Has someone told this reviewer that Dirty Harry and its sequels are fiction? These movies are fantasies in a modern setting. It's possible to take them too literally. And this reviewer has done so.

Did this person also object to The Lord of the Rings movies because there are no hobbits, no Shire, no land of Mordor? Or because, by venturing off through the mountains themselves on their own expedition (leaving the king of Rohan to go up against Sauron), Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas represented the horrific "go-it-alone" cowboy philosophy of George Bush? Seriously ... does the hyperanalysis and kvetching over stuff like this really help anyone?

I don't want cops to be murderous vigilantes either, but find these movies entertaining nonetheless. No, they aren't great art, but they're better than a lot of other stuff (Desperately Seeking Susan, anyone? Or Ishtar? Or Naked Gun: 33 1/3?).

I dont think the author was complaining about the movie being fictional. I think it was the concept of the rouge cop in general and the added nuance of implying the legal system was too soft on the criminals.

As the Innocence Project has proved over and over again, the legal system is putting many innocent people in jail too-not just letting bad ones go. A fact that soon makes the extreme right wingers go "but but but Clinton lied!!!!!"

Hmm. Let me try this again: The D.H. movies are fiction. They are not reality, and they are not a mandate to the police, courts, or anyone else.

Is there something about that which is not clear?

Look Here Bestor,

Yes, we get that it is JUST a movie, but then Mein Kampf was just a book too. See when an artists creates a movie or a book, etc they put their own philosophy and thoughts on things into that work too-and analytical nutties like movie critics and English professors are bound to see more than just 2 hours of entertainment in it.

Yes, DH was a fictional character, but he no doubt inspired many future cops and was popular with people who thought it was time to go out and buy your own .44 and put things in your own hands. I assure you that Dirty Harry is popular with the NRA and your local branch of the Michigan Militia too. Fictional he may be but inspirational too-you might say its just a movie, but there were those-especially when the movie was made-who thought that we needed a whole world of Harrys.

Look here, you can repeat the same thing ad nauseum but it will still not change the fact that we do not live in a world full of Dirty Harrys! That NRA members like Dirty Harry tells us nothing about Dirty Harry, other than that NRA members like him. (In addition to any others who may also like him.)

If it turned out that NRA members also liked The Lord of the Rings, would you then decide they must be horrible, facist movies?

To decide on the nature of something based on the identity of (some of) those who like it, is fallacious. To assume that a movie forces people to do what they would not ordinarily do, is also fallacious. Furthermore, appealing to Nazis via the Mein Kampf reference, shows you've run aground on the rough shores of Godwin's law. That you must appeal to Nazis in order to make your point ... well, forget it.

Again you force me to repeat what has already been said, and which is also incontrovertible: Dirty Harry is fiction. Get over it already.