UnowPriceless
hyped garbage
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Allison Davies
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
ElMaruecan82
Michael Winner's exploration of the criminal side of New York City is no news after movies like "Shaft", "Midnight Cowboy", "The French Connection" or "Mean Streets". Its novelty though is in the character of Paul Kersey, an ordinary man like the Yin to Harry Callahan's Yang. Both "Dirty Harry" and "Death Wish" are complementary because they speak the same statement about the "only answer to violence" except that Paul is more relatable and accessible than Harry. He's an architect, a liberal, a former Conscience Objector, with a beautiful wife (Hope Lange) whose beauty doesn't grace the screen for too long, a married daughter and a steady job as an architect (and we do see him work, it's not just character-branding). The contrast between Paul's life and his environment is startling and the opening credits takes you from the idyllic beauty of Hawaii to the urban New City musically presented like the anteroom of Hell and it's all about how much time it'll take for Paul to realize it. Speaking of time, it's interesting the way a movie that basically codified the vigilante-trope is deprived of the plot-related clichés that wouldn't have ruined it in the first place. Some films can be predictably great, "Death Wish" is surprisingly good.Being part of what can be called a "modern audience", I naturally expected a climactic and bloody confrontation between Paul and the punks who murdered his wife and raped his daughter. But as a "New Hollywood" fan, I feel guilty for such immature expectations as there was no reason for Kersey to bump into them during his one-man crusade against violence. That enough was a triumph of restrained writing, if not intelligent, and what makes "Death Wish" even more powerful is its lack of emotional juice even when it's called for, Paul's fight is personal but not taken personally. As he tells his son-in-law (Steven Keats represents our point of view): "I should groan and moan the rest of my life?".We're so used to deal with widowers going all berserk about the loss of their dear one that a character like Paul can't fail to appeal, Charles Bronson said that he had a face chiseled in a rock, the same could be said about his heart. Here is a man who is no emotionless cold zombie but tackles his new assignment as something that "must be done" because there's no other way. The film only starts to sin when it turns to an addictive game, but that occurs so late that it doesn't even seem to be the film's point. Maybe the point lies in the way Paul contemplates his accomplishments and life philosophy before seeing them sacrificed at the altar of pointless violence then examines the world of violence with the daring curiosity of a child who gets his finger close to a flame, until he decides to dirty his hands... and then we go from 'pointless violence' to 'violence with a point'.Many would argue that even crime has a "point", as wicked as it, muggers attack to get their fix of crack or heroine, to scare good citizens and have their share of thrills by shaking the establishment, the infamous rape sequence is a disturbing moment but even in the midst of the horror, you wonder whether they raped the girl or the class she was belonging to. The class aspect is integral to the film's message, when you have a job and a family, you have many assets to protect because you have the right to value them and to defend yourself. This is how the issues of gun control intrude themselves in the questioning that leads to Paul Kersey's final decision. During a mission in Arizona, he meets a businessman (Stuart Margolin) who introduces him to his passion for guns. And when you expect a quick shortcut, the film takes its time to show us what will finally trigger Kersey's decision. He witnesses a Western representation and see the audience's lack of reaction as an illustration of citizens' powerlessness, later, he asks his son-in-law what has become with the pioneer spirit and the necessity to protect yourself. The film isn't exactly an incantation to gun in the sense that it establishes it as a survival move than a necessity. And the film isn't the revenge crusade everyone will expect, it's a series of night strolls where Kersey makes himself an easy prey only to shoot to death any assaulter. He makes the headlines quick and become a legend, inspiring people to defend themselves and muggers to think twice and people to talk about him, even the Officer in charge of the investigation (Vincent Gardenia) reminded me of Jim Gordon's relationship with Batman. As for the public opinion, feelings are mixed: "Has criminality decreased?" "No, muggers will only attack old women" "Is he racist because he kills more Blacks and Latinos" "No, it's because they're proportionally more present". In fact, it's like the whole film anticipated Youtube, Facebook or maybe Twitter comments. People just love straight shooters and maybe that's why a few liberal critics didn't totally approve the film. Ebert called it a quasi-fascist fantasy... maybe borrowing the line from Pauline Kael's "Dirty Harry" review and Vincent Canby accused the film of being a dangerous falsification of truth from New York outsiders. Speaking for myself, I think the film has at least the guts to question the question (so to speak) while dealing with a man who shoots first and "ask the questions later". The problem, if problem is the right word, lies in the evolution of Kersey from a man who resents violence to a man who enjoys it, his last grin at the end is supposed to be a satisfactory moment or maybe it's a triumph of cynicism, if these thugs enjoy so much being criminals, why shouldn't he be enjoying himself?
