MovieChat Forums > Magnum Force (1973) Discussion > My issue with the ending(obvious spoiler...

My issue with the ending(obvious spoiler)

posted 9 years ago by jmsocool
8 replies | jump to latest

Throughout the first film, and 99% of this film Harry is not a vigilante. He's a cop who pushes the envelope, doing things he shouldn't do, according to the rules, but should do according to his sense of justice. But at the end, he sets the timer on the bomb and tosses it into the backseat of the car, killing Hal Holbrook when it explodes. At that point Harry wasn't in any danger. This seems a violation of his code of justice. Shooting Scorpio in the stadium in the first film might seem unnecessary, but you can make a case that he didn't want him to get away, delaying the anticipated rescue of the girl. But there was no reason for him to kill Holbrook's character, other than vigilantism, which he was opposed to.

"My girlfriend sucked 37 d*cks!"
"In a row?"

[–] bv-j 9 years ago

Yup I agree with you. Briggs threatened to railroad him but that would be impossible being that plenty of witnesses saw Harry removing a bomb from his mailbox. Witnesses saw Briggs leaving with Harry and carrying the bomb. Witnesses saw the rogue motorcycle cops chasing Harry and shooting at him. Ballistics would prove that the bike cops' service revolvers murdered the criminals, witnesses, and even Charlie McCoy.

[–] JurijFedorov 9 years ago

Firstly, he didn't shoot Scorpio in the stadium - he stepped on his wound.

Secondly, the villain in this movies says that he will win the court case. Meaning that Harry will be imprisoned for life. The villain also says that he is planing to start a Judge Dredd group up again. So if Harry didn't kill him a lot of people would certainly have died. This is also the way he murders Scorpio in the first movie - he tricks him into pulling the gun on him. So he was never a by the book guy. In the first movie he nearly kills a black bank robber by tricking him into pulling the gun on him. He has no quarrels in tricking people into being killed - which is basically murder. In this movie he could have not stolen his fancy car, and not threatened him - Harry kills him for being bad.

[–] pawtrax67 9 years ago

If you have a death squad of vigilantes on your force. Wouldn't the logical thing to have a high ranking detective preaching non-violence as your mastermind? Briggs could muddle any investigation without too much effort. It was a smart plan. Too bad the ending seemed too rushed and forced.

[–] pking-2 8 years ago

Firstly, he didn't shoot Scorpio in the stadium - he stepped on his wound.

Harry shot him, then stepped on his wound.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] JurijFedorov 8 years ago

As I remember it he didn't shoot him as part of the torture. He shot him during the chase itself. He shoots a lot of people in various chases or gunfights. Which makes sense, as that's what the police get hired to do - stop bad guys. If the bad guys then can be persuaded to tell the cops where their victims are, that's just a plus.

[–] pking-2 8 years ago

Yes, Scorpio's running away and is quite a ways away so Harry basically takes him down with a bullet (and Robinson does a nice little somersault when hit, nice commitment to the scene, actor!).

Then Harry walks over and the "where's the girl?" and leg stepping starts.

The "makes sense" to the shooting of a fleeing unarmed man, however, is both in question within Dirty Harry (it parallels the flack he gets early for shooting a man for having "intent to commit rape" for which of course the Mayor thinks Harry "has a point" as well as, you know, today, when folks still get upset about pre-emptive police shootings.)

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] pking-2 8 years ago

The point, as I see it is not that Harry is 100% against vigilantism.

He sort of is and sort of isn't. He opposes the "death squad" form of it but not his own.

And the audience likely goes along with that philosophy, which is far, far more interesting than a statement that "vigilantism is wrong" or "vigilantism is right". Harry's even more "on the moral fence" about it all in both DH and particularly, Sudden Impact.

Which is good stuff, for drama and theming etc. Nobody wants a simplistic black hat white hat Dirty Harry story, I say. It's all about how Harry's furthers a sort of "natural" justice that doesn't go along with "systematic" justice. And its interesting storytelling to see how close to the line or how often Harry can cross a line, and where we each draw said line, yadda yadda.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

[–] MaximRecoil (4615) 12 days ago

But at the end, he sets the timer on the bomb and tosses it into the backseat of the car, killing Hal Holbrook when it explodes.

But there was no reason for him to kill Holbrook's character, other than vigilantism, which he was opposed to.

At that point Harry wasn't in any danger.

Harry didn't kill Briggs. Briggs got himself killed by deciding to steal a car and flee from justice. That car he stole happened to have a bomb in it; tough shit for him. Harry obviously didn't hold a gun to his head and make him get in that car; quite the opposite in fact (i.e., Briggs was holding a gun on Harry when he stole the car). If he'd submitted to arrest for the major crimes he'd already admitted to, rather than steal a car, he wouldn't have been killed.

On top of all that, even if Harry had directly killed Briggs as he was fleeing from justice (for example, if, instead of a bomb being in the car, Harry had found a gun and shot Briggs as he was driving off), it would have been justified anyway. A cop can legally shoot an armed and fleeing criminal suspect in order to protect society. In that situation it doesn't matter whether the cop himself is in any danger.