Indeed I'm surprised never to have heard of the Dirty Harry films and/or character being rebooted for a contemporary audience.
Goddammit, don't give them any ideas!![]()
I hear Shia LeBouef is available.

Indeed I'm surprised never to have heard of the Dirty Harry films and/or character being rebooted for a contemporary audience.
Goddammit, don't give them any ideas!![]()
I hear Shia LeBouef is available.
Locke's character was in Sudden Impact, not the Dead Pool.
Finally, the film is a lot more nuanced that people might think. As I mentioned above, this isn't a "Death Wish" or "Punisher" movie. Harry isn't some guy out for revenge. He's not someone trying to satisfy his own needs. He's basically a good, if politically incorrect, cop who finds himself in a situation that results in him doing things he fully expects will mean the end of his career but he believes are necessary to save lives.
You make some interesting points, but nearly any film or work of fiction is dependent on the POV being shown. Clearly the movie is a not a realistic depiction of what would happen to someone like Harry (and was not intended to be). If one demands realism, Harry would have been on desk duty from almost the beginning of the movie, while internal affairs reviewed the circumstances of the bank robbery he stopped.Yes. Even when Harry kills Scorpio at the end, it's not an execution. He gives Scorpio the same chance to surrender that he gave the bank robber earlier in the film. Scorpio chooses to try his luck instead, and pays for this misjudgment with his life.
It's also worth noting that Harry waits until after this final confrontation to throw away his badge. So long as he remains a police officer, he follows the rules--or at least, his rather loose interpretation thereof. Instead of just assassinating Scorpio, at no risk to himself, he fires in self-defence.
I do think, however, that the film is problematic in other ways. In particular, I think Harry's behaviour is acceptable only because of the film's narrative structure. The film's omniscient narrator shows events from both Harry's perspective, and Scorpio's. As a consequence, there is no doubt in the viewer's mind about Scorpio's guilt, and Harry's actions are much easier to justify than they would be in real life. The fact that Scorpio is portrayed as a sadistic racist monster, without any redeeming or even human qualities, also helps make Harry's behaviour more acceptable than it would otherwise be.
I would also be opposed to any remake, simply because these films were so much a product of their times. I don't think the character has much contemporary relevance.
Well it isn't hard to connect Walt Kowalski as an older Harry Callahan. Much of the temperament is very similar as is the inclination to take action when faced with a problem. There's also the cynicism with the world at large in general.^ I remember when GT was announced, some sources said that it was going to be a new Dirty Harry movie.
Locke's character was in Sudden Impact, not the Dead Pool.
D'oh! I actually did know that - stupid brain freeze!
Locke's character was in Sudden Impact, not the Dead Pool.
D'oh! I actually did know that - stupid brain freeze!
Sudden Impact was the first Callahan movie I actually saw in the theater and aside from Sondra Locke, I thought it was passable....
The first two films are classic; the rest I'm not a big fan of.
Anyone remember the short-lived TV show Lady Blue? Critics dubbed it "Dirty Harriet".
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.