Hacker Cinema
Bullitt
1968 · Film · 113 min
Directed by Peter Yates
Senator Walter Chalmers is aiming to take down mob boss Pete Ross with the help of testimony from the criminal's hothead brother Johnny, who is in protective custody in San Francisco under the watch of police lieutenant Frank Bullitt. When a pair of mob hitmen enter the scene, Bullitt follows their trail through a maze of complications and double-crosses. This thriller includes one of the most famous car chases ever filmed.
7 positive6 neutralfrom 13 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
17 comments on Hacker News
Nah, you can tell because they don’t have annoying people paint street numbers on the curbs.
That said it’d be difficult to film the film Bullitt in Vancouver unless they cut out a lot of the street scenes, the marina, San Bruno mountain, the old freeways…
I think digital effects still rarely look as good as the peak of Hollywood practical effects (call it… idk, Alien in 1979 through Independence Day in ‘96 or so, roughly, and yes I know ID4 also had computer fx in addition to lots of miniatures and models)
Having to do things for-real also kept things grounded. Modern action movies are often cartoon-like with supposedly human characters stringing together super-human moves that’d leave a real person with dislocated shoulders, broken bones, and brain damage, because they’re actually just CG, no human involved.
[EDIT] OMG, or take Bullitt (1968) versus, say, the later Fast and the Furious sequels (everything past Tokyo Drift). The latter are basically Pixar's Cars with more-realistic textures. They're cartoons with live-action talking segments. Very little actual driving is depicted. Bullitt may have used the movie-magic of editing, but someone did have to actually drive a car, for every shot of a car driving. Or at least they had to set up a car with a dummy to convincingly crash. What you're seeing is heightened, but basically within the realm of reality.
Or take A Bridge Too Far. It's a bit of a mess! Make it CG and it'd be outright bad. But ho-lee-shit do they blow up a lot of stuff, like, you cannot even believe how much. And look at all those tanks and armored vehicles they got! And planes! And extras! Those are all 100% real! AND ALL THE KABOOMS! And it all looks better than CG, to boot. The spectacle of it (plus some solid performances) saves the movie. Make all the FX CG and it'd be crap.
Imagine a Jackie Chan movie with CG stunts. What is even the point. It'd be trash.
> People had vastly higher standards of living in the good old days.
As a percentage of spending on groceries, people used to spend 25% and now it's 10%; for clothing it used to be 10%, now it's 3%. In 1900 people used to spend over 40% of their budget on food:
* http://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/
Transportation and and telecommunication costs have plummeted over the decades:
* https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter1/what-is-transport-geography/transport-communication-costs-index/
Compare the Mustang (and Charger) in the 1968 movie Bullitt compared to today: more horsepower, more torque, better fuel mileage, better safety and comfort (air conditioning!).
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)#1967–1968
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(seventh_generation)
The main thing that has changed is that housing has gotten more expensive: just about everything else has gotten less expensive.
> Did you send in your comment via fax?
Fax was invented in the 1800s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax
The 1968 Steve McQueen movie Bullitt used a fax machine to send a photograph of suspect. It's a pre-1970s invention, as is the modem: the Bell 101 was released in 1958.
Edit: the authors of the book do say that the mainstreaming of computers and the Internet is one of the post-1970s innovations.
> Also in what way are "refinements" not technological innovation? e.g. modern cars are massively safer, more reliable and comfortable.
But not a new invention. The Model T started production in 1908:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
By the late 1920s, more that 80% of US households had at least one car; by the 1960s it was something like 160 cars per 100 households (i.e., most had at least two cars). It was by the 1930s that society had already been transformed by the automobile, regardless of how "safer, more reliable and comfortable" (or not) they were:
* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2924825
For safety, the four biggest factors were seat belts, airbags, ABS and crumple zones, all of which were invented in the 1970s or before:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#History
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#History
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#History
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone
Comfort: AC was invented by Willis Carrier in the early 1900s, and put into air cars by the 1950s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_air_conditioning
For reliability/efficiency, fuel injection was in cars by the 1950s:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injection
Fury Road, too.
As a viewer I'm getting sick of CG action. It's striking how we've gone from action scenes that are improbable, to action scenes that are completely impossible, in terms of the perfection with which humans execute their parts in them, not in terms of stuff like Sci-fi elements. You watch older car chase scenes in something like Bullitt and they're over the top, but not impossible, because despite using movie magic to string together separate shots into one long sequence a real human did actually have to do most of the driving, in a real car and using a finite amount of film—but are at like 1% the insanity and intensity of a car chase scene in a Marvel movie or Fast & the Furious or something.
There are little grounding imperfections and limitations in older action movies that CG and super-cheap digital shooting & editing have destroyed. I often check out for the interminable action scenes in Marvel films because they're just boring, for reasons both narrative and technical, which is the exact opposite of what an action scene ought to be.
Bond films did not exist in the classic film noir era of the 1940s and 50s, but yes they did precede Bullitt and are a good example of films with car chases as major plot devices.
The "Highway Patrol" TV series of the 1950s was a precursor of the car chase genre, as were some notable film noirs that elevated car pursuits as story lines i.e. High Sierra, White Heat. Agreed that Bullitt is exemplary, but don't forget The French Connection, Duel, Easy Rider, Two Lane Blacktop, and Vanishing Point and you have some great car/bike films of Bullitt's era. The hoaxy C'etait un Rendez-vous is likewise great if you don't do the time/distance math.
