Death Wish
|
List Price: Our Price: $9.60 You Save: $3.39 (26%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.42 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Death Wish
Movie Review: Deathwish with Charles Bronson
Summary: 5 Stars
This a great movie and it completes the whole series of the deathwish series Charles did.Movie Review: get this one
Summary: 5 Stars
Death Wish is a winner. Add this to your DVD library today.Movie Review: Powerful, important film
Summary: 4 Stars
[This review speaks to the film, not the DVD, which I have not viewed. I would imagine that at the very least the sound would be superior than the VHS version, and for this reason alone I plan on purchasing the film.]I'm still not sure Death Wish gets the credit it deserves after so many years. For some it is simply an awful depiction of city life that condones vigilantism and violence. For others it is a celebration of American values and about the need for people to take action when confronted.
I think that people often overlook the function of this film and concentrate too much on the form.
On the one hand, I believe credit should be given to Wendell Mayes, the screenwriter, in adapting Brian Garfield's source novel. The original novel is certainly different, but it is also short and often seems rushed, failing to go deeper with some of the important points it brings up. Clearly, the film has different intentions and indeed develops a number of subplots further (most notably the Arizona business trip with Ames Jainchill) in order to paint a picture of American society being pulled apart.
The film concentrates much on the metaphor of the American Wild West, past and present. On the one hand, Jainchill represents a new type of American cowboy: a successful businessman who can work with city and country people and incorporate values of the past and present into his life and work. Paul Kersey is a more modern American man who no longer needs to be a "pioneer" and has left guns and violence in the past, seeing them as old fashioned and as symbols of an older, less liberal America. Both of them have been successful in their lives, professionally and personally (though we never see Jainchill's family he boasts of his home as a safe place). This aspect is barely present in the book, and it is a very important development of the screenwriter and director.
The city of New York is as much as character as Kersey. While some believe it is made up to appear exaggeratedly dangerous (literally a mugger on every corner) I believe the function of this depiction is metaphorical and useful for the fast pace of the film. Were there as many active muggers in New York in 1974 in every neighborhood? It doesn't really matter. Bronson's nightly activities are designed to attract the attention of the low-level underworld; basically, he's more or less looking for it while presenting an innocent target. It is less provocation than exposure. The film is concerned with a powerful "what if?" scenario and how the public as well as the authorities would react.
While some may argue that the film dodges the sensitive subject of vigilantism by having the police and city government broker a deal with Kersey when he's caught, I believe that the film is exposing the right-wing feelings dormant in many viewers and forcing them to think about what they have watched. It is very easy to cheer for Kersey; his work alone brings down the mugging rate in the city. On the other hand, his activity begins to unravel the moral fiber of the police and government, making them reluctant to bring in a criminal who would just as soon be hailed a hero by many. With its manipulative tone the film appears more confrontational to me than if it had presented the capture, lengthy trial, and condemnation of Kersey, since this would simply reinforce our expectations and leave us less engaged and more subdued as viewers.
While many may disagree for valid reasons, the power of this film cannot be denied. It is technically well-made as well, with a fantastic Herbie Hancock score (that is highly recommended on CD).
One of the question marks people may have is Charles Bronson as the right or wrong actor for this material. Bronson is not the most emotive actor, and his stone-faced transition from bleeding heart liberal to hard-hearted vigilante will either register with viewers by disturbing them slightly or will not resonate because of a missing sensitivity by the actor. This is a fair enough criticism. I personally have come to appreciate Bronson's performance, accepting that his reaction is less important than the setup and the surroundings of his character.
Nevertheless, I would definitely recommend this film for anyone living in America, let alone New York. Some may find the violence nasty and unpleasant, but it works toward feeding our rage with street crime as well as causing us to examine our sensitivity to violence toward anyone.
Movie Review: A product of its time
Summary: 4 Stars
A lot has been said,HERE,in various reviews,about how this film reflects the time in which it was made..while true on many levels,few have ventured to guess why such a film may have mirrored its time so well..Paul Kersey,the Bronson charecter,the vigilante,was portrayed as a fortyish fellow which,in 1974,would have given him a birthdate before the second world war..Now while world history may have been in turmoil during the '30s,the '40s,and even into the '50s,local history,the history of american neighborhoods and communities,lumbered along pretty much as it always had...most people more or less trusted most of thier neighbors,doors were not always double-bolted,violence was from gangsters or as a result of some flare-up between friends or relatives...it was not random,it was not gratious..
The perpetrators in"Death Wish",dope addicts,muggers,random sadists,belong to a later generation,twenty or so years younger than Kersey..thier world is a world fueled by drugs,by freedoms without responsibility,and they inhabit a world that was rapidly turning to manure..laws had no teeth...communities were fragmented,over race,over the viet-nam conflict,over politics..Kennedy and King were not even a decade in thier graves...The court system,along with the lawyers,had begun taking a generation-long run at the laws necessary to hold the world in check..Victims were secondary to thier victimisers in terms of the legal community and the court system,and the police were restrained from both protecting the innocent or doing any real damage to the guilty...
This is the world in which this film operates...Kersey,a product of that other,older world,expected some protection for himself and his family,expected that the law would function as it should,and was horribly surprised to find that it did not..His world was shattered,and nothing whatever was done to rectify it...
