Customer Reviews

Death Wish [VHS]

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(28)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As late as the 1990s, a midnight walk through Central Park or Prospect Park or Riverside Drive or just about any secluded area in New York City was tantamount to asking to be victimized. So to those skeptics who can't believe New York was that bad in the 1970s, I say "Believe it!"

Anyway...

Years before Peter Finch, as Howard Beale in NETWORK, chanted, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!", Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey was well beyond that point. DEATH WISH, among other things is a gritty, unflinching look at the violence urban dwellers all over America faced in the 1970s. Paul Kersey, an Upper West Sider, discovers that his wife has been murdered, and his daughter raped and beaten by intruders. In an interesting twist on movie convention, Kersey doesn't seek revenge by going after the men who destroyed his family: he goes after any and all criminals. Bronson's portrayal of an average guy who, in stages, progresses from amateur to super-vigilante, is very credible. The psychological complexities are intriguing. On one level, he can't let go of the past, so he continues his rampage. However, at the same time, he redecorates his apartment and berates his son-in-law for living in the past. But it makes sense. His daytime self wants to be normal, his night-time--darker--side is bloodthirsty.

There is also an ethical complexity to this film. We all know, somewhere in our moral calculus, that vigilantism only promotes chaos and anarchy. We know we need a police department to enforce our laws. But what happens when that law enforcement is too bogged down by red tape, overwork, and apathy? Paul Kersey did seek justice through proper channels, harrassing the police to move more quickly on the case. It was when that failed, and after a trip out west (where cowboy justice once thrived), that he took the law into his own hands. Again, a very logical reason for his becoming a vigilante. And the viewer cannot help but root for him, no matter how wrong we should think it is.

DEATH WISH is not just a bloodbath thriller film (although the violence was pretty graphic for its time). It is a disturbing and complex movie, and an accurate look back at a time when urban life was so bad, that even Jim Morrison had to shout, "Save our cities!"

This is the first of several films featuring Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey, a modern day urban equivalent of Robin Hood, Zorro, and the Lone Ranger. When initially released, Death Wish was immediately controversial as was Dirty Harry (1971). Audiences tended to be divided between those who were offended by what they considered to be excessive violence and those who (like Harry Callahan and Paul Kersey) had lost confidence in society's willingness and/or ability to respond effectively to violent crime. After seeing each of the two films for the first time, I vividly recall joining those around me in the theatre as they rose and cheered...and continued to applaud for several minutes. (By the way, that was the same audience reaction when I first saw Walking Tall.) I asked myself, "What's going on here? What's this all about?"

At least in the larger U.S. cities 30 years ago, residents had become totally fed up with traditional law enforcement initiatives. It was no longer safe to walk the streets at night. Even more dangerous to do so in public parks. Homes were robbed while people worked during the day. Many of the same homes were robbed again later after insurance coverage replaced the articles previously stolen. Racial animosities, drug abuse, and a widespread contempt for institutional authority all contributed to such problems.

When we first meet Kersey, he is in all respects a gentle man. A successful architect who is happily married (Joanna, Hope Lange) and a proud father of his beloved daughter, he is carefully positioned as a law-abiding citizen. To repeat, a gentle man. Over time, after his wife and daughter are brutally attacked by thugs who escape punishment, Kersey commits himself to ridding the city of such creatures. In fact, he seeks them out in the most likely areas (e.g. public parks and on subways), coldly and systematically killing as many as he can. Of course, other law abiding citizens are wholly supportive of his efforts but law enforcement officials correctly fear the possible implications of such vigilantism.

Director Michael Winner does a brilliant job of orchestrating Kersey's crusade with efforts by detective Frank Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia) to identify and then capture the public hero. Ochoa seems torn between admiration of such heroism and obligations to end it. Many of those who live in areas plagued by violent crime admire this movie. Others quite properly have concerns about anyone who "goes outside the law," as Kersey obviously does. Who among vigilantes will be Paul Kerseys? And who among them will be Travis Bickles? Good question.

