MAGNUM FORCE: A Good Man Always Knows His Limitations

Magnum Force (1973) – Directed by Ted Post – Starring Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Mitchell Ryan, David Soul, Felton Perry, Robert Urich, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and John Mitchum.

MAGNUM FORCE is one of my favorite sequels of all time, and serves as a perfect example of how to make sequels more about story and less about repetition.

Too many sequels, of course, simply attempt to regurgitate the previous film, and the primary way they try to make your experience better is to simply give your more of whatever it is they think you liked the first time.

I was worried that MAGNUM FORCE would simply give us more guns, more one-liners, more people getting shot by Clint Eastwood. To a certain extent, the film does that, but what’s so impressive about MAGNUM is that the story here is built off the story in DIRTY HARRY and forces Inspector Harry Callahan (Eastwood) to confront fellow cops who think they can make a difference by stepping outside of the system.

It’s a bold move and one I doubt many films today would make as MAGNUM runs the risk of alienating those who saw Callahan’s anti-system individualism in a heroic light. MAGNUM takes Callahan from the individual who rejects the system to one who defends it.

At the end of DIRTY HARRY, tosses his badge into the water, symbolizing his rejection of the system he has been sworn to uphold, on the grounds that a systemic failure has put the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victim. As MAGNUM FORCE opens, we see that his rejection of the badge was only temporary. He’s still a cop, though he’s been assigned to Stakeout duty by Lieutenant Briggs (Hal Holbrook), which is designed to keep him off the streets and away from criminals he might shoot. Eventually, as the body count in the city begins to rise, Briggs has to call Callahan in to help with the investigation, and that’s when Callahan ends up defending the system he so dislikes.

Deep in the film, after Briggs has been revealed as the leader of a group of rogue, rookie cops and he has Callahan at gunpoint, he tells Callahan: “You’re a good cop, Harry. You had a chance to join my team, but you decided to stick with the system.”

Callahan grunts back: “Briggs, I hate the goddamn system! But until someone comes along with changes that make sense, I’ll stick with it.”

The key difference for Callahan between his actions in DIRTY HARRY (when he killed a criminal) and the actions of the rogue cops in MAGNUM FORCE is that Harry waited for the system to break down and fail the victims before he killed Scorpio, while in this film the cops are killing people prior to any significant breakdown. Scorpio committed crimes, got arrested, and was subsequently released, while the criminals here may have been in and out of the system in the past, but there is no clear systemic collapse here to justify the actions of the cops.

There’s also a sense of subterfuge here that casts the rogue cops in a negative light. Scorpio knew Callahan was coming for him, and Callahan didn’t hide his final attack. In MAGNUM, however, the cops use subterfuge afforded them as cops to get close to their targets to kill them at close range. The cops pull their victims over as if it’s a routine traffic stop and then pump them full of bullets. Importantly, MAGNUM doesn’t have the cops shoot innocent victims to turn us against them, but rather is willing to have a little moral complexity in the film and forces Callahan to confront his actions with Scorpio.

Still, the film has Harry remind us that he hates the system, too, even though he’s its biggest defender this time around.

The rogue cops are a group of combat vets who have gone through the police academy together. Callahan’s partner Early Smith (Felton Perry) tells him that this set of rookies “came through the Academy after me. They stick together like flypaper, you know? Everybody thought they were queer for each other,” to which Callahan replies, “If the rest of you could shoot like them, I wouldn’t care if the whole damn department was queer.”

There’s a nice cool-in-hindsight aspect to the rookie cops as they’re played by actors who went on to have solid careers: David Soul, Tim Mattheson, Robert Urich, and John C. McGinley. Actually, the fourth cop is played by Kip Niven, who has gone on to have a pretty solid career, too, but it’s not a big part and every time he was on screen I kept trying to figure out if it was McGinley or not, until I remembered I could just look it up on my phone. Other than Soul, the cops don’t have a whole lot of face time (even during the big action sequence at the end it’s hard to differentiate them because they’re wearing their helmeted outfits befitting bike cops), but it’s an effective unit.

MAGNUM FORCE also humanizes Callahan; he’s not just a driven cop here. We see him at the house of a fellow cop’s wife to check in on her, we see a picture of his deceased wife, we see him hook up with his downstairs neighbor, and we get a greater sense of humor. One of the best exchanges of the film comes between Callahan and another neighbor. Harry has detected a bomb in his mailbox and he’s unscrewing the face plate to get at it when another tenant gets all over him for doing it.

“I’ll call the police,” he threatens meekly.

“I am the police,” Harry grumbles back.

