Death Wish (1974) User Reviews (272)

A compulsive and controversial revenge drama!

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 28 August 2001]

Michael Winner's provocative film is slightly more intelligent and much more insidious than Richard Fleisher's 'Mr.Majestyk.'

Charles Bronson is a Manhattan middle-aged architect who was at work's one day, when three brutal punks invade his Riverside Drive apartment and attack his loving wife and happily wed daughter... The wife was beating to death and the daughter savagely sexually assaulted, and sent traumatized into a near-vegetable state...

To escape the oppressive urban environment, Bronson goes to Tucson, Arizona on business, and gets the gun code of the Old West imprinted on his mind... He was given a .32 pistol as a going away present by a gun-loving millionaire...

Back in New York, Bronson carries one night his gift, and kills the first mugger who was molesting him... The first one was the hardest!

Then he discovers he likes it... He begins deliberately to tempt muggers, whether in an alley, on a subway train, or in a park... and that he mechanically guns them down...

The police couldn't identify him... This made him the 'avenging angel,' a true phantom 'one-man crusade.' In the eyes of the public, Bronson became a national figure—the vigilante...

The authorities were worried sick about the example he was setting... His actions seemed to be giving others new attitudes toward crime in the streets...

When Inspector Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia) identifies the mysterious vigilante, he was immediately ordered to scare him off...

The police commissioner asks him to quit, to desist, to go away, to stop!

If you have never seen Bronson in action by sundown, 'Death Wish' is the one to see...

Final comment: Rarely have I found myself so caught between my own gut reactions and intellectual reservations... I wish (with many here) to touch an exposed nerve in fearful Mexico, particularly of its muggers, thugs, kidnappers, and rapists, who (as in this film) could be easily eliminated if every upright, middle-class, middle-aged citizen got himself a weapon and used it at least one time a week... We are tired of being frightened, endangered and ripped-off daily... If the law is fighting a losing battle against the criminal element and can't protect innocent people, then maybe someone else should... It is very important that we know how to protect ourselves within the law...

Highly compelling

[shaun98 · 7/10 · 9 February 2003]

Over the course of a career that has spanned nearly fifty years, action star Charles Bronson has appeared in dozens of films. Among them, the one that he is best remembered for is "Death Wish," an urban drama that has practically defined his career. He plays Paul Kersey, a liberal, mild-mannered architect whose family falls victim to violent crime. One fateful afternoon, he is shocked to hear the dreadful news: his wife has been murdered, his daughter brutally raped. What's more, the police are unable to apprehend the perpetuators. Feeling stunned and helpless, Kersey decides to take the law into his own hands--and the subsequent publicity galvanizes New York City. It isn't long before the police are hot on his heels. The ultimate consequences promise to be drastic.

"Death Wish" was a highly controversial film when initially released. At the time, major cities were facing a deadly crime epidemic, and this film tapped into the fears and unspoken desires of many viewers, giving them a chance to live out their secret fantasies. Critics on the Left lambasted its politics on crime, and even some on the Right felt it went too far. One could find much to complain about from an ideological standpoint. One could point out that the film is manipulative and heavy-handed (the attack on Kersey's family comes right after his co-worker tells him he's a "bleeding-heart liberal"). Yet, it is undeniably compelling; one of these movies that makes you wonder, "what if this happened to me?" In light of the later, inferior sequels, it is fascinating to see how the character came to be, how he made the transition from law-abiding man to cold-blooded vigilante. It is not an easy transition to make by any means--after his first kill, he breaks down and vomits the moment he reaches home. Yet, as his kills (each is very suspensefully handled) occur with greater frequency, we get the sinking feeling that he has reached a point of no return. Indeed, he narrowly eludes capture on at least two occasions, and there is the certainty that it is only a matter of time before the law will catch up with him.

Bronson is highly effective here; while not one of the great actors, he has a very strong screen presence. The audience is on his side every step of the way, rooting for him even as he strays onto the wrong side of the law. Surely, he is entitled to justice, but at what point does his vengeance outweigh his grievances? Vincent Gardenia is effective as the police detective assigned to his case. He grudgingly admires Kersey's resolve, although he is sworn to put a stop to the killings. The manner in which this is resolved is creative, though its plausibility is less than certain. The film is also noticeable for an early appearance by Jeff Goldblum as a slimy thug. However, Steven Keats is somewhat ineffectual as Bronson's son-in-law (he just sorta got on my nerves). In the years to come, this film would be followed by an endless chain of sequels and rip-offs, many of them starring Bronson himself, reducing him to a stock character whose only attribute was blowing the bad guys away. A shame, considering he was once an internationally respected actor. "Death Wish" is nonetheless a well-crafted, tightly paced crime drama, despite some dated aspects. It still kept me interested throughout and made me more interested in viewing more of the star's other films--good or otherwise.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Released by Paramount Pictures

Greatest Action Revenge Film Ever?