Paul Kersy (Charles Bronson) --resident of Manhattan's upper west side in the early 1970's-- comes home one day to find his wife murdered and his daughter so brutally raped that she becomes institutionalized. Later Paul decides to make himself a regular target for street criminals, only he fights back with deadly force. Paul doesn't actually provoke the criminals who attack him, he merely presents a apparently passive target of opportunity. After a while Paul's activities have a deterrent effect on street crime to the embarrassment the DA, the police, and the city politicians. So the police launch an investigation to find who is killing criminals and put a stop to it. Eventually with good detective work, the police find Paul, but there they a political problem. They know Paul will be a hero, so they can't arrest him, they just have to make him stop, and this they do by cutting a deal for him to leave town. Bronson's performance is somewhat wooden, but effective. Unquestionably this film exploits its audience, you can't help but cheer for Paul, loathe his attackers, and resent the authorities. The movie was and is controversial. The liberals hate it, the conservatives love it. The move has been attacked as exaggerating the danger of urban crime. It doesn't. I lived in the very area and at the very time of the movie. Virtually everyone I knew (including myself) had some kind of incident with a street criminal. The movie is not realistic with regard to what would have happened to Paul Kersy once found out. He would have been arrested and charged with illegal possession of a firearm, and other felonies. He would have been attacked on the editorial page of the New York Times, by Mayor Lindsey, the police commissioner and slew of newspaper columnists and TV commentators. The families of the slain criminals would have sued him, most likely with William Kunstler as the lawyer. There would have been a relentless and effective campaign of personal destruction directed at Paul culminating in a trial. So in this sense the movie fails as social commentary, because it doesn't confront the real issues of crime and punishment and urban politics. But it succeeds splendidly as an emotional cathartic. For this I give it five stars.

Charles Bronson convincingly plays Paul Kersey, a New York architect who's family is attacked by three horrible thugs. The violence in the early part of the film is brutal, but sets the stage for his motive in becoming a vigilante, and puts the audience in the mindset to empathize with his actions.

The pacing is fast, and though it has that '70's look, this one doesn't get stale. Vincent Gardenia is excellent as the police chief, and look for Jeff Goldblum's screen debut as one of the three thugs. Herbie Hancock's score is an interesting blend of avant-garde classical and jazz.

Director Michael Winner made two other films with Bronson that are favorites..."The Mechanic" and "Chato's Land". Taut and inventive, I watch each of them every few years with renewed fascination.

Although, I was only exactly four years old on July 24, 1974, the date in which this movie was released but from all the accounts I have read from that time,and even from some of the reviews written here already, New York City`s crime rate was rather high. This movie tapped into what people`s feeelings were as far as the crime issue goes during that time.
Unless you lived in that era, it is hard to see how a film like this could be so controversial at the time. But the very thought of an ordinary citizen taking the law into his own hands was unheard of. After many years of insipid sequels and countless imitators, Death Wish still shines like a gem.
This is one of Bronson`s best performances. He is the peaceable middle aged, longish haired,liberal architect Paul kersey until his world is shattered. Scenes that are noteworthy of Bronson`s acting are;
a)When kersey is waiting at the hospital withis son in law, Jack about news relating to his wife and daughter.
b) When he receives news that his wife has died, he starts to break down.
c) Before plugging his first victm, kersey is overcome with fear. Does he shoot or hand over the money. The former option wins out and after shooting his would be mugger, Kersey is just watching his victim writhe in pain . He is in a state of hesitancy and shock before he hightails it back to his apartment.
d)Whe he arrives at his apartment, Kersey feels nauseous and weak from what he has just done. The liberal architect turned vigilante races for the toilet and vomits.
The fim explores kersey`s transformation into a vigilante who becomes more cocksure of himself . He rides on a subway train carrying a bag full of groceries and in a diner, he counts out large amount of bills openly in order to lure muggers into his trap.
And another favorite scene of mine is when kersey and some of his associates are sitting at a resturaunt, there is a televised press conference in which the NYPD commissioner is urging the vigilante to desist from his one man crusade and turn himself into the police. The patrons are all attentive to the Tv set, unaware the vigilante is amongst them. Our hero simply smirks at the commissioners suggestion to turn himself in while he`s downing his dinner, almost as in a taunt; `No, let`s see if you can try and get me.'
Eventually, the police do get their man after Kersey is injured by muggers during his vigilante quest. Inspector Ochoa orders Kersey at his hospital bed to leave NYC, but it doesnt mean that Kersey won`t stop his his crusade. Once he arrives at the main Chicago train sation, he sees a bunch of skells harassing a young woman. Kersey goes over to help her gather her luggage which was strewn all over the place by the skells. The skells see this and start mocking him. Our vigilante smiles and points an imaginary gun in their direction.
This is a great movie and a provactive one at that. Many critics were split in their opinions with no middle ground. They either loved it or hated it. And the public flocked to this movie in droves. It was one of the top ten movies in `74.
Unfortunatley, the lameness of the sequels and countless imitators have diluted the impact of this classic somewhat. But it still remains a gripping, intriguing movie.
This is one of Charles Bronson`s best performances and he is very convincing and believable as the conscientious objector turned vigilante. His later performances in the subsequent sequels were as emotional amd involved as a wet dish rag. Steven Keats is excellent as the beleagured son in law, Jack, and Vincent Gardenia shines as the police inspector Frank Ochoa who is determined to apprehend the vigilante.