MAGNUM FORCE is definitely a bigger film, giving the audience more of what it liked the first time around, but it also gives us things we didn’t see the first time, and while Harry Callahan was a stand-in for every cop in America in DIRTY HARRY, in MAGNUM he becomes his own man. It’s a bit ironic that in the film where he’s less the individualistic gunslinger he also becomes a more well-rounded individual, but MAGNUM FORCE continually challenges Harry’s character and the result is a superior film.

DIRTY HARRY: Don’t Let Your College Degree Get You Killed

Dirty Harry (1971) – Directed by Don Siegel – Starring Clint Eastwood, Andy Robinson, Harry Guardino, Reni Santoni, John Mitchum, and John Vernon.

“I know what you’re thinking: “Did he fire six shots, or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?” – Inspector “Dirty” Harry Callahan

DIRTY HARRY takes the gunslinger and recasts him as the individualistic cop for the contemporary era. No longer just out for himself, the gunslinger now works for the good of everyone inside the system, yet it’s his dissatisfaction with that system that allows him to keep his gunslinger street cred.

The scene quoted above is the most cowboy scene in the entire film, establishing Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) as a modern ‘slinger. He’s sitting in a diner while a bank is being robbed across the street. Still chewing his hot dog, he heads outside, diagonally crosses the intersection, and starts blowing bad guys away. Importantly, Callahan has someone else call for back-up and then when the back-up arrives, Callahan walks away, leaving the uniformed cops with the clean-up.

Like many people in the general public, I knew of Dirty Harry Callahan more than I knew about DIRTY HARRY. I’ve probably seen bits and pieces of every movie in the series, but Dirty Harry is such an iconic character that I feel like I knew him more than I actually did. The fifth movie in the series, THE DEAD POOL, is the only movie I can remember watching, because it’s the only movie released during my own contemporary viewing habits. Of all the movie genres out there, the cop/crime movie comes pretty far down my list of favorites. As a rule, I prefer crime movies from the criminals point of view more than from the cop’s point of view.

That last comment is not prelude to me telling you I was disappointed in DIRTY HARRY because that would be far from the truth. This is a rock solid movie, albeit one that doesn’t quite match its reputation. DIRTY HARRY is like Bullitt and Death Wish in that regard – we hear about “Do you feel lucky?” and the famous car chase and the gun-crazy vigilante/killer and a cultural truth gets built up about these movies, a truth that is largely revealed false when you actually watch the films. Dirty Harry is not some kind of untouchable, lone wolf super cop, Bullitt is not a balls-out action romp, and Death Wish isn’t about the Punisher.

All of these movies take their time and are as much character studies as crime films. It can make watching them both incredibly rewarding and disconcerting, depending on how you want reality to match up with expectations.

In San Francisco, a serial killer calling himself Scorpio (Andy Robinson) uses a sniper rifle to kill a woman in a rooftop pool. Inspetor Callahan is assigned the case and he arrives on the scene chewing gum and exuding an easy confidence. The best part of Eastwood’s performance is how he slowly turns up the pressure on Callahan, with that easy confidence and cocksure attitude slowly giving way to anger and confusion as the film unfolds, and then returns at the end to confidence when he takes Scorpio out after the law has failed to keep the serial killer locked away.

At the core of DIRTY HARRY is the issue of a person’s rights – the rights of the accused versus the rights of the victims. HARRY takes a somewhat easy way out in this regard as there is no question – in his mind, in our mind, in anyone’s mind – that Scorpio is the killer. The result is that we’re clearly set up to see this film completely from the point of view of a frustrated cop who feels let down by the system, and not from a falsely accused individual.

What’s striking is that despite Harry being the bad-ass cop and a bit of a department rogue (why they call him “Dirty” Harry is a running talking point through the film), everyone is on his side. His Lieutenant and the Chief of Police are on his side. When he goes to the see the Mayor (John Vernon) at the start of the investigation, the Mayor is on his side. When he chastises Callahan about an incident from the previous year, Callahan replies, “When an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard; that’s my policy.”

“Intent?” the Mayor asks. “How did you establish that?”

“When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.”

Callahan leaves, but once he’s out of the room, the Mayor admits, “I think he’s got a point.”

Even when the District Attorney has to let Scorpio walk out of jail because Callahan violated the perp’s right, he’s on Callahan’s side, too, telling him that he doesn’t want Scorpio back out on the street any more than Callahan does, but since the cop violated Scorpio’s rights by not reading his miranda rights and “torturing” him (stepping on his injured leg to get information about the location of a kidnapped girl), the DA has to let him out. He’s even brought in a judge to verify his conclusions.

Callahan is disgusted by this, arguing, “What about the girl’s rights? Who’ll speak for her?”

“I will,” the DA tells him, “so long as you let me do my job.”