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 14 December 2012]

A New York City architect (Charles Bronson) becomes a one-man vigilante squad after his wife (Hope Lange) is murdered by street punks in which he randomly goes out and kills would-be muggers on the mean streets after dark.

Not only is this the film debut of both Jeff Goldblum and Denzel Washington, it is possibly the greatest revenge film of all time. A mild-mannered veteran -- now working as an architect of all things -- going ballistic? Awesome! I have no idea why I waited so long to see this movie... it kicks all kinds of butt, and presents a very interesting amoral picture. Not immoral, but amoral. Do you cheer him on or hope he gets caught? It is a timeless dilemma.

"What about the old American custom of self defense"?

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 26 October 2016]

It seems the sequels to the original "Death Wish" appear with some regularity on cable channels in my area, so I've been catching them out of order every now and then. However it occurred to me I never reviewed the picture that started it all, having seen it when it first came out and not again till the other day.

Given the circumstances of how Paul Kersey's wife was murdered and his daughter left a catatonic invalid, the response we get in this story is almost mild by comparison to the over the top violence we see in movies today, including the sequels spawned by this film which started up eight years later. I don't know if this was the revenge film that initiated the genre, though it has a pretty good claim to the title.

It's interesting to note the advance in technology from the mid-Seventies to today by way of that scene where Frank Ochoa's (Vincent Gardenia) partner ran around looking for an available phone booth to call Kersey's apartment and got frustrated to find one where the line had been cut. I'm curious how younger viewers of today process that scene, when even a kid can make a call on a cell phone. How primitive the Seventies must have been.

In case you didn't keep count, Paul Kersey gunned down a total of ten muggers in the picture, missing one and getting shot himself on his final outing. By then it wasn't a surprise that Ochoa would offer him a way out of the headlines if he accepted a deal to get out of town. However there was an element of closure lacking regarding the three hoods who opened the picture with the attack on Kersey's family; he never ran across them to get the vengeance he was seeking. Speaking of which, and I know all actors have to get their start somewhere, but what a way for a young actor like Jeff Goldblum to catch a break by landing a role in his very first picture as a slimy street thug.

When push comes to shove, make way for Bronson!

[Captain_Couth · 4 November 2003]

Charley Bronson portrays Paul Kersay, a mild mannered soul who's life is turned upside down when some punks ruin his happy life. After some deep soul searching, Charley comes to the conclusion that all those punks out there walking the streets need a lesson. So, after donning a beannie cap and a heavy jacket, Charley decides to give them all a taste of their own medicine. The night time is the wrong time for muggers when Charley's around. This is the first film in what would later turn out to be a franchise of action/revenge flicks and it made Charley Bronson a household name and a part of Americana.

Highly recommended.

A.

Started a trend for violent vigilante actioners. Slick, enjoyable, well made film, far better than its increasingly dismal sequels.

[barnabyrudge · 7/10 · 24 November 2004]

The original Death Wish movie is still the only one worth watching. A slick, well-made and enjoyably amoral vigilante drama, it was a huge box office hit in its day. It starts with a chilling rape sequence - still provocative thirty years on - and develops from there into an exciting and perversely funny story of how a man whose life is affected by these disturbing events gets his revenge.

New York businessman Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) is devastated when his wife (Hope Lange) and daughter (Kathleen Tolan) are sexually assaulted in their own home. His wife dies from her injuries and his daughter is so deeply traumatized that she is left in a permanent vegetative state. Kersey tries to get some normality back into his life through work, but deep down inside he's burning for revenge. He knows he will never get the actual gang who harmed his family, but he also realises that crime in general is spreading through the city like a plague. So, armed with a gun and a sense of vigilante justice, he starts patrolling the streets by night, killing muggers, hoodlums and rapists. But for how long can he hand out his own brand of justice without being caught? And at what point does his course of action stop being justifiable? When does he become just as bad as the crooks he is trying to rub out?

The film is based on a Brian Garfield novel, but in the book vigilantism was illustrated as an extension of crime - just another problem as opposed to a solution. Here Michael Winner, a director always happy to create a few ripples, presents the vigilante as an out-and-out hero. The film basically gives a great big nod of approval to Kersey's actions. The sense of humour really helps the film (I still laugh at the scene where some construction-workers kick the hell out of a crook, and one workman nonchalantly states to the TV reporters: "Erm, we roughed him up a bit before the cops arrived!") Death Wish was a pretty influential film for its era, and in spite of its dated air and its morally dubious stance, it is still a great flick. Just make sure you steer clear of its four utterly terrible sequels.

The Vigilante Goes Into Business

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 3 March 2008]

The Death Wish films are not my favorite Charles Bronson works. But there's no doubt that Bronson attained his enduring popularity on the strength of the five films in the series.

In this the original Death Wish, Charles Bronson introduces us to Paul Kersey, successful architect and family man with wife Hope Lange and married daughter Kathleen Tolan. Bronson's well ordered life takes an abrupt change when a home invasion robbery results in the death of Hope Lange and the rape of Kathleen Tolan.

