I wouldn't say that Magnum Force is a disappointing film in its own right, but as a follow-up to the absolutely brilliant "Dirty Harry" I would say that it's a disappointing sequel. The original was a fairly ground-breaking cop thriller in terms of violence, but it had great characterisation, clever dialogue and genuine tension too. Magnum Force is really just about the violence. The characterisation is cartoonish, the dialogue contrived.... and the moments of tension are sporadic to say the least. There's something uncomfortable and tasteless about watching Harry coolly dispose of a couple of plane hijackers, or an undercover black cop being told to suck the barrel of a shotgun by a liquor store gunman, or a bunch of naked sunbathers being gunned down by a renegade machine gun-toting motorcycle cop. Perhaps Magnum Force is trying just a bit too hard to be controversial, when it ought to be concentrating on the action.
High-profile criminals who have been released by the courts due to legal loopholes are being bumped off in San Francisco. Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) tries to figure out who is responsible for the executions. He knows that one or more motorcycle cops are responsible, and initially he suspects that it could be the work of Charlie McCoy (Mitchell Ryan), an old buddy who is growing suicidally disillusioned by the way that the crooks he keeps busting are being pardoned by the courts. Or perhaps the killers are a bunch of sharp-shooting rookie motorcycle cops (David Soul, Tim Matheson and Robert Urich)? Even though Harry can see that the legal system is flawed and frustratingly ineffective, he is still sworn to protect those considered "innocent" by the courts.... so he finds himself hunting the renegade cop(s) despite the fact that they have a valid point.
Eastwood seems to be on auto-pilot in this one, trading off his tough persona rather than giving a performance of any real depth and feeling. The only performances that seem to carry any acting "weight" are given by Hal Holbrook and Felton Perry. Lalo Schifrin provides a sensational '70s score (perhaps the best thing about the film), but in most aspects the film is relatively lacklustre. Ted Post directs in a very workmanlike manner, never really sensing the opportunities to make this anything more than a standard police actioner. The plot, which has a potentially explosive moral question about whether it is right or wrong to release known criminals simply because of insubstantial evidence (and whether the vigilante cop/s are right to assassinate such lowlifes without the support of the law), remains sadly under-developed.
High-profile criminals who have been released by the courts due to legal loopholes are being bumped off in San Francisco. Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) tries to figure out who is responsible for the executions. He knows that one or more motorcycle cops are responsible, and initially he suspects that it could be the work of Charlie McCoy (Mitchell Ryan), an old buddy who is growing suicidally disillusioned by the way that the crooks he keeps busting are being pardoned by the courts. Or perhaps the killers are a bunch of sharp-shooting rookie motorcycle cops (David Soul, Tim Matheson and Robert Urich)? Even though Harry can see that the legal system is flawed and frustratingly ineffective, he is still sworn to protect those considered "innocent" by the courts.... so he finds himself hunting the renegade cop(s) despite the fact that they have a valid point.
Eastwood seems to be on auto-pilot in this one, trading off his tough persona rather than giving a performance of any real depth and feeling. The only performances that seem to carry any acting "weight" are given by Hal Holbrook and Felton Perry. Lalo Schifrin provides a sensational '70s score (perhaps the best thing about the film), but in most aspects the film is relatively lacklustre. Ted Post directs in a very workmanlike manner, never really sensing the opportunities to make this anything more than a standard police actioner. The plot, which has a potentially explosive moral question about whether it is right or wrong to release known criminals simply because of insubstantial evidence (and whether the vigilante cop/s are right to assassinate such lowlifes without the support of the law), remains sadly under-developed.