Creating in the immediate post-1960s era and in the middle of the Vietnam War, DIRTY HARRY is clearly struggling with what the country was struggling with – the sense that “the system” wasn’t working anymore and that the “old normal” was being replaced by a “new normal” that no one had quite figured out, yet. DIRTY HARRY is framed by images of the San Francisco Police Department. The opening images are of a wall of remembrance for San Francisco cops that have lost their lives in the line of duty, and the last scene of the film sees Callahan killing Scorpio and then tossing his badge into the same body of water. It’s a highly symbolic act, equating the system with the criminal as Callahan, in essence, kills both of them.

Make no mistake, Callahan tossing away his badge is an indictment against the country itself. Americans have long embraced and celebrated the idea of the individualistic spirit, and Callahan killing Scorpio on his own time, without the support (or knowledge) of his superiors, and then tossing away his badge is the gunslinger tossing away the idea of his willing capitulation to the system. This isn’t a total rejection of government or nation, but of the operation of government; Callahan isn’t like the conspiratorial nutters today who think Obama is out to take their guns away, as evidence by the fact that everyone in the movie in a position of power above him is on his side. No, this is a rejection of the way the system has (in Callahan’s eyes) put the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victimized.

In Callahan’s eyes, when the system lets the victimized down, it’s okay for the gunslinger to shed his official status as an officer of the system and act on his own.

As the Mayor might say, “I think he’s got a point.”

PARKER: Take Off Your Dress

Parker (2013) – Directed by Taylor Hackford – Starring Jason Statham, Jennifer Lopez, Michael Chiklis, Wendell Pierce, Clifton Collins Jr., Bobby Cannavale, Patti Lupone, Carlos Carrasco, Michah Hauptman, Emma Booth, Daniel Bernhardt, and Nick Nolte.

Fifteen years.

I was not expecting the number to be that high, but it’s been fifteen years since Jennifer Lopez appeared in Out of Sight. Fifteen years since she delivered the best performance of her career and here she is, starring in another crime thriller, starring as another good woman who gets tangled up with another bad man. Fifteen years ago, she starred opposite George Clooney, under the direction of Steven Soderbergh, and in an Elmore Leonard story, and while I believe you have to look at every film on its own, let’s be clear about a few things.

Jason Statham, who I like, is not nearly the actor George Clooney is.

Taylor Hackford, who I like, is not nearly the director Steven Soderbergh is.

Donald Westlake, who I like, is not nearly the novelist Elmore Leonard is.

And PARKER is not nearly the film Out of Sight is.

Yet despite all of that, here sits Jennifer Lopez, in a movie that is, in no way, the equal of Out of Sight, delivering a performance nearly as good. It begs the question – is there any actress in the last 20 years who’s done a poorer job maxing out their talent than Jennifer Lopez?

I absolutely loathe when people tell others how to live their life. I find it noxious when sportswriters, who are the biggest criminals in this regard, tell athletes or coaches that they should retire, that they’re somehow spoiling their legacy by continuing to play, so I am not here to tell Jennifer Lopez she has lived the last 15 years of her life incorrectly. She’s a woman with many talents and many interests and only she can determine whether those choices were the right ones, whether the artistic and business decisions she’s made have brought her happiness. What I am saying – and I’m saying this from a purely selfish point of view of a guy who’s interested in her acting far more than her music or clothing or talent judging – is that she has great talent as an actress, far greater talent than is revealed in her filmography.

Since Out of Sight, she’s been run through the Hollywood Mill: where men who show that particular mix of acting ability and box office potential get tossed in action movie after action movie, women get tossed into romance flicks and romantic comedies and thrillers/horror movies. Lopez followed up Out of Sight with a unique choice (The Cell), but since then, it’s been largely romantic-driven material. There’s been a few box office hits sprinkled in, but it’s been rare that she’s delivered a performance that tapped into the talent that was so clearly on display in Soderbergh’s film.

Which brings me to PARKER, a film that either has no idea what it wants to be or no ability to deliver it. It’s a movie that isn’t awful, but it’s also a movie that has no consistent or coherent vision, a movie that is completely lacking in the style it so desperately needs if it wants to be a crime film, and the energy it needs if it wants to be an action film.

Folded into this inconsistent mess, however, is a really great performance from Lopez. She plays Leslie Rogers, a woman who’s forced to start her life over as she nears 40 years of age. Her ex-husband turned out to be a better cover than book, and she’s been forced to move back in with her mom (Patti Lupone) and work low on the food chain at a high-end real estate agency. Cash is tight (the car she’s leasing and the clothes she’s wearing are above her current pay grade, and she has to help pay off her ex’s bankruptcy), and she’s grown desperate. She steals Parker (who’s pretending to be a rich Texan to scout real estate and find his enemies) from a co-worker and while she complains about the men who hit on her while she’s showing them property (and having to allow some of their advances so as not to lose them as clients) she throws herself at the rich Texan.