All the acting is done with facial expressions here. Bronson usually plays stoic characters in his films, but in the Death Wish series he never articulates what's going on with him, but you see it in a face that was made for movie closeups in the same way that Gary Cooper's and John Wayne's faces were.

A trip out west on a project brings him in touch with a different mentality about settling urban problems and the present of a 32 Caliber pistol from the man he was contracted to work for gives Bronson a whole new outlook. And a mission in life to rid the world of street criminals.

1974 may have been the year Richard Nixon had his downfall, but this was the president elected on a law and order platform. George Wallace sent his audiences into delight when he talked about running protesters down with his vehicle. Death Wish struck quite a nerve with the American public because unlike Dirty Harry, Bronson was a citizen like you and me who just decided to act.

There are two really good supporting performances in Death Wish. A New Yorker to his fingertips, Vincent Gardenia plays the dogged police detective who's put on the vigilante killer case. And Stuart Margolin as Bronson's western host who presents him with the tool of his trade is also worth noting.

In 1982 Bronson finally due to a lot of audience demand and the fact that the money was too good to turn down, repeated his role of Paul Kersey in a series of Death Wish films of varying quality. Nothing like this one though.

Run and Hide No More

[zippyflynn2 · 10/10 · 13 February 2007]

"What do you call people who when they're faced with a condition of fear do nothing about it they just run and hide?" Paul Kersey.

This is one of my favorite films made from one of my favorite books. I lived in New York during the 1970's and can attest that crime was out of control then, the subways, parks and many streets were no man's land at night where you only went if you really had to or else you wanted to score dope, get a cheap hooker (or be one), or just for the thrill and danger. Police corruption had been so rampantly widespread for so long that there was no law and order and the thugs had taken over the night. If you question this just see Serprico and read that book which details how one honest cop almost died and was nearly buried by the massive tide of corrupt cops he was trying to expose, which was practically all the other cops. The majority of the people lived in fear of being in the streets at night and even many places during the day. Even if you packed heat that was no guarantee of anything, it wasn't uncommon to come across a gang of muggers all carrying guns, knives, baseball bats, etc. Most people in New York then were as Paul Kersey described only worse, not only did they run and hide from fear and danger but they ignored the suffering of others. New Yorkers had developed a reputation as cold and indifferent, which was fairly accurate. I remember a concert in Central Park where a girl was gang banged by a group of guys and hundreds of people just watched it, too afraid, too apathetic, or too vicariously sadistic to get involved. Someone even stole her clothes and she staggered around naked and bleeding in the rain. Things were not good and just about everybody in New York felt angry, alienated and helpless. People were sick of it all, the terrible Vietnam war, corrupt Richard Nixon, corrupt cops, corrupt everything, but they mostly were sick of being afraid and tired of living in fear.

Then the movie "Death Wish" came out. The theater was packed when I went, which surprised me, as I had already read the book and knew what it was about but how did these other people know, besides it was a matinée. I discovered why everyone was there when Paul Kersey shot his first mugger: the whole place exploded in screaming cheers and the cheers got more powerful and louder with each subsequent vigilante act. I had been to Yankees games and concerts where you hear screaming and cheers but nothing had the power of the cheers on that day. There was something wonderfully cathartic taking place, everyone in that audience who had ever been mugged or had been afraid of being mugged, which was virtually everyone, was delighting in having the tables turned. We felt safe, and were happy to see a somewhat soft spoken, average kind of a guy being played by Charles Bronson kick a*s for us, take out the bad guys. This was a new, radical concept back then, an open revenge film where an ordinary appearing guy beats the muggers at their own game. It was a great experience and we all felt like we too could be as tough as Charles Bronson, at least during that safe little reprieve within the theater.

Say what you will about the film, its technical shortcomings, you'd be hard pressed or less than honest to say that Charles Bronson didn't display his international appeal in this movie, the one that made him the world's biggest box office draw. He appears in this movie just like he was in real life, a quiet, unassuming kind of guy who really was tough, not the usual Hollywood tough guy who is so unconvincing because he can't fully hide his physical and character based qualities that are everything but a real, quiet, cool tough guy. Bronson was the real deal, just read about his earlier life if you want to know.

This film got a lot of negative reaction as being a crass and brutal revenge film, and other typical cavalier comments. The New Yorkers who lived it, all the ones I knew and the ones in the theater that day, loved it for what it was, a piece of cinematic magic to make us feel like we weren't afraid and would perhaps very soon never have to feel afraid again. If you've never been mugged or been afraid of being mugged it's very easy to tell others how they're suppose to react, what they're suppose to like, think, do, etc. But until you've lived in a real urban jungle, you'll never know the great release that a movie like "Death Wish" can bring you. It's strictly vicarious entertainment but what marvelous entertainment it is!

