Thanks for the memories!

Boring

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

"Tightrope" is a more grim and rather sleazy kind of film. The way that most of the production was shot with red camera filters, speaks volumes about the film's content. The running time is a bit excessive at 109 minutes as not much happens in the way of incident and the suspense is practically nil. Most of the time we simply bear witness to Clint Eastwood exploring his own rather perverted whims as far as the opposite gender is concerned. The brothel scenes make for slightly uncomfortable viewing. Although I'm no prude, someone should have drawn the line that bit earlier by including fewer scenes of that nature. There is no on-screen chemistry between the two leads, a complete waste of time and effort. Some moments are quite gripping at times but there is also a good deal of monotony. Clint Eastwood is simply playing a slight variation on the Harry Callahan character. The only obvious difference, is that the film is set and filmed in New Orleans instead of San Francisco. It has been rumoured for many years that Eastwood took over the directing chores but didn't receive any credit for doing so. Most of the time, the police in "Tightrope" seem to be scratching their you-know-what rather than attempting to identify and capture the killer who is on the loose. A lesser entry from Clint Eastwood's distinguished career.

Inefficient, slow, cumbersome. Makes its plot points awkwardly and makes them several times unnecessarily. Geneviève Bujold is good, and she looks good. She is a good counterpoint to Clint. But there are too many hookers and blonde bimbos. "A dark side in all of us." Good speech. The worst thing is the movie's lack of efficiency. It takes so long to make its plot points and advance the story that it's like listening to story told by someone who has a bad cold and is on some medication that makes them talk slowly and only make sense about half the time. I wanted the movie to blow its nose, clear its throat, and get on with it. Bad movie.

During what I have come to think of as his "early period" in the sixties, Clint Eastwood was best known for acting in Westerns, but by his "middle period" in the seventies and eighties the Western genre was in decline so (with a couple of exceptions such as "The Outlaw Josey Wales" and "Pale Rider") he was forced to reinvent himself. During this period he was probably best known for cop thrillers. He made no fewer than five featuring his iconic "Dirty Harry" character, but also played a detective in several other films.Eastwood tried hard to make each of his characters an individual in his own right; they might also be police detectives but that does not mean that they are simply Dirty Harry under another name and transferred to a different city. His character in "Tightrope", Wes Block, is quite different not only from Harry but also from Walt Coogan, Eastwood's "cool dude" cop in "Coogan's Bluff" or from Ben Shockley, the washed-up alcoholic he played in "The Gauntlet". Block is a divorcée whose wife has left him to bring up their two daughters Penny and Amanda. (Amanda is played by Eastwood's real-life daughter Alison). He is hard-working and conscientious and is devoted to his two girls, as well as to the family's numerous pet dogs. He is often seen with a drink in his hand, but his drinking is not made a plot point as it is with Shockley in "The Gauntlet". As we shall see, however, he also has a dark side.The action takes place in New Orleans. A serial killer is preying on the city's vice girls, and Block is assigned to the case. He has, however, something more than a purely professional interest in the case. He is himself a user of the services of prostitutes, and some of the dead women were personally known to him in the course of their profession rather than his. (It is implied that he only began using prostitutes after his wife left him and that this was not the reason for the break-up of his marriage). As the story progresses we also discover that the killer has a personal interest in Block, and that not only Block but also his daughters and his new girlfriend Beryl are in danger. (But then we could have guessed that from the start. It is one of the unwritten rules of Hollywood that in any police procedural involving a serial killer the villain must have a personal grudge against the detective, or take a sadistic pleasure in playing psychological mind-games with him, or both).The film is perhaps overlong, and the plot is occasionally obscure, making it difficult to work out exactly what is going on. One thing that is never explained is why Block's superiors never took him off the case when they realised that he had a personal involvement. (In a high-profile homicide case like this one he would not have been working alone but would have been part of a team). Director Richard Tuggle, however, manages to generate an atmosphere not only of suspense but also of seediness and moral corruption. Although New Orleans is one of America's most photogenic cities, we do not see much of its glamorous touristic side, only its dark underbelly. Eastwood also gives a good performance, making Block someone we can sympathise with despite his flaws. The film is not in the class of the original "Dirty Harry", but it is considerably better than the weaker entries in that franchise, such as "The Dead Pool", or the ludicrously improbable "The Gauntlet". 6/10

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.