What is the price of freedom? Did someone say --- eternal vigilance? Having lived in a Great Toilet for many years, and been robbed and burgled more times than I can remember, I'd like to be free to walk the streets without looking over my shoulder. And now I do. Imagine leaving the door unlocked. Michael Winner is an excellent, no-nonsense, unpretentious director. There's nothing fancy, preening or self-regarding about his movies. I'd been told he wasn't much good, so I never went to see any of his productions. But now that I'm viewing them on dvd, I find the best ones much, much better than I'd expected. They're not looking for Oscars, and perhaps that's why they stay with you. Winner tells a linear story, and he tells it well. This film is a lot better than Dirty Harry. Many of these tales by Winner seem simple and straightforward, but there's much more to them, eg Lawman, Chato's Land. Forget The Wicked Lady --- it was terrible. The slow build-up here was not what I was expecting, but I thought it well done, and admired it. Charles Bronson was not so much an actor, as a unique physical presence, carved in hardwood. He was great. The street scum were somewhat corny. So what? The film wasn't about them, and they were nothing to weep over. The poor dears. What I really liked was that touch of British humour that Winner brought along with him. It added an extra dimension of wit and humanity to the usual over-earnest Hollywood fare. Excuse me now, I'm just going to check my hat-pin rack; and exchange a twenty quid note for some handy rolls of coin. I'll be gone by sundown.

[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.

A discussion of Charles Bronson that fails to mention the "Death Wish" series isn't really a discussion at all. The first entry in this seminal series arrived on the scene in 1974 during a period in American history when all types of crimes skyrocketed. We can thank the moral laxity inflicted on the rest of us by the Counterculture for the increased numbers of murders, arsons, burglaries, robberies, rapes, and countless other forms of physical and mental assaults that soon became common occurrences on every street in the country. A large percentage of the population, referred to by Nixon as "The Silent Majority," ached to find a way to fight back against the vermin committing these atrocities. Since our embrace of vigilante justice faded away due to the abuses of lynching in the South, and our legal system began letting the scum back out on the streets, only Hollywood seemed to offer refuge to the growing number of victims. Enter the revenge and vigilante genre, the most notable entries of which consisted of the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" pictures. In these films, a cop or outraged citizen would hunt down criminals outside the law, meting out a savage brand of justice we could all cheer about.