Becoming a vigilante,while a step,was not one that was without precedent..at about this same time,in New York where this film was set,the real world had just encountered Bernard Goetz,the so-called"subway shooter"..a meek nebbish,Goetz had claimed that he was subject to threats and harrassment,on a subway car,from several youths,some of which Goetz had then shot...Given the criminal records some of his victims had,Goetz became something of a hero to the same sort of people as our mister Kersey,although,as in the film,law-enforcement took a very dim view of Goetz or his solution to this sort of problem...Indeed,despite the ample evidence that Goetz was indeed threatened by at least some of the youths involved,he,and not they,was the focus of police activity...
So then,do we have here a film that saw a real event and then re-wrote it to adapt better as a screen thriller,or do we have a film that absorbed much of what was going on in real life at that time and regurgitated it back as a harrowing vision?
This first film was the best of the lot..All of the others that came afterward had less and less to say about why such a fellow as Kersey might be able to operate as he did,opting instead to raise the blood and body-count levels.ironicly playing to the same sense and senibilities in the audience as Kersey the killer was gunning down on the cinematic streets...For as the death wish films repeated themselves endlessly thier core audience seemed more interested in violence and less interested in motivation,or consequences...and the Kersey charecter became a mere killing machine,piling up the bodies,but offering no solutions other than becoming the same sort of offender as those he turned his guns upon...
For Bronson,"Death Wish"was something of a turning point..In many of his films before he had cultivated a neat sort of personna,a half bad good guy,seen in"The Mechanic",
"The Magnificent Seven"and a number of other similiar vehicles..This film allowed Bronson to act,rather than to re-act,and it showed that he was more able to do so than was perhaps generally thought at that time...Alas,after"Death Wish"Bronson more or less gave in to the urge to become a"star"rather than remaining an actor..much of what he pumped out afterwards,with few exceptions,played to a core audience that went to see gunfire,blood and lots of violent activity,with little plotline and even less acting...
Is"Death Wish"a good movie?Yes,in it's way..It says a lot about the way we were,and even more about why we are the way we are now..
Movie Review: Vigilante Man
Summary: 4 Stars
When Michael Winner asked the late Charles Bronson if he'd like to star in his new movie 'Death Wish', about a mild mannered chap who goes on a rampage shooting scumbags when his family is attacked, Bronson replied "Id like to do that". "The movie?" Winner enquired, "No", responded Bronson, "Shoot some scumbags".When it was released in 1974, Death Wish stirred up enormous controversy. With its violent rape scene and apparent condoning of Paul Kersey's vigilante activities, Vincent Canby of the New York Times called it "one of the sickest movies ever made", claiming that it "raises complex questions in order to offer bigoted, frivolous, oversimplified answers".
The films message in enunciated best by Kersey in conversation with his wet blanket of a son in law; "What do you call people who, when they're faced with a condition of fear, run away?". His son sheepishly asks "Civilised?". In the west, society works on the understanding that when members of the public are done wrong, the State, which holds the monopoly on legitimate violence, takes peoples rights of revenge and retribution on itself. With this comes the caveat that the State is duty bound to exercise this right of revenge and retribution. But, as this film poses, what are we supposed to do when the authorities rescind this right, and by definition the rights of victims and the public, in the face of left wing/liberal notions of fairness for crooks? When the police don't protect us, who does?
For those who think this film silly, just look at the case of British farmer Tony Martin. Repeatedly burgled and repeatedly told by the police that they were powerless to act, Martin shot one burglar dead and wounded another when his home was broken into again. Unlike the burglars, Martin was arrested and sent to jail. The burglar who escaped was subsequently given legal aid to sue Martin. In Death Wish the police spend considerably more time trying to apprehend Kersey than the scum he is after. This is provocative political film making of the highest calibre, not far behind Pontecorvo's 'Battle of Algiers' and Costa Gavras' 'Z'. Some criticise the film for the ease with which Bronson finds muggers. As the Canadian film critic Mark Steyn wrote, "To be sure, he sort of goes looking for trouble. But in 1970's New York you didn't have to look far: just go to the park, ride the subway, take an evening stroll". This great movie loses one star only because it is not quite as good as the similarly themed 'Dirty Harry'.
There are a couple of problems with this movie. Charles Bronson is too macho an actor for the role of "bleeding heart liberal" turned vigilante Paul Kersey. He looks like a killer from frame one, and as a result his transformation is a little hard to swallow. A more normal looking actor might have been more believable, as Dustin Hoffmann demonstrates in 'Straw Dogs'. It also suffers in comparison to the book. The back story about a gun fighting father, introduced in the movie, is plain daft, and the police investigation in the film, which tracks Kersey down in pretty short order, feels tacked on and ill thought out. The ending of the book is better also. Called Paul Benjamin in the book, the Bronson character is caught red handed by a police officer. The officer removes his hat, turns his back and allows the Vigilante to escape. Oochoa gets nowhere near him in the book.
Ask yourself the question posed on the back of the paperback version of the book; "What do you do when your life lies in ruins and fear clutches at your heart? Do you shun the city and flee from its violence? Or do you do what Paul did - get a gun, learn to use it and start fighting back?"