pabrcf11 I don't mind slow movies if the pace develops plot and character. What I dislike is when it's obvious that a director has time to fill and just does...whatever...for a few minutes. This film is full of that. Started timing it and anything they show they linger on for about 4 times longer than seems typical. This could *easily* be edited- and be much more interesting- as a 45 minutes short. But it's two freakin' hours. Fine, if that's your cup of tea, then do a one act play with unity of time, place and action. But this is no such thing. Bottom line, it just wastes time.There are no interesting twists to the plot. No standout acting. It's like following a New Orleans homicide detective around for two hours. If it were not for Clint and the city itself, none of us would ever have heard of it. I guess I would recommend it if you had five people over for Creole cooking and wanted something to go with the meal, knowing that everyone was going to talk constantly and sit around for two hours after dinner. It would actually be pretty good for that because you'd never miss anything. Other than that, I'm at a loss to find a way to recommend it.

FlashCallahan A New Orleans detective is leading an investigation into a killer who is raping and murdering women. His enquiries lead him into the seedy side of town which he is no stranger to, when he is off-duty. All this contrasts with his home life as a single parent with two young girls. Then on the case he meets a counsellor with whom a relationship possibly offering some normality to his darker side.....It's an interesting concept, obviously a huge curiosity piece when released back in the day, because Eastwood was arguably the biggest star on the planet, and this was his Basic Instinct, if you would.It's pretty tame stuff when you watch it now, but one can imagine how many people were shocked by the imagery, and the amount of sex and violence that is on display.For a film with such a dark tone, Eastwood plays such a homely family man, grounded and down to earth, so kudos to his performance for not acting all strange and weird when he delves into his fantasies. He's just as normal as he always is.The red hues obviously indicate the illicit passions in the film, and although the killer is just your perfunctory eighties villain, his motives and actions are pretty macabre.As with all Malpaso movies released in the early eighties, we are treated with a city shot from a helicopter, and a wonderful jazz score.It's an oddity for sure, and Eastwood took a huge gamble. Luckily it paid off, but then he made City Heat, and it went downhill for a couple of years.Would make a great triple bill with Cruising, and 8mm

LeonLouisRicci Cliché ridden, extremely dull attempt for the stiffest of Stars to show that He really is an "Actor" but fails miserably. It is a commendable effort with a undeniable outcome. The Man cannot Emote. His On Screen Personalities are one dimensional Characters that work, sometimes, in certain unchallenging Roles but this one exposes an exceptional lack of Talent.It is a sluggish Movie to boot, with nothing on the edge, really, although it tries to go there frequently and it always comes across as staged. The Sex Scenes used to show the Dark Side of our Family Man thought to be Erotic and Sleazy are laughable and quite embarrassing, but not in the way you think. The Direction is as bad as the Script as almost every Scene of brutality or kinkiness is cut away quickly to a friendly set up with the Kids. This Movie is really mishandled in many ways. The Sex is not Sexy, the Murders are not disturbing, the Dad and Kids stuff is by the numbers, and the Serial Killer is not at all menacing or even morbidly interesting. The Copland investigation is walked through step by step with no Mystery or urgency and so on.This is an overrated Film from forgiving Fans and Critics that have become so enamored by some kind of Clint Eastwood "Charm" that this kind of Mediocrity is seen as something to praise or at least admire. In the not to distant future, or maybe even now, Eastwood will not be fondly remembered, and Observers will wonder what all the fuss was about, kinda like a George Raft.In the Director's Chair, well, let's not get started because at least He can't be faulted for that, but wait a minute, there is scuttlebutt that Clint actually did do most of that here, A-Ha, now that is completely believable.

TOMASBBloodhound Tightrope in 1984 proved to be an interesting detour from what we had grown used to with Eastwood by then. And for this he must be applauded. Writer director Richard Tuggle also wrote Clint's Escape From Alcatraz a few years prior. Perhaps he approached Eastwood and the suits from Warner Bros on the set about this film. The premise is interesting enough. Someone is raping and murdering beautiful women in the Frech Quarter of New Orleans. Eastwood plays Wes Block, a homicide detective on the case who finds he may have a lot in common with this killer. So much so that they've even been using the same prostitutes. Block's private life is also in turmoil. His wife seems to have left him to raise their two daughters (and several dogs) all by himself. He has to hire a housekeeper to take care of them while he's off in the Quarter doing more screwing around than investigating. Further complicating things is when he begins to fall for a feminist rape counselor type. Maybe he cannot resist the challenge. Some of this is played for a good-hearted chuckle here and there, but this is mostly a serious thriller dealing with kinky and deranged people. It kind of works.If nothing else, it can be interesting to see Eastwood play against type. He did it in a much more entertaining manner when he did The Gauntlet. There, he was also a clumsy cop, but alcohol rather than kinky sex was his main vice. Tightrope wishes to be more of a psychological thriller, but it comes up a little short. Too often this screenplay falls back on routine police thriller scenes with the forensic terms and tactical procedures. I was hoping for more of a departure from these. Maybe it would have helped if they could have made it seem that Eastwood may be the killer. Of at least some of the women, anyway. Since we pretty much learn in the first scene that the killer ain't Clint, there is very little mystery to the story. It just becomes a matter of finding out how many hookers he has used, or how dirty is sexual tastes get. The killer in this film is one of those omni-present types who seems to be everywhere at all times either killing or watching the main characters assess his crimes. Here is a man who can dispatch several cops staking out a victim's home, but struggles to overpower a petite female armed with only a pair of scissors. Overall, its still a decent thriller. But not equal to any of the Dirty Harry films. There's a reason that Wes Block and Ben Shockley never got sequels. And it isn't just that their guns were smaller. Dirty Harry may be a cliché, but he is the gold standard. 7 of 10 stars.The Hound.