Editing Sudden Impact (section)

==Reception==

===Box office===
In its opening weekend, the film took $9,688,561 in 1,530 theaters in the US.<ref name="mojo">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=suddenimpact.htm |title=Sudden Impact |access-date=March 1, 2009 |publisher= IMDB |work= [[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> In total in the US and Canada, the film made $67,642,693, making it the highest grossing of the five films in the ''Dirty Harry'' franchise.<ref name="Hughes69" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=dirtyharry.htm |title=Dirty Harry Movies|access-date=March 1, 2009 |publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> The film also surpassed the $63.6 million gross of ''[[Thunderball (film)|Thunderball]]'' (1965) to become the highest-grossing fourth installment of a film in the United States and Canada.<ref>{{cite magazine|magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|date=June 30, 1997|page=19|title=Top Five Fourth Chapters}}</ref> Worldwide, it grossed more than $150 million.<ref name=gross/>

===Critical response===
Review aggregation website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] retrospectively gave the film a score of 53% based on 40 reviews. The consensus reads: "''Sudden Impact'' delivers all the firepower – and the most enduring catchphrase – fans associate with the ''Dirty Harry'' franchise, but it's far from the best film in the series."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sudden_impact/|title=Sudden Impact|publisher=Rotten Tomatoes|access-date=February 12, 2024}}</ref>

[[Vincent Canby]] criticized the film, stating: "The screenplay is ridiculous, and Mr. Eastwood's direction of it primitive, which is surprising because he has shown himself capable in such films as ''[[The Outlaw Josey Wales]]'' and ''[[The Gauntlet (film)|The Gauntlet]]''. Among other things, the movie never gets a firm hold on its own continuity. Sometimes scenes of simultaneous action appear to take place weeks or maybe months apart."<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/09/movies/film-impact-with-clint-eastwood.html |title=FILM: 'IMPACT,' WITH CLINT EASTWOOD |first=Vincent |last=Canby |newspaper= [[The New York Times]] |date=December 9, 1983 |access-date=December 18, 2019 }}</ref> [[Roger Ebert]] was more positive, awarding three stars out of four; while noting that the film was "implausible" with "a cardboard villain", he also praised it as "a ''Dirty Harry'' movie with only the good parts left in" and "a great audience picture."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/sudden-impact-1983 |title= Sudden Impact |website= RogerEbert.com |date= December 12, 1983 |access-date= October 12, 2014 }}</ref> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' noted that "everything is pitched for maximum action impact, so audiences should feel they got their money's worth," but also thought that the action scenes put "too much reliance on characters, particularly Harry, being in the right place at the right time."<ref>"Film Reviews: Sudden Impact". ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]''. December 7, 1983. 14.</ref> [[Gene Siskel]] of the ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' gave the film two stars out of four and wrote that nothing in the ''Dirty Harry'' sequels "has ever come close to the evil Scorpio in its portrayal of a bad guy. Because of that they are lesser films. We never feel that Harry is in any real danger."<ref>Siskel, Gene (December 12, 1983). "Dirty Harry's bumbling bad guys lack 'impact'". ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''. Section 5, p. 3.</ref> [[Kevin Thomas (film critic)|Kevin Thomas]] of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' slammed the film as "the exploitation picture at its most nakedly manipulative," which "doesn't just exploit sex and violence but also audience prejudices toward minorities. (True, Callahan's partner, played by Albert Popwell, is black, but he's around only briefly.) That it exploits with sleek cinematic skill—not to mention a great deal of righteousness—makes it all the more reprehensible."<ref>Thomas, Kevin (December 9, 1983). "Orgy of Violence in 'Sudden Impact'". ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''. Part VI, p. 19.</ref> A negative review from [[Pauline Kael]] in ''[[The New Yorker]]'' remarked that the film "might be mistaken for parody if the sledgehammer-slow pacing didn't tell you that the director (Eastwood) wasn't in on the joke."<ref>Kael, Pauline (January 23, 1984). ''The Current Cinema''. ''[[The New Yorker]]''. 93.</ref>