Fairly good although I'll admit I gradually became less impressed as the film progressed

[jimbo-53-186511 · 6/10 · 7 October 2014]

Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) is an everyday New York City architect who one day discovers that his wife has been murdered by street punks and his daughter has been badly injured by the same group of yobs that murdered his wife. Paul, understandably, is angry and upset following this incident and initially turns to the police for help. However, when the police seemingly have no leads and when his daughter refuses to look through mug shots, Paul decides that he will take to the streets and dispense his own form of justice on the muggers and low life that are living in New York.

The biggest problem for me with this film is that it starts out as one thing and then changes to another without much logic surrounding this narrative shift. Let me explain;

Paul's wife is killed by a group of robbers and his daughter ends up being badly injured by them. This isn't a whodunit as the robbers break into the apartment unmasked and attack the two women. An investigation begins to take place but comes to a halt due to there being no leads. Then... well that's the end of that thread and then it never gets re-established again. The rest of the film then seems to focus on Kersey prowling the mean streets of New York dishing out punishment on unsuspecting muggers. I didn't mind that this aspect factored into the film as Kersey becomes an 'anti-hero' and as mentioned during the film he alone actually helped reduce muggings overall in the city. What surprised me is that there was no focus on anyone tracking down his wife's killers? After the first 20-25 minutes this is never mentioned which just seemed really odd to me. If you think about it, those that killed his wife were far worse than any of the would be 'chancers' that Kersey killed because their attack was far from 'opportunistic'. Those that targeted Kersey could definitely be classed as 'opportunists'. I would have preferred it if this aspect had acted as a sub plot and if Kersey tracking down his wife's killers would have acted as the main focus of the film. Again it might just be me but it seemed strange from a narrative perspective. Even more bizarrely, the police then focus all their attention on catching Kersey again without bothering looking for his wife's killers?

Going back to Kersey's family, did anyone else think it strange that they were side-lined after the first half of the film? There is a very moving scene where Kersey goes to see his daughter in hospital when he gets back from Arizona and he gives her a hug after he is told that she is in a catatonic state - that scene was beautiful. Shortly after that, the film forgets about his daughter and son which again seemed strange to me. It's almost like the film was making one step forward and then taking two steps back. I also thought it was odd that they showed clips of other 'anti-heroes' dealing with muggers in their own bizarre ways - it didn't sit well within the tone of the film.

Overall, this is a decent film and as mentioned my only really big gripe is that it seemed to lose all focus in the second half. Why did both the police and Kersey give up on trying to find his wife's killers?

An interesting take on personal justice

[filmbuff-36 · 9/10 · 7 December 1999]

Perhaps "Death Wish" is unquestionably the best vigilante film ever made. It's not the action-packed thrill-fest that movies like "Kill Bill" or "The Punisher" seek to be, instead it's a haunting, sometimes intoxicating look at our society's views on justice.

Charles Bronson is Paul Kersey, a New York architect whose wife is killed by a group of muggers ransacking their apartment, an attack that also leaves his daughter catatonic. The killers are never caught, and Kersey is left shattered.

He takes a job working for a land developer in New Mexico to get his mind off his troubles, and while there his long dormant fascination with guns is renewed when his client Ames Jainchill (Stuart Margolin) shows off his personal collection and lets him crack some shots off. He also witnesses a live reenactment of an Old West shootout, where frontier justice was administered at the end of the gun.

Kersey soon arrives back in New York, livened up a bit from his visit and ready to resume his life. But the streets are still filled with thugs, and Kersey knows that Manhattan is not the best place to be at night. He discovers that Jainchill has given him a .32 revolver as a present, and subsequently uses it to kill a man trying to mug him. Kersey soon realizes the cathartic release of enacting vigilante revenge as the media reports his killings and other private citizens take action, all while police officer Frank Ochoa (Vincent Gardenia) leads a task force to capture the vigilante and stop future violence.

"Death Wish" was a product of its day -- a Nixon-era knee jerk reaction to rampant crime that turned out to be quite a hit. But to dismiss it simply as that would be to deny the film its true power. It asks the question of whether or not vigilantism can be used as a social good, and just how can a citizen properly defend himself from criminal attacks. More importantly, to the movie's credit it does introduce the downside of vigilantism, with Ochoa worrying that people will be whipped into such a frenzy that they'll start attacking anyone who looks suspicious.

The movie does play it safe when it comes to Kersey's "victims" however. Every one of them is clearly a mugger, threatening his life or just wanting his money. But the movie does enter into ambiguous territory by looking at the actual actions Kersey takes. At first he just stumbles into traps set up by muggers or happens on a crime taking place; later on the other hand it's clear that he's actually inviting attacks by making himself a target. And the self-defense aspect of his actions becomes equally cloudy when he kills muggers that are already fleeing. He wants to punish them for their crimes, which itself can be morally troubling.

