriend (ably played by Leslie Parrish) emerges from their bedroom disheveled and hungover, Shultz simply sneers at her, "You stink!" Nice guy.

Had he not been so successful in the role of the good Sergeant Saunders in the hit TV series "Combat", Vic Morrow could have gone onto to great heights as a screen villain, and in fact later in his career , he was showing promising signs of developing such roles further. His performance as the boss con in "The Glasshouse" (1972) showed that he had lost none of his touch.

Incidentally, Leslie Parrish went on to turn in a solid performance as Lawrence Harvey's doomed fiancé in "The Manchurian Candidate".

I've always regarded Vic Morrow's portrayal of Dutch Shultze as definitive, and its interesting to compare it with Dustin Hoffman's effective but very different treatment of the same character role in "Billy Bathgate".

R. B.

Way, way too much film for 1967 . Huston and the cast made a good job out of difficult material, but the mediocre box-office should not have surprised anyone; audiences brought up on films filtered by the production code simply weren't ready for the themes portrayed.

Liz Taylor does a master turn as a a southern virago penned up in a patently unsatisfactory marriage with Marlon Brando's insipid Major Wendel. One may well ask how they came to be married in the first place. She prefers men of a more red-blooded persuasion and is accommodated by one of Wendel's superior officers, whose own marriage is equally problematic. The greater part of the story revolves around the dynamics of these two marriages in the fishbowl world of the rural army post. With the nation at peace, the soldiers apparently have little to do and the devil obligingly provides them with some alternative activities to relieve their idleness.

I liked Brian Keith's portrayal of the laconic Lt Col Langdon, who cares for his wife deeply, but who doesn't agonize unduly over the moral dimensions of his affair with the voluptuous Leonora Presumably, the entire post is aware of this relationship with the sole exception of Major Wendel, who is treated with ill-disguised contempt by just about everyone. "Your wife is cheating" , Langdon casually informs Wendel in the context of a card game Langdon is playing with Mrs Wendel.

Marlon Brando clearly has some trouble with his role, and it is by far the most difficult part in the film. Huston's directorial style may have impeded Brando from properly coming to grips with the character, and in any case, sharing a stage with Liz was a tough number for even the best of them. However, the most important scene between the two, the "riding crop" incident, was excellently portrayed by both actors. This scene is correctly treated by Huston as being the essential climax of the whole story.

The role of the fragile, tragic Alison Langdon is superbly performed by Julie Harris. Alison is only too well aware of her husband's waywardness and despises Mrs Wendel to the point of insanity. Mrs Wendel for her part does not even see the problem and (apparently genuinely) pities Mrs Langdon and wants to be her friend. The appalling dynamic between the two women is well portrayed, as is the platonic relationship between Alison and her strange manservant.

Less well structured is the portrayal of Wendel's unrequited love interest with Private Williams, who himself is rather "alternative" sexually, but apparently not homosexual and therefore unable to appreciate or reciprocate Wendel's feelings. The film as a whole could possibly have benefited from a more explicit definition of Wendel's homosexuality , but the director could obviously only go so far in 1967. Alternatively, the opposite tack could have been pursued of letting the audience "do most of the work" in regard to Wendel's sexuality, but that would have required a lot more Brando on screen and somewhat less Liz; a devil of a choice for any director.

In fact, Huston deserves top marks for this film. It would have been a very tough call for any director and the combination of Liz Taylor and Brando was a most unusual casting combination. Liz is a fine actress, but was very much of the "old school", trained to expect and hence demand careful attention from the director at all times in all her scenes. Brando, on the other hand (and like Eli Wallach in this respect) was the "master of the method" and only really needed a director on hand to organize the camera angles and arrange the lights. Accommodating these diametrically different acting philosophies as well as the two gigantic egos on the one set would have made for a hard day's work, even for John Huston.

R. B.

The key to the success of this defining gangster movie is the faultless casting. All the characters are strong and eminently believable. The central masterpiece is, of course, Brando's Don Corleone, a feudal mafia warlord of the old school who can distribute largess or initiate mayhem with no more than a mumbled whisper to his ever-attentive mobster acolytes. Excellent performances from Al Pacino , James Caan, and Robert Duvall, Sterling Hayden as the tough, bad cop and one of my favorite screen thugs, Al Lettieri as "The Turk" Solozzo. A fairly predictable plot, even if you haven't first read the book , but so what? Its not meant to be a mystery. We the audience KNOW that the enemies of the family are going to get what's coming to them by way of the usual methods, and the director does not disappoint us. The traditional christening juxtaposed with the scenes of vengeful carnage are a masterful touch.