Tweekums
As this film opens architect Paul Kersey is enjoying an idyllic holiday in Hawaii with his wife but it isn't long before they return home to New York. As Paul talks to a colleague about the horrific crime rate it becomes apparent that he is considered a 'bleeding heart liberal'... that all changes when three street punks follow his wife and daughter back from the supermarket. His wife doesn't survive the assault that follows and his daughter is traumatised. The police offer little hope that the culprits will be caught. Shortly afterwards Paul travels to Arizona on work; while there he watches a Wild West show which depicts citizens fighting back against those who threaten the peace. He is also taken to a shooting range by his local host; when he returns home he is given a present... a .32" calibre revolver. Soon after his return he is confronted by a mugger and shoots him dead. It isn't long before he is deliberately putting himself in dangerous situations to draw out muggers. As news of 'The Vigilante' breaks the mugging rate drops dramatically.While I'm sure there were previous films about vigilantes this is the classic that made the genre popular. It is not exactly comfortable viewing; the assault on Paul's wife and daughter is particularly hard to watch. The politics of the film may trouble some viewers with its suggestion that Paul Kersey is a hero because of what he does. Of course one must recall it was made at a time when crime was a much bigger problem in the City of New York and these days news stories about 'guns in America' suggest attitudes towards firearms appear to be changing.Trying to ignore the politics this is a good story where it is easy to sympathise with our protagonist's actions even if one doesn't agree with them. Charles Bronson is on great form as Paul Kersey, one of his most famous roles. Director Michael Winner does a good job creating a menacing feel to the mean streets of New York even if it goes seem conveniently empty at times. I like the fact that even though the film is fairly short the story isn't rushed; Dersey doesn't immediately acquire a pistol but gradually sees that he needs to take action before being given a gun. Overall I'd say this won't be for everybody but it is a must see for fans of the genre.
ramsfan
Though the theme had been tackled many times before, it can be argued that Death Wish is the father of all revenge films. Countless knockoffs, both good and bad, have been made since its release in 1974. Yet to characterize it solely as a revenge movie would be a disservice. It is a culturally significant movie which raises issues about the role of vigilantism in our society. Charles Bronson, who'd enjoyed previous success in feature films prior to Death Wish, became an anti-hero of sorts in a couple dozen movies throughout the next fifteen years after its release.Bronson plays Paul Kersey, an architect who lives in a New York City apartment. His world is shattered when his wife is beaten to death and his daughter is savagely raped by thugs posing as grocery deliverymen. After an unspecified mourning period and for cathartic effect, he is sent on a land developing assignment in New Mexico, where he meets client Ames Jainchill (Stuart Margolin). In contrast to Kersey's conscientious objector war beliefs, Jainchill embraces responsible gun use and winces at the "toilet" New York has become. He piques Kersey's interest at a gun range and a Wild West re-enactment show. Following completion of the project, Jainchill sees off Kersey at the airport and puts a gift in his luggage: a shiny new revolver.Kersey is accosted one night by a mugger and shoots him dead, after which he returns to his apartment and becomes physically sick. Ruminating on the death of his wife and his now-catatonic daughter, he sets himself up as a target for a variety of street scum throughout the city, killing them at various intervals and earning himself the tag of "vigilante killer" by the Press. Police Detective Frank Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia) is tasked with the dilemma of upholding the law in identifying the killer while facing the reality that his superiors and many New Yorkers are not all that upset at the city unconventionally being relieved of its criminals.Death Wish was extremely popular during a dreary period in the city's history when crime was rampant and presents the obvious ambiguity of vigilantism in a civilized society. The assault on Kersey's wife and daughter are brutally depicted, even by today's standards of viewing. It allows us to justify Kersey's actions towards a variety of unsavory characters. Disturbing to some, however, is the controversial way Kersey sets himself up as a target to draw out the criminals, a sense of entrapment if you will, in going from hunted to hunter.Not surprisingly, the financial success of Death Wish spawned several sequels, none of which were memorable. But the original packs a punch and tests our own beliefs about street justice. A very good film from the 70s which still holds relevance today. Highly recommended movie.
videorama-759-859391
The one that started it all, and of course the best, sees our unforgettable vigilante, Paul Kersey (Bronson), deliver justice to those punks at night, who like to do stick ups, and rob us innocent folk. But it's the catalyst of this, that is most interesting. Bronson wife (The Ghost and Mrs Muir's Hope Lange) and daughter in law are raped, (Lange not surviving) by a group of punks (the head an early Jeff Goldblum, like you've never seen em before). The daughter in law has resorted to a state of catatonia, blocking it out, making her, as her husband, describes "a vegetable". I imagine this film at the time, would of stirred up a lot of controversy, or may'be caution some muggers out there, on the New York streets at night. The early rape scene is quite intense and disturbing (I was 14 when I first saw this movie) and that's the scene that stands out. Bronson of course, doesn't show enough range of emotions, yet still is wonderfully effective, doing it his own way. I like Stuart Margolin too, and really it's Vincent Gardenia, as the Inspector who's notable, who really has taken Bronson's side from the start. What wasn't believable, really, in this otherwise excellent film, was some of the victims, and community fighting back at muggers, like that old bag lady, which did provide some laughs, on that news bulletin. The film does make you question, should these muggers die, and are we right to fight back? If judging against Goldblum and his freaks at the start, it's an easy "Yes". Goldblum and co company never get caught, and when Bronson asks, the chief detective "Is there a chance they'll catch these guys" and he answers, "Yes, there's always a chance", hey that's really telling like it is. I myself would be afraid to walk the streets of New York, today. One defining moment is when Gardenia, about to exit Bronson's hospital room, coughs with laugh at shock, to Bronson's former statement. The last shot of a sickly smiling Bronson, cocking his finger at some muggers at a bus station, should be etched in the annals of movie history. One fault moment- when the son goes over to Bronsons for dinner, and he's about to turn the music down, just before this, you'll notice a mic, partially sticking down in shot.