But to understand "Death Wish" you had to understand the times. Murder rates were very high in New York City, and many muggers had little problem killing their victims. The criminals in the film are not overly sympathetic either, most of them clearly hippies or other social undesirables, probably hooked on drugs from their "free love" days and now stuck in the bitter reality of narcotic dependency now that the good times are over. It's hard to feel sorry for someone willing to kill you just for a couple hours worth of pleasure. I'm sure the movie's audiences in New York, and probably across the country, enjoyed living out their revenge fantasies vicariously through Kersey.

It should be said that Bronson, normally criticized as a wooden actor, gives a remarkably strong performance. This may be due to his friendship with director Michael Winner, who also helmed several of his other films. But it's probably due to the fact that the movie was not written as an action hero vehicle, and because of this the story demanded a character more grounded in reality. Kersey is not a superhero -- he's just one man trying to make a difference in the world.

Also, he's not all there, either. The movie makes it clear that Kersey is a little deranged as well, and one wonders just how far he might go to do what he thinks is right. The sequels were more interested in making him out to be an infallible crusader against evil, abandoning any pretext of social commentary and just offering body counts, but here at least the movie shows that someone willing to go on a shooting spree isn't quite right in the head, regardless of the guilt of his victims.

Supporting roles are excellent as well. A very young Jeff Goldblum nails his performance as one of the muggers who invades Kersey's apartment, immediately scary and repellent. Gardenia is a nice foil for Bronson, making Ochoa an intelligent officer not unsympathetic to Kersey's crusade, especially when he sees how the crime rate plummets following the killings. Christopher Guest, who would go on to star in hit mockumentaries like "This is Spinal Tap," "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind" has a small but memorable role as a police officer towards the end of the movie. In fact, everyone does a good job.

Ultimately, your enjoyment of "Death Wish" will probably rely both on your politics and views toward crime. It's a movie where the critic is judged based on his review, which is just as well I suppose. It's at once fascinating, and still very timely.

Nine out of ten stars. Bronson's best solo movie and certainly a very thought-provoking piece, which is lost on both people who only want to watch it for the mugger killings and those who just dismiss it a fascist trash.

A Few Great Scenes

[truemythmedia · 6/10 · 17 June 2019]

This movie is alright. Bronson himself wasn't bad in the film, and the set up for his rampage was incredibly well done, though it was really rough to watch. For an action movie, it's pretty slow, though I'm sure in the 70s it was a nail-biter. Most of the action sequences are less than two or three minutes long, and consist of nothing more than Bronson shooting his gun a few times. By today's standards, this film's action would be considered pretty boring, and that was something I didn't expect from a movie that has attained such a big cult status. There are some redeemable moments that bump what would've been a 2.5 Star rating to a 3 Star, but overall the film is the definition of average.

Classic Remedy For Instant Satisfaction

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 22 April 2006]

I guess by now you could call this movie a "classic." It would meet most definitions. It was so popular that it spawned a number of sequels, but they just got dumb and dumber. This is one of the most famous "revenge" movies ever made and still stands up today.

This was a very, very simple story and it panders to our base instincts which is probably why it was so successful. Most people want justice, and they want it now....which is what this movie preaches. At the time, the movie was shocking. If it came out today, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. However, the early scene of the mother and daughter raped and killed is still horrifying. That will never change.

The story then slows down as we see the transformation of the husband, from conscientious objector to vigilante. When Charles Bronson hits the streets, the film picks up big-time. The movie also ends on a very satisfying note.

Bronson's fulfilling their Death Wish!

[ultimatenexus · 7/10 · 4 September 2014]

Charles Bronson stars in one of his most famous and beloved roles--a role so great, he repeated it for four sequels. WITH A VENGEANCE.

Charles plays Paul Kersey, a kind, likable architect whose wife and daughter are attacked in their home by a gang of hoodlums that are never seen again (no seriously--you never see them again. Ever.). The attack results in his wife's death and his daughter's permanent mental scarring.

Kersey goes over the edge and becomes what the inept police force uninspiredly name him as 'The Vigilante.' Conflicted with himself as he tries to justify his actions between shootouts with New York hoodlums in underground subways and public parks, Kersey also manages to dodge the police... but for how long?

That's pretty much the only plot this movie has, to be honest. Not that much happens in this movie, to be honest. It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. It makes very good points about vigilantism and the blur between revenge and justice, which makes it worth a watch for sure. It's not loud, fast, and noisy like its sequels, but that's a good thing, because then the focus wouldn't be on the story and its conflicting morals, and too much action would just take away from that.

It's definitely worth the watch. Recommended.

Why is this so good?

[johnscook · 3/10 · 27 December 2005]

I've seen this movie twice and I cannot figure out why so many people think it is such a good movie. They must be die-hard Charles Bronson fans who would love any Charles Bronson movie just because it has Charles Bronson in it.

I just don't believe that Bronson played the character of Paul Kersey very well, or he wasn't directed very well (or both). At the scene of his wife's burial he shows no emotion at all. He didn't serve in the military because he was a conscientious objector, and his wife was just brutally murdered in their own home. His daughter was also assaulted and left mentally incapacitated. Yet, he shows no emotion. He handles the whole scene like he is leaving work and telling his co-workers "see you tomorrow". I guess if you are looking for the ultimate Bronson-esquire mental detachment from reality, this is it. Unfortunately, he doesn't even play the scene like he is detached, like he is about to mentally go off the deep end.

He opposed his involvement in the military and he doesn't own a weapon and, presumably, never has. Yet, when he has the first opportunity to fire a weapon he nearly hits the bullseye. Right. It's not like he has natural ability, making a few mistakes and then we see him taking a few weeks to sharpen his skills - no, the first round out of the weapon is ready to kill. At least when this happens in a Schwarzenegger movie, we realize that the movie is poking a little fun at itself and we chuckle a little. There is nothing to chuckle at in this movie. Nothing is tongue-in-cheek in this movie.

During the 1970s the crime rate in New York City was high, but it still wasn't like anything portrayed in this movie. Death Wish would have you believing that in 1974 in NYC that there was a criminal around every corner and on every subway car waiting to pounce on a victim. They would have you believe that 8 out of every 10 citizens were getting mugged. Not only is this not a fact, it's beyond fiction. I realize that the premise of the movie requires crime, but the movie portrays the crime rate so high that you have to wonder why it takes somebody who doesn't own a gun to become a vigilante. If the crime rate were really that high, even for 1974, there would have been hundreds of Bernie Goetz's running around NYC. Paul Kersey wouldn't even have had the opportunity to be a crime victim, much less become a vigilante.

At least they did portray Paul Kersey's first act of vigilantism somewhat realistically. I would believe that Paul Kersey would go home and vomit after hitting a stranger, albeit a criminal, in the skull with 2 rolls of quarters and leaving him for dead. It's a stretch to think that he could be transformed into a vengeful killer without any other thing happening to him (other than being given a weapon to use). His wife was just murdered yet he goes from quarter-roll clubbings to deadly-accurate assaults with a firearm. No further mental transformation was required. Right.

He is also completely detached from his daughter's mental incapacity. There is only one scene where he shows any emotion over her predicament, and it occurs well after her assault and it is displaced. When he is trying to be upbeat to disguise his anger, and then he shows an outburst of anger, the anger and its disguise are just not believable. Death Wish wouldn't pass muster as an average made-for-TV movie. The supporting roles are either played over the top or without sufficient emotion to tell us what they are really thinking. Why don't we see more discussion from the city officials about how to handle the vigilante situation? Oh, right, that would take up valuable screen time for Bronson to randomly murder criminals that he entraps.

I'm really surprised by Roger Ebert's 3-star rating. He must be an avid Charles Bronson fan. This is a poorly made movie.

Thought-provoking 70's agit-prop that can be hard to watch

[curtis-8 · 8 July 2002]

I recently watched "Death Wish" for the first time ever on video, having only seen edited-for-TV versions in the past. Before seeing the uncut versions, I thought the film was just an entertainingly intelligent little bit of slicked-up exploitation. Basically another take on the Dirty Harry formula--what if a peace-loving regular guy became a Dirty Harry? Even as a kid I could see that the simplistic political/social theory the film served up would only work in the self-contained, fictional world the filmmakers had created. But, that's art--a lie that tries to show truth. Well, I wouldn't say "DW" shows truth, but it does raise questions people often don't want to face. I also thought that the way Bronson's character made the transition from bleeding heart peacenik to fascist vigilante was very well written and well-played. And I don't think the story is as cut-and-dried as it seems on the surface. Near the end, Bronson's actions even seem to have driven him a bit mad, loosening his grip on reality (evidenced when he confronts the last thug and starts vacantly spouting Western cliches like they're both in "Gunfight at the OK Corral").

But (and as they say, this is a BIG BUT) I can't enjoy the uncut film because the murder of Kersey's wife and the viscous rape of his daughter is simply too repulsive to watch. Murder and rape are indeed repulsive, but for the melodrama to work, do I need to be subjected to such a graphic, in-my-face portrayal of the violence and humiliation? One that is presented like a porno snuff film?

This raises an interesting question: If violence is going to be used in a drama, should it be graphically represented to be as repulsive and foul as it really is? Or should we be spared the details?

Think about it: if all violence on TV and movies were as disgustingly graphic as in this film, violence might start to disappear from pop culture--we just wouldn't be able to take it. Instead, we as a society are constantly drowned in sanitized, videogame violence. The violent acts depicted in movies and on TV these days has no more effect on us than when a cartoon mouse drops a cartoon brick on a cartoon cat's head. Kill someone and them make a joke about it. So, even though violent acts are depicted everywhere in our popular culture, none of it seems real, thus disconnecting us from the consequences of real-life violence.

So, if we can say nothing else, we can say that the violence in "Death Wish" is "effective". It does seem real. It is repulsive.

Hence, the dichotomy: Even though I can intellectually defend the use of graphic violence in "Death Wish", that same depiction keeps me from enjoying the film. I simply can't watch it. I keep thinking: Is this representation of rape actually exciting some of the film's viewers? I feel complicit watching it. Dirty.

So, does that make the film a success, or trash? Is that strong a reaction a mark of art, or exploitation? I don't know. And I must say that this I do not ask these questions only because this is a exploitation film. I've had the same thoughts about Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."

We gotta let the cops handle this, dad!!!!....

[FlashCallahan · 7/10 · 11 December 2014]

Paul Kersey is an architect, and a peaceful man. But when his wife and daughter are attacked in their apartment, his world falls apart.

His wife is killed and his daughter is in catatonic state. His boss decides that Paul needs to get out of New York so he sends him to Arizona to meet with a client. While there the client, gets Paul interested in guns and gives him one as a gift.

When Paul returns, he brings the gun out with him and when a mugger tries to jump him, Paul kills him.

After that he goes vigilante. The police are investigating the killings, but the public feels thankful that someone out there is taking a stand......

Bronson has been in much better films for sure, but when anybody mentions his name,this is the film that they instantly think of, it's his most iconic role, and despite its exploitation roots, its a pretty high concept movie.

It's such a brilliant concept, Bronson gets angry, gets a gun and puts the world to rights. Why should people be scared to walk the streets? Yes, he's breaking the law, but aren't all the comic book movie heroes in theory breaking the law?

In fact, this has many similarities to the Batman origin story, family are killed, hero protects the city via the night and the shadows, the only difference is that Kersey kills the bad guys.

Its sharp, cold and relentless, easily Winners best movie, and although the sequels stretched the boundaries of realism, they don't tarnish this movie, because they are just over the top action movies (but lots of fun).

Its a great movie, lots of fun, and it thankfully answers its own morality, would make a great companion piece with Winners Dirty Weekend, which is just this film but with a lady in the lead.

The Original Vigilante Movie

[ctowyi · 7/10 · 26 May 2015]

Death Wish is a vigilante classic that always gets a hearty mention when a new vigilante thriller like John Wick appears, but surprisingly I have yet to see it even if I seem to 'know' the movie like an old friend. The story is simple - Paul Kesey's wife died and his daughter traumatized by a savage home invasion by hoodlums. The man then becomes the judge, jury and executioner of a seedy New York City overrun by gangsters and thieves, becoming a hero for the city's citizens and the bane of NYC's police force. All the featured hoodlums overact (watch a young Jeff Goldblum do the crazy) and they are all painted in broad strokes. The movie glorifies violence to the Ying Yang and the solution is overly simplified for a hot-button issue, but I can't help myself from enjoying every minute of it. One of the things the movie does very well is how it paints Charles Bronson's character arc. His motivation and learning curve are slowly defined to amazing lucidity. The film also plays to Bronson's strength as a taciturn man with few words. I also enjoyed the cat and mouse game in the last act. One interesting thought at the back of mine is that the film somehow feels like it was suggesting that owning a gun is a symbol of manhood and all problems in the world can be solved by one (or a few ). I know that feeling - I shot a revolver before back in the days and it is damn 'man'!

Revenge on his mind

[russjones-80887 · 6/10 · 16 September 2020]

After his wife is murdered and his adult daughter savagely beaten, an architect is devastated. Shortly after this tragedy he encounters a mugger and fights him off. This leads him to become a vigilante, but where will it end?

Starring Charles Bronson as the vigilante, Paul Kersey, and directed by Michael Winner, this was a box office hit and spawned a number of sequels. Some will judge it to be immoral for its apparent support of vigilantism so only watch it if the theme interests you.

Solid Fare

[ReelCheese · 9/10 · 26 May 2006]

Here is a film whose quality and appeal, much like Sylvester Stallone's Rocky, may be overshadowed by a seemingly endless line of inferior sequels. But Death Wish is a real crowd-pleaser filled with emotion, drama, action and suspense. It's the story of Paul Kersey, a family man (and former Conscientus Objector in Korea) whose wife and daughter fall victim to a brutal attack at the hands of unknown thugs. Yet Kersey doesn't get mad, he gets even as a one-man judge, jury and executioner against those who prey on the innocent. Bronson delivers an underrated performance in a movie that constantly asks the viewer, "What would you do?"

Vigilantism Ordinary Joe Style

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 1 October 2018]

1974 New York is rampant with crime and the regular citizens are powerless to stop it. When Paul Kersey's wife is killed by a band of muggers he decides to take matters in his own hands.

At its core I liked the movie. Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) was truly a regular joe. He was an architect at a firm and even though he'd served in the Korean war he was a conscientious objector so he never handled a gun in the war. He wasn't a Rambo or Commando fighting back. He didn't shoot with a kill shot every time or strike with a mortal blow every punch (not that he was fighting anyone). Although a good shot, he was still a novice.