Is it possible to be a good son of the Church and a mass murderer all at the same time ? The director poses this question to us and we are discomforted. We have to take on board the new reality that not ALL mobsters are flamboyant psychopaths in the erstwhile Hollywood tradition of James Cagney, Edward G Robinson etc; doomed to perish in a hail of police bullets or in the electric chair. The mafia boss could be the family man next door, the theme picked up and carried to new heights in "The Sopranos". At the end of "The Godfather", we are left in no doubt that Michael Corleone and his henchmen are highly unlikely to be brought to book for their crimes, and more to the point, we the audience don't mind this one bit.

In that respect, that is probably the secret to this films enduring popularity everywhere in the World that it has been screened. Al Pacino's Michael Corleone defends his family and protects their livelihood by doing the hard yards and making the tough decisions. We can all identify with that, but in balance, we are also presented with the down side of Michael's effectiveness as a mob boss. His brother-in-law is dispatched without mercy and he lies without remorse to his wife. These themes were effectively developed in "The Godfather Pt 2", which is mostly concerned with the subsequent and inevitable degradation of Michael's humanity, culminating in fratricide.

The violence depicted in "The Godfather" was extreme at the time of its release and still has the power to shock. This is no bad thing as the mayhem is fully in context with the plot and is in no way glamorized. Real gangsters DO commit horrible crimes and often die in their turn bleeding in a gutter.

R. B.

We all get to serve under a "Captain Queeg" at some point in our lives, so all audiences can identify with the characters in this story. Hermann Wouk, the author of the book, was a US submariner in WW2 and its tempting to speculate as to whether Queeg with his steel marbles was based on a real person. I think the character is most likely a composite, but so many of the sequences, like the "strawberry incident" ring true to anyone who has served in the armed forces or large bureaucracies.

Humphrey Bogart, ably supported by a star cast, does an masterful job with an extremely demanding role. A lesser actor could easily have killed the part and turned the film into a comedy (compare with "Mr. Roberts", which is INTENDED to be a semi-comedy) Bogart's Queeg isn't funny....real ship's captains never are.....but though we identify with the long-suffering crew throughout the "action" part of the film; by the end of the trial, we are starting to get the picture from Queeg's point of view and the US Navy's point of view, and this was always Herman Wouk's intention in the book.

I've always been a Fred MacMurray fan, and I rate his portrayal of the slimy Tom Keefer as top rate. Keefer is another character who we all run into sooner or later in life. I liked Tom Tully's De Vreiss ("War is hell, Willy") and check out the young Lee Marvin as Meatball. Whether Richard Widmark would have made an even better Queeg than Humphrey Bogart is problematic. I think he would have been too laconic and nasty. Bogart's Queeg is incompetent, neurotic and high-strung, but fundamentally not a BAD person, and this is true to Hermann Wouk's literary original. (Widmark didn't miss out. Some years later he was cast as an exceptionally nasty and fatally unbalanced ship's captain)

In style, the film is a good, fast moving presentation let down a little (for modern audiences) by the "toy ships in a bathtub" typhoon sequence. However, I'm sure that state-of-the-art 2006 special effects will appear rather quaint to audiences in 2056, and in any case, how would you go about filming a shipboard sequence in a REAL typhoon.

This film is a true classic, and largely due to Bogart's definitive performance, it would be exceptionally difficult to produce a credible remake. They tried to sneak up on it a few years ago with one called "The Trial of the Caine Mutiny", but that was a flat effort and is in no way comparable to the 50's original.

