Review of Death Wish 2018 Full Movie: Willis is an icon for movies like this. There very inexpensive and you can guarantee it will be hit! I can't wait to see it myself to compare the two. While the first was gritty I am sure this will be extreme with an r rating! Did you know death wish original was Jeff Goldblum's first role, he played one of the punks who raped and killed his wife! As a fan of the original, I'm interested in what this is going to be like. I keep hearing that it's going to be more like the original book, which is better than just being a remake.
The writer of the film is good, and the directors of the film have done a critically acclaimed gritty revenge flick that I have yet to see. Although I'm not sure about Bruce Willis as Paul Kersey because he hasn't done a decent performance in the last few years, you get from his recent interviews that he doesn't give a shit anymore and just likes the money he gets from it. But he can do a part like this, he proved in the film Hostage that he can play a man that transforms into a killer because something happens to his family.
We have seen this scenario in many westerns. Nevada Smith- Outlaw Josey Wales-Magnum Force. The individual with the gun gets revenge or saves society when govt .cant do the job or is absent. Shane is a similar story. So I see this as an urban western. The champion or individual taking direct action. Outside the normal process. In westerns outside the process of society is the norm. This does have a definite racist component. 3.5 stars. I have seen worse movies and better.
Charles Bronson fascist classic where His character magically becomes the NRA's poster boy by all-of-a-sudden seeking out and killing pretty much every criminal in the city. The original book's author was so disgusted by the movie, he tried to atone for this.
I'm really taken aback by how much I like this movie. As a bleeding heart, anti-gun liberal, I figured this was the sort of propaganda film that the NRA gets off on, or shows to their members at whatever weird stag parties they have. That's not exactly what I got though; if it weren't for the constant chatter about how much the rate of crime is being reduced thanks to this vigilante, the movie would almost completely disavow his actions as those of a broken, confused man. It takes an honest to god progression, too - a SEQUENCE of events - that turns him into, essentially, a serial killer. In fact, I feel that he's presented much more like a serial killer than like a vigilante. I also really enjoyed the detective's process as he profiles Kersey, the deductive reasoning and common sense psychology behind it. All in all, a surprisingly strong film.
Iconic but dated vigilante film that holds up mostly due to Charle Bronson's superb performance. Bronson gives one of his best leading performances, ably playing an intelligence but mild-mannered man forced to extremes when something horrible happens to him. You buy him as an architect just trying to move on with his life but slowly see him descend into a dark path. Most interestingly, he doesn't go after his family's attackers (he doesn't suddenly turn into a detective as well) but instead hunts down similar street criminals (granted, by setting them up by playing a victim). Behind the camera, director Michael Winner gives a nicely low-key film, that never gets outlandish and you slowly see Paul Kersey morph into a vigilante. He also highlights the politics & the police work involved as Kersey's vigilante mission begins, as the police are pretty quick to figure out who is doing it but find themselves in the position of turning him into a martyr. The film is dated, particularly the setting (NYC is not nearly as bad, which is probably why the remake is now in Chicago), and outside of Bronson, no one else in the cast shines. Overall, an iconic film in the vigilante genre but far from a perfect one.
Original review: Bronson's "performance" is wooden and uninteresting (he has no charisma). The script is banal, the characterization is nonexistent, and the dialogue is flat and not particularly memorable. It also supports fascist ideologies like vigilantism, unlimited and unquestioned punishment to criminals. It's a film that the NRA would have backed financially. YET, Winner's direction is stylish and the film is solidly entertaining, so it earns its 2.5 stars.
The good: I love the setup/concept of a bleeding heart liberal wrestling with his morals vs his emotional response to having had egregious harm done to him by those he typically empathizes with.
The bad: Unfortunately they never actually go there philosophically. A generous viewer could interpret the movie as a man slowly being seduced by the devil - anger, guns, revenge - as he drifts away from his beloved bleeding-heart-empathy. To me it felt more like an intentional damning of left-wing ideas and societal rules, replaced by a half-assed do-it-yourself justice and general emotional outbursts. The later of which is funny in a way considering Bronson barely emotes once in this entire movie, aside from sweating occasionally.
The ugly: Gratuitous rape scenes that focus on pawing naked female bodies, Bronson's son-in-law's outlandishly casual 'eh-what-can-you-do' attitude, off-hand comments that are left to linger in the air (re: "the vigilante is a racist" "no it's just that more black people are violent!" or "under privileged should be in concentration camps!") and feel more like winking suggestions to the audience than just an array of alternate philosophies..... all in all, it left the same taste in my mouth as I've gotten from being on the receiving end of a condescending speech by the type of dude who tells you 'women are too emotional' but also punches walls when he gets upset.
But was it fun to watch? Well, I've seen worse.
We have seen this scenario in many westerns. Nevada Smith- Outlaw Josey Wales-Magnum Force. The individual with the gun gets revenge or saves society when govt .cant do the job or is absent. Shane is a similar story. So I see this as an urban western. The champion or individual taking direct action. Outside the normal process. In westerns outside the process of society is the norm. This does have a definite racist component. 3.5 stars. I have seen worse movies and better.
I'm really taken aback by how much I like this movie. As a bleeding heart, anti-gun liberal, I figured this was the sort of propaganda film that the NRA gets off on, or shows to their members at whatever weird stag parties they have. That's not exactly what I got though; if it weren't for the constant chatter about how much the rate of crime is being reduced thanks to this vigilante, the movie would almost completely disavow his actions as those of a broken, confused man. It takes an honest to god progression, too - a SEQUENCE of events - that turns him into, essentially, a serial killer. In fact, I feel that he's presented much more like a serial killer than like a vigilante. I also really enjoyed the detective's process as he profiles Kersey, the deductive reasoning and common sense psychology behind it. All in all, a surprisingly strong film.
Original review: Bronson's "performance" is wooden and uninteresting (he has no charisma). The script is banal, the characterization is nonexistent, and the dialogue is flat and not particularly memorable. It also supports fascist ideologies like vigilantism, unlimited and unquestioned punishment to criminals. It's a film that the NRA would have backed financially. YET, Winner's direction is stylish and the film is solidly entertaining, so it earns its 2.5 stars.
The good: I love the setup/concept of a bleeding heart liberal wrestling with his morals vs his emotional response to having had egregious harm done to him by those he typically empathizes with.
The bad: Unfortunately they never actually go there philosophically. A generous viewer could interpret the movie as a man slowly being seduced by the devil - anger, guns, revenge - as he drifts away from his beloved bleeding-heart-empathy. To me it felt more like an intentional damning of left-wing ideas and societal rules, replaced by a half-assed do-it-yourself justice and general emotional outbursts. The later of which is funny in a way considering Bronson barely emotes once in this entire movie, aside from sweating occasionally.
The ugly: Gratuitous rape scenes that focus on pawing naked female bodies, Bronson's son-in-law's outlandishly casual 'eh-what-can-you-do' attitude, off-hand comments that are left to linger in the air (re: "the vigilante is a racist" "no it's just that more black people are violent!" or "under privileged should be in concentration camps!") and feel more like winking suggestions to the audience than just an array of alternate philosophies..... all in all, it left the same taste in my mouth as I've gotten from being on the receiving end of a condescending speech by the type of dude who tells you 'women are too emotional' but also punches walls when he gets upset.
But was it fun to watch? Well, I've seen worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment