MovieChat Forums > Sudden Impact (1983) Discussion > What do we all think of this review?

What do we all think of this review?

posted 2 years ago by TheMan18 (13176)
2 replies | jump to latest

"Slow Impaction"

May 2002

"The original "Dirty Harry" was a marvelously done bit of brutal, right-wing movie making by Don Siegal. Everything was fast paced, simple, and colorful. The action scenes were essential to the exposition. And the pistol shots had acquired a new full-throated booming sound that has since become standard. Eastwood even tried to act -- a little. His throw-away laugh after clicking his empty hammer at the robber after the first shoot out was the only laugh I can ever remember from Eastwood that seemed to register real amusement. They all should have quit while they were ahead. Sondra Locke is really quite beautiful, although obviously no longer the sensitive teenager of her earliest movies; mature, now, and dumbly fatalistic, having been ravished or ravaged by a gang of hoodlums under the boardwalk at Santa Cruz. Most of the film is shot in Santa Cruz, called "San Paulo," a curious fictive mixture of Spanish and/or Portugese and/or Italian. Let's call it a generically Romance language name for a town, although of course it fits none of the known ones. Its location is also curious, north of the City, making a hash of the geography, but never mind. Harry's in trouble with the SFPD. Yet again. They ship him to San Paulo where he finds himself willy nilly on the trail of Sondra Locke who is assiduously knocking off all the people involved in her rape years ago. His butting in annoys Pat Hingle, the local sherrif. The four or five participants in the rape are still sleazebags and deserve being shot in the cojones. Except one of them is apparently a dyke who was only an enthusiastic witness. No matter, she gets blown away anyhow. One of the guys, caught by Locke in a garage, seems to have become pathetically middle class. In a weak and genuinely remorseful voice he apologizes to her and begs for mercy. He gets it in the cojones too. Harry has changed his pistol in this one. He couldn't get a bigger pistol because there aren't any to speak of, short of something that would need mounting on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. So, while it's still .44 mag, it is now automatic. So what? Harry pops up out of garbage cans to shoot guys in the back. Pretty funny, eh? There's an ugly dog in it too, given to the release of intestinal gas. Clint gets a lot of mileage out of dogs and children. It's not really worth going on about this movie. If one had to sum it up in a single word, "terrible" would come close to getting the job done. Do yourself a favor. Watch Dirty Harry again or something."

[–] TheMan18 (13176) 2 years ago

While this (admittedly clever, intelligent and respectable IMDb user) is entitled to their opinion, I kinda can't help but lol at least at a few things.

Firstly, big LOL at him stating that someone like Clint Eastwood, who is without a doubt considered by many critics and audiences as the MEGA TALENTED LEGEND of CINEMA both in front of and behind the camera, and also literally among the best actors of all time (even if not in all films has he been equally brilliant a performer - then again, he has starred in more films than most of us over here have lived our lives!), in the original "Dirty Harry" (1971) film (that I agree is the best in the series) - merely "tried to act - A LITTLE", yeah right, as if he is talking about some unknown Joe Average from your local cinema audition. Not even he gave a great or a good performance, but simply - TRIED TO ACT, A LITTLE, lol. Sorry, but Eastwood was FANTASTIC in the original Dirty Harry movie and it is among his top 10 best performances ever, and from a highly experienced and legendary Hollywood film figure too.

Also, I think he could've gone more in depth into why he thinks its not only a flawed but a downright TERRIBLE movie. And it would also be nice if he could express more clearly on whether or not the baddies here deserve their fate.

And that "dyke" character that he mentions wasn't merely an "enthusiastic witness" but an evil and hateful co-conspirator guilty of several downright criminal offenses, and was very disrespectable to her and her sister who was a victim of a terrible deed. Did this guy feel that character DIDN'T deserve to be shot by Sondra Locke in spite of their massive moral failures displayed in this movie and also being actively around a criminal gang?

But besides all this, what do we all think of this review, cheers.

[–] IMDBrefugee (435) 2 years ago

It's really more of a summary than a review. This reviewer doesnt say much about what exactly is wrong with the movie other than that it isn't "Dirty Harry" as in the first film.