R. B.

Bronson and Winner at their best. I prefer this production to the subsequent "Stone Killers" Actually, it has more in common with "The Internecine Project", a neglected gem by Ken Hughes starring James Coburn. Bronson is perfect as Bishop, an expert assassin but a very unhappy pilgrim with some serious psychiatric disorders that he barely keeps under control. As the film goes on, Bishop's professional performance starts to deteriorate eventually leading to his own proscription. Jan Michael Vincent is the second lead and very effective as an obnoxious rich-kid villain in contrast to his more usual baby-face and heart-throb castings. Keenan Wynn as "Big Harry" gives his usual impeccable support performance (he also turns up in "The Internecine Project" in a similar character role). As in most of his films, Charles Bronson does not have too much dialog to wrestle with, and so is free to concentrate on just "being Bronson"

Of course, Bronson, like the stars of the silent era, doesn't NEED any dialog to make the scenes work. He was always at his best when not forced to overplay his roles. Check out his reaction when hit with a large fee by the prostitute, or his relationship with "The Man" and his pet leopard..... "That was MESSY, Mr Bishop", says "The Man", referring to a gun-down that Bishop and his new apprentice have badly botched up. Bishop may be tough and cool on the job, but he's no loose cannon hoodlum in the Bogart/Cagney tradition. He is very much the corporate cogwheel and he's certainly terrified of "The Man", knowing full well that even top hit men are in no way immune to "tragic accidents".

Of the lines Bronson does have, some are short but memorable: "freaks" (when itemizing his apprentice's hobbies) and the classic, "remember, dead right or dead"

We are tantalized with a few clues here and there as to how Bishop came to be what he is. A traumatized childhood with a mobster father is alluded to. Like our contemporary screen mob icon Tony Soprano, Bishop desperately needs the services of a head-shrinker. Unlike Tony Soprano, Bishop doesn't last long enough to get any therapy. When given a prescription for tranquilizers after an anxiety attack, Bishop simply throws it away. The same question is posed to the audience as in "The Sopranos"; is killing folks for a living sending the man nuts, or did he get into that unhealthy line of work because he was unbalanced in the first place?

Jan Michael Vincent is actually a damned good actor, though you'd never know it from a lot of the trash he has been casted in over the years. Like a great many (most?) actors, I believe he has often sold himself well short, and has payed the price in terms of reputation. "The Mechanic" remains one of his best performances and he should have concentrated on obtaining similar roles.

Apparently, this film was made with at least two alternative endings, but I've never seen the "soft" one, and the usual version where Bishop gets it from a glass of poisoned vino and Steve gets vaporised, is entirely appropriate. Homo-erotic connotations have been ascribed to the relationship between Bishop and his apprentice, and Winner tends to leave this to the viewer's interpretation. The point is made but not labored that BOTH men are seriously unbalanced and ultimately are as doomed as their targets.

R. B.

We were viewing this film for the first time and the scene came up where Clint deals with an attempted air hijack. My brother made the comment "I don't think this film is meant to be taken seriously". He (my brother) compared both the plot and production values unfavorably with the more intense and grittier "Dirty Harry".

That may be the case, but personally "Magnum Force" is one of my favorites in the Eastwood opus along with "Hang em High", also directed by the redoubtable, but much-maligned Ted Post. Like "Hang em High", "Magnum Force" has improved with age and one has to admit that Ted Post really wasn't such a bad director.

Clint performs the usual Eastwood stuff in fine style, and one-liners like " A good man always knows his limitations" have become legendary. However, Hal Holbrook in his excellent performance as "Briggs" has what in my opinion is a line to die for; " You're about to become extinct !", he snarls at Eastwood, when he very briefly has the drop on him. You just KNOW that Briggs is soon going to get what's coming to him in a big way. Anybody could have told him that pulling a heater on Dirty Harry is one really dumb move. Callahan demonstrates that he is more than capable of driving a car and punching out his boss at the same time!

A useful, but not memorable performance from David Soul, and good back-up from a competent support cast. In style and format, this film anticipates a lot of Eastwood's own work as a director, and he once even admitted that he learned a few things from working with Post. The "honest cop as outsider" character is a perennial favorite with audiences and Eastwood has made good mileage out of the Callahan role over the years.

I liked the Lalo Shifrin score and the classic opening credit sequence; it lets you know in advance not to go looking for too many deep insights in what is to follow. Overall, a reasonable production in the crash autos/shoot assholes genre and like "Dirty Harry" and "Bullitt", its now a real West Coast period piece. Younger audiences really dig the seventies clothes, "old automobiles", and traditional car-chase sequences, especially the motorcycle showdown on the derelict carrier...... "Briggs was right; you guys lack experience".

A movie not to be taken TOO seriously.

R. B.