Review: Death Wish

NYC architect and family man Paul Kersey’s (Charles Bronson) world and bleeding heart liberal beliefs are shaken to their core when he finds out three muggers (one played by a young Jeff Goldblum!) have killed his wife (Hope Lange) and raped his daughter (in addition to spray painting her bare arse, ‘coz…they can), leaving the latter so traumatised she is rendered vegetative. With no faith in law enforcement, and witnessing crime and filth on every street corner, Kersey’s political views undergo a dramatic shift. He ends up taking up arms and stalking the streets at night to blow away the city’s criminals and thugs. Meanwhile, a dogged police detective (Vincent Gardenia) is alerted to the presence of a ‘vigilante killer’ and attempts to find him and put a stop to his activities. Steven Keats plays Kersey’s well-meaning but weak son-in-law, Stephen Elliott (later to play a humourless authority figure in “Beverly Hills Cop”) plays the police commissioner, whilst you can also spot a young Olympia Dukakis, Paul Dooley, and Christopher Guest all as police officers in cameos. Look out for Sonia ‘Maria’ Manzano from “Sesame Street” as the cashier the thugs pick on early on the film. Yep, Maria was in a “Death Wish” movie, folks.

 

As you are probably already aware, this 1974 Michael Winner (“Death Wish II”, “Lawman”, “The Mechanic”, “The Stone Killer”) vigilante movie isn’t really my thing. The sequels are a lot worse, but at least “Death Wish II” for all its many (many, many, many) flaws didn’t try to intellectualise things too much and most of all, had the main character carry out his ‘justice’ on the specific persons who wronged him. That’s not what Winner and screenwriter Wendell Mayes (“Anatomy of a Murder”, “The Poseidon Adventure”, “The Revengers”) are interested in here. The film essentially focuses on the psychological effects of the situation on Charles Bronson’s Paul Kersey character, not just the crime, but what he does in response to it, and how that makes him feel. However, after a while you realise that’s just a means to an end here too, and that ‘end’ is that Winner and Mayes want to stick it to pussy peacenik lefties who want to give criminals a big wet kiss. They pay mere lip service to Kersey’s unconvincing ‘bleeding heart’ liberal character giving ‘excuses’ to young criminals. But once the crime hits home, he supposedly ‘comes to his senses’ about the scummy world he lives in and realises that violence must be met with violence and that all criminals are ‘scum’ who need to be removed (It’s amazing to me that this is a pre-Reagan era film. It’s got right-wing Reagan propaganda all over it). It’s not particularly plausible to me that a mere architect (albeit a surprisingly shredded one, as you’ll see in the opening scene) would be carrying out all this violence, nor is it particularly interesting or entertaining to watch this right-wing vigilante nonsense, especially when the specific crims never get their comeuppance.

 

Others will disagree and find this to be the most intelligent of the series. It’s certainly the most well-made on a technical, that cannot be denied. I just roll my eyes at the politics behind it, and I feel that if you’re gonna do a vigilante film, you need to carry out that ‘justice’ against the specific people who wronged you. The central ‘crime’ isn’t nearly as graphic as you probably recalled last time you saw the film, but when it’s over you can’t help but think ‘They done fucked with the wrong marine, and they’re gonna pay!’. Nope, Jeff Goldblum (in his first and worst-ever performance) and co are never seen again. It’s a bit deflating, really. I get the point, but it just seems pointless. It’s still a pretty nasty scene, by the way, although the seriously goofy performances by young Goldblum and his cronies really does take you out of it a bit (I love the guy, but Goldblum talking ‘jive’ is hilariously bad), as does the worst interior decorating you’ve ever seen in your life. Good thing Mr. Kersey’s an architect, not an interior designer, because that apartment interior is just hideous!

 

This is probably the last time Charles Bronson ever bothered to give an actual performance in a film. It’s not one of his best performances, mind you, but you can tell he’s at least a little invested in the thing. Although I maintain that the film is ultimately more interested in teaching lefties a ‘lesson’, Bronson definitely conveys the horror at his own actions rather well. He’s actually better than Steven Keats as his son-in-law, who is just OK. The best work by far comes from Vincent Gardenia as the cop who enters the film fairly late (after almost 45 minutes of a less than 90 minute film) and takes it with him. It’s a good, showy part for him. I also think the film deals with Bronson’s psychologically haunted daughter much better than in “Death Wish II”. Unfortunately, the film has way too many scenes of Paul Kersey the architect, and all the stuff showing his conflict/inner turmoil is at the expense of pacing. It’s a very, very slow film, and I would’ve definitely excised Stuart Margolin’s walking cliché wannabe cowboy character entirely (He has two different sets of bullhorns on his car for fuck’s sake!). Also, after a while, it gets awfully repetitive once the shooting has started, and since it’s just random thugs we’ve not met prior who are being killed, my giveashit factor isn’t so high. I’ll give them credit for setting up the sequel perfectly. Sickeningly, mind you, but fittingly.

 

Some of the film is interesting, a lot of it is boring, none of it is really my kind of thing. More serious-minded than a lot of other ‘urban justice’ flicks, this is a genre classic that may appeal to you a lot more than it does to me. It’s really about a right-wing ‘tough on crime’ agenda, and if you are like-minded, you’ll ‘enjoy’ the film, for whatever that’s worth. The rest of us, though, find it all a bit hard to take. Reasonably well put together for its type, but limited in entertainment value for me, I’m afraid. The film’s best asset is the very jazzy, very 70s music score by Herbie Hancock (“Action Jackson”). It’s not subtle, but it’s certainly memorable. The film is just OK, though it was a huge hit and obviously struck a chord with the NRA/home protection crowd. Mayes’ screenplay is based on a Brian Garfield novel (“Death Sentence”, “The Last Hard Man”).

 

Rating: C+