I do think something changed with cheap, ubiquitous CG, including how capable modern action heroes are, which is perfectly capable, because nothing's actually happening and there are no limits. Film used to be larger than life, obviously, but now even movies with a "realistic" setting are full-on fantasy.
Compare the action in Bullitt to something like a later entry in the Fast and the Furious franchise, for example. Imagine an already fairly intense and over-the-top scene like Ripley fighting the alien queen in the loader-mech—there'd just be so much more in a modern movie. They'd smash between rooms, swing from the ceiling, shit would be exploding everywhere but Our Hero would always not quite get hurt by it. Indiana Jones 1-3? Way too tame, needs more stuff flying all over the screen and expert-level acrobatic stunts by the hero.
I haven't watched the Independence Day sequel, but I bet a higher percentage of its runtime was special-effects-heavy action, because that's so cheap now. You can even fill in more of that to cut down on your shooting schedule (less time that the actors are on screen).
Action in high-budget modern films is more perfect and precise—the hero must always be narrowly avoiding something—and the heroes tend to be even less relatable than before, and the balance of talking to action has shifted toward action. That may not be worse, but it is different, and noticing that difference or preferring one over the other need not be pure nostalgia.
> The value of an asset is how much it will pay out.
No, the value of an asset is how much you will get for it.
Steve McQueen's 1968 Mustang Fastback from the movie Bullitt has neither dividends nor buybacks, but it was auctioned in January 2020 for US$ 3.4M.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullitt
Paul Newman's personal "Paul Newman" Rolex Daytona sold for US$ 17.75M:
* https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/paul-newman-rolex-daytona-auction-most-expensive-watch-ever
> Eventually they've got to see a return.
They can see a return at any point: sell your shares for more than you bought them for. Boom: capital returns.
Dividends do not matter:
* https://canadiancouchpotato.com/2011/01/18/debunking-dividend-myths-part-1/
A dollar in your pocket is a dollar in your pocket regardless of whether it came from dividends or sell your shares:
* https://www.moneysense.ca/magazine-archive/the-income-illusion/
You are performing what is called "mental accounting":
* https://ritholtz.com/1982/11/explaining-investor-preference-cash-dividends/
* https://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/21413-swedroe-dividends-and-behavioral-econ.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_accounting
Nobody cares about the sound of auto transes. But a 4-on-the-floor V8, that's another matter entirely. See the movie Bullitt for proof.
I'll get an electric car like everyone else. But I dream about having a '68 Mustang :-)
Ronin has good driving sequences, but the cars aren't cool. The two best movies for cars are Bullitt and Grand Prix. Everything else is way, way down. Too bad, actually. I don't understand why Hollywood simply cannot make good car movies.
Edit: I forgot to add in the original "Gone In 60 Seconds", not the pathetic remake.
Agreed! I think its the best "car chase" movie since "Bullitt" [1] (beating out Cannonball Run, the Bourne trilogies, etc).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062765/
It needs more Michael Bay! Kidding aside, I do agree the Fastback and Charger are beautiful pieces of engineering. What I wouldn't do to own a Charger.
I'll have to (try and) watch the movie again.
Personal favourite is the car chase from Ronin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVaNBrYLvFg#t=339
Link to Bullitt chase: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lbs_nYW3-o
Maybe you're used to the modern cinematographic technique of quick cuts where one barely has time to focus on a scene. Older movies tend to use longer shots in action sequences.
Besides what I already mentioned, Bullitt is cool because:
1. the setup where the guy puts on his seatbelt
2. the total lack of dialog - the driver and the gunman understand each other just by looks
3. the deadpan expression on the driver
4. when Bullitt slides off the road, the slightest, most barely perceptible smile on the driver's face
5. McQueen's expression of complete focus and concentration
6. the 68 Mustang and Charger just totally rock. I never understand having a chase sequence with boring cars
7. the lack of CGI, models, and special effects
8. the skid marks from earlier takes
9. the amazing teleporting Green Beetle :-)
10. I love the shot of the rearview mirror when the hunter becomes the hunted - it's just classic
I have an old muscle car with a built V8. The crackling sound of the engine start, and the sound it makes when it 'digs in' under acceleration, is viscerally thrilling.
The smell of a hot engine, and the shaking of the car also add a lot of fun.
One of the best movie montages ever is the opening sequence of the movie "Grand Prix" where they start the engines and warm em up.
In "Rush" they ruined the movie by having a rock soundtrack laid over the sounds of the cars.
"Bullitt"s car chase has never been equaled because the director had the guts to let the V8s and various car noises be the whole soundtrack. The music overlay stops when the chase starts, the complete opposite of every other movie.
Netflix has a pretty good collection of mainstream movies and series. Big plus is that my wife and (young) children can use it, too. I do use newsgroups sometimes to download series (X-Files) or older movies (Bullitt) that I can't find on Netflix, but I'm downloading substantially less than before.
Yes! I watched the movie "Bullitt" a few years ago and noticed that half the action wouldn't have happened if the participants had had cell phones.