It’s pathetic and desperate and Lopez delivers it all beautifully. There’s a real sadness to Leslie, and I believe that she sees first the rich Texan and then the British criminal as a way out of her predicament. It makes me wonder how the last fifteen years would have been different for Lopez if her opportunities and choices had done a better job tapping into her talent instead of relying on her star power.

Of all the things wrong with PARKER, Jennifer Lopez is not among them.

It’s not a film’s fault if it’s marketed poorly, and the movie PARKER purports to be in its commercials is not the film you’ll find when you watch it. This is not a sexy crime thriller. In the commercials there’s lots of sexual allusions: about how “it’s not the size of the gun, but how you use it,” about a sexy shower scene, and about Lopez’s body.

But there’s nothing sexy about PARKER. Sure, there’s good looking leads here, but the film isn’t sexy. The line about the size of the gun? It’s not said from Parker (Statham) to Leslie, but Parker to a guy he’s just shot who claimed “mine’s bigger.” The sexy shower scene? It’s not between Parker and Leslie, but Parker and his actual girlfriend, Claire (Emma Booth), and there’s nothing sexy about it. And Lopez’s body? When Parker tells her to “take off your dress,” the camera puts Lopez’s entire body in the frame, but there isn’t anything sexy about the scene. Parker says he needs to know if she’s wearing a wire, and he really means he wants to know if she’s wearing a wire. There’s no tension, sexual or otherwise.

I’m left struggling about what this movie is supposed to be. Is this supposed to be the movie that takes Statham into the A list of action stars? Is it supposed to be the movie that shows us he’s every bit the actor as he is the puncher and kicker? Or is it supposed to be just another Statham film dressed up with a few stars to try and get bigger box office cake?

Whatever it’s trying to be, it isn’t it.

As I mentioned, I try and judge every film on its own merits, yet there’s so much about PARKER that begs you think of other, better options that it’s hard to escape.

When you do a crime movie that attempts to take a “good guy bad guy” and use him as the protagonist, you’re stepping on Elmore Leonard’s turf, and Westlake isn’t Leonard. What this film desperately needs is some Elmore Leonard characters (or, since the movie is set in Florida, some Carl Hiassen characters) to surround the driven, focused Parker. I like Jason Statham and I think he’s a good enough actor to escape the action genre, and I like the performance he gives here as the principled criminal, but if you’re going to have that kind of main character, you need to give the audience something somewhere else to balance that off – make it stylistic or surround him with personable characters. Other than Lopez’s Leslie, PARKER completely fails in this regard.

The issues with the lack of visual style in the movie has to fall to Taylor Hackford. He’s a fine director and gets fine performances from all of the actors in the film, but PARKER has all the visual style of a Lifetime Movie of the Week. The camera is largely flat and static. The action scenes have no immediacy to them, and except for one moment where Parker uses a piece of a toilet to crack his opponent in the face, the violence hits with the impact of getting punched in the face by a man with no arms. The story is slow and dull, and it begs for a film that wins you over with visual style. The few shots we see of Parker with his shirt off shows us that he’s got nasty scars all over his body, and the scenes beg out for the camera to linger. When Claire looks and them or runs her hands over them, the camera needs to linger there, too. Hackford could play with perspective, giving us the establishing shots intercut with extreme close-ups of the scars, but he doesn’t. It’s just, “Here’s a shot of Statham without his shirt in a shower and he’s got scars, what’s next?”

My least favorite part of the film is the ending. After Parker gets his revenge and he and Leslie are sitting in a car with the jewels that Michael Chiklis’ crew stole, he tells her how it’s going to go down, laying out how she’ll hide the jewels, how he’ll send someone to get them, that he’ll fence them, how the cut works, etc. Then he gets out of the car and she pulls away.

That happens, and if the movie had ended right there, it would have been the best part of the movie. It would have been a rare moment of style bringing out the best in both characters. But even though we’ve just spent the entire film learning that Parker is a man of his word, that “when I say I’m going to do something, I do it,” the film then has to show us how it all plays out. For some reason, even though you completely trust that he’s going to do what he says, the film has to show us Leslie getting a package full of money. It’s dumb and unnecessary and has the feel of either filmmakers who don’t know what they’re doing or producers who’ve demanded its inclusion because of what a dumb focus group has told them.

The end result is a film that isn’t bad but is unsatisfactory, a film that needs style but lacks it, a film that needs characters but lacks them, and a film that never equals the sum of its parts.

———-

My latest collection of reviews is now available for purchase. I cover every Marvel comic movie, from The Avengers to Howard the Duck, from Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk to Ed Norton’s Hulk to Eric Bana’s Hulk to Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno’s Hulk. All the big budget movies are reviewed, all the 1970s made-for-TV movies are reviewed, and all the straight-to-video animated titles, too. Thanks for checking it out!