"Death Wish" soon became a popular alternative to Eastwood's blow 'em away motion pictures. Set in the cesspool that is New York City in the 1970s, we first meet architect Paul Kersey (Bronson) as he exhibits the comfortable liberalism of a man never victimized by criminals. He believes in the efficacy of the legal system, thinks even criminals deserve a fair chance, and supports gun control. Then the unthinkable happens, a crime so monstrous in its random brutality that Kersey's world changes forever. While he is away drawing up plans for his latest project, a gang of punks follows his wife Joanna (Hope Lange) from the market back to the apartment. Once inside, these animals kill Kersey's wife and savagely violate his only daughter Carol (Kathleen Tolan) in a way best left unelaborated upon here. It's truly a terrible series of scenes, but no more terrible than the total ambivalence and ineffectiveness exhibited by the hospital personnel, the police, and Carol's husband in the aftermath of the attack. Only Kersey feels like he should do something, but his personal beliefs (he was a conscientious objector during the Korean War) leave him struggling over what course of action he should take.

Fortunately, a working trip to Tucson settles the issue for our hero. It is here that he meets Ames Jainchill (Stuart Margolin), a real estate developer and self-defense advocate who indirectly helps Kersey decide what to do upon his return to the Big Apple. He also gives the architect a package containing a handgun and ammunition after learning that Kersey, despite his peaceful beliefs, learned about firearms as a child. Our man returns to the city and sets about settling some scores. Sadly, he will never find the men responsible for the despicable atrocities committed against his family, but there is no shortage of criminals in New York to take revenge on in the meantime. Kersey often heads out to the streets posing as a likely victim, virtually ensuring that some mugger or other miscreant will take notice and move in for the kill. Sure enough, they do. And when they do, Kersey pulls out the pistol and guns them down. The sudden surge in deceased criminals brings in the cops, headed up by the always sniffling and blustering Inspector Frank Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia). New York City authorities quickly discover that a vigilante stalks the streets, and they want to catch the guy fast before he influences other outraged citizens to do the same. Too late. Construction workers start beating muggers to a pulp, and little old ladies fight back, too. Will the cops find Kersey? What will they do to him? Watch and see.

"Death Wish" works as well as it does because the script takes vigilantism very seriously. You won't see Bronson running through the streets mowing down hundreds of bad guys without breaking a sweat--that will come later, in the increasingly ridiculous yet massively entertaining sequels. Here, Paul Kersey agonizes over his decision. After one of his assaults on a criminal, he arrives home so shaken that he becomes physically ill over his actions. Too, our vigilante isn't impervious to damage like so many action heroes, which we learn when a thug manages to stick a knife into him during an attack. The best element of the film is Bronson; he falls prey to the law of diminishing returns in the later sequels and other Cannon schlock with ham handed performances so wooden as to defy description, but not here. "Death Wish" gives the actor better material, material that allows him greater range to practice his talents. I also enjoyed seeing Stuart Margolin--an actor I learned to appreciate during his stint as the hilarious ex-con Angel Martin in "The Rockford Files"--in the role of the perceptive Ames Jainchill. Be sure and look for Jeff Goldblum as "Freak #1." Freak #1! I love it!

It is quite unfortunate the only extra on the disc is a trailer. I think I ought to warn viewers interested in the "Death Wish" films right from the start that MGM did a lousy job transferring these gems to disc. The first film doesn't look too bad, but subsequent entries sadly receive a full screen format. Worse, they actually put edited versions of a couple of the films on the discs. Edited! Can you believe it? Who does that nowadays? Oh, I forgot--MGM, Paramount, and several other big studios who simply don't understand how DVD should work. Still, I highly recommend the first film considering its classic stature.

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..

I don't remember too many films from the 1970's the earned an entire OP/ED page in the N.Y. Times, but this urban classic did. Controversy proved to be good box office and Bronson became a superstar as Paul Kersey. DEATH WISH is a taunt thriller that sparked more than one water cooler discussion in 1974. Michael Winner worked this one into a poster child for street justice and inspired more than a few real life imitators (the ad campaign boasted: "Paul Kersey is going to kill 3 muggers tonight: One for his murdered wife, one for his raped daughter and one for you!"). What was more unfortunate is that DEATH WISH became a parody of itself with 4 awful sequels. Forgot the rest, cheer for Bronson here everytime he caps a bad guy.