I appreciated all of that. The part that got under my skin a bit was an ancillary part of the movie but still prominent. There was an underlying propaganda of: "more guns means more safety." It was really driven home when the Arizonian sniped at the city of New York being a cesspool of crime whereas Arizona was not. His reason: they allow guns in Arizona. As if guns are a panacea for all problems. The movie would've been better without the NRA sledgehammer.

How Michael Winner and his Death Wish changed the outlook of the Crime genre

[CihanVercan · 8/10 · 15 February 2009]

One of the best favorite action movies of all time, Death Wish glitters Charles Bronson's glory famously. Followed by 4 script-free episodes the first episode had inspired millions worldwide. At present(2009) while the remake version is being filmed I have to say that; no matter who will perform Paul Kersey for the second time, he won't be able to impress us as Bronson did.

Rather than Bronson's performance Death Wish has its significant themes and screenplay components which were used at almost every action/crime movie later on, thus became clichés of their genre. Spending a lot of the running time through the bad guys' side is the most fundamental component. This development was so modern and original, after a while it changed the outlook of the Crime genre.

Death Wish is nearly as good as Eastwood's Dirty Harry, with just a different taste. Obviously, this should have been produced only once; since the sequels misrepresented its purpose.

vivid vigilance...

[mcfly-31 · 7/10 · 23 March 2008]

Early 70s groundbreaker dealing with a mild-mannered architect who undergoes a mental transformation following the disturbing attack on his family. His wife dead and his daughter reduced to a catatonic wreck, Bronson is shipped to Arizona for a business arrangement. His client is a basic modern-day cowboy, a Southern boy with a penchant for big properties, back-slappin' --- and guns.

Bronson is introduced to his first firearm in years. You see, he was a conscientious objecter in the Korean war, another fascinating character trait of Bronson's Kersey. (For you kids out there, a CO was someone opposed to war combat, but still performed other duties, such as Bronson's character being a medic.)

Upon returning to New York, a compulsion comes over Bronson after his sort of "awakening" with the cowboy. In the ensuing days, he takes to the streets at night, grocery bag as a lure, and begins plugging would-be assailants. His nearly-mute daughter unable to identify her attackers, Bronson is left to stalk the streets and make a statement rather than seek revenge, capping whomever approaches him.

Director Michael Winner's result was a timely and culturally pleasing comment on the good guys vs. the bad guys. There's even a somewhat archaic reference to that Old West feel near the end of the film, when a dazed and wounded Bronson asks a modern-day street thug to "draw". Compelling moment. Plus a completely unpredictable reaction aftermath to Bronson's first victim. Charlie's performance overall is abundantly subdued, but he did manage the incredible once-in-a-lifetime feat for an actor: becoming a movie-star sensation in his 50s.

"Death Wish" isn't a perfect film, the set-up dragging listlessly to its middle, and the shooting becoming painfully repetitive (Bronson turns, gun in pocket, blam!, ad naseum). As well as Gardenia's grizzled, store-bought, weezing, sneezing, cigar barking (are we out of cliché's yet??) detective slightly annoying at times. And even for a 1974 film, the initial household attack can still be too much for some to stomach.

We try as best we can not to review an older film in the present day, but it becomes nearly impossible. So it must be said that "Death Wish" hasn't aged horribly, but is a bit outdated in spots. Has that overly crisp, narrow look to it, plus stiff acting in spots, with that annoying "sounds dubbed" dialogue of the early 70s.

But Bronson, in his patented understated fashion, wipes all that nearly out with a legendary debut as Paul Kersey.

Urban Battleground

[sol1218 · 8/10 · 28 October 2003]

Charles Bronson was already a major movie star in 1974 in Europe and a top action actor in the USA but it was "Death Wish" released that year that made him the super star that he became. What's so unusual is that in the movie "Death Wish" he played a man who was a pacifist all of his life, he served in the Korean War as a conscientious objector, who then turned into the vigilante executioner! A role which Bronson has become known for and identified with more then any of the scores of actions roles that he made during his long film career.

Bronson as well as director Michael Winner and writer Brian Garfield touched a raw nerve in "Death Wish" with the American people in big cities under siege like no other movie ever did before and, now some 30 years later, after. Since "Death Wish" there must have been made over a hundred films with it's theme but none had the impact that "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson had.

A group of tugs get Joanna Kersey's, Hope Lange, address from a delivery slip of a local grocery store and acting as if their delivering her groceries break into Joanna's apartment and savagely attack her and beat and rape her daughter Carol, Kathleen Tolan. Paul Kersey, Charles Bronson, comes home to learn that his wife and daughter are in the hospital rushes over to see how they are. Kersey finds out that his wife is dead and his daughter is mentally destroyed and needs to be institutionalized for life.

The whole world around Paul Kersey falls apart like a house of cards and he's left alone with everything that he loved dead or as good as dead. Some time later going to Arizona to do his job as a land developer for his firm in NYC he's given a .32 handgun as a gift by the person that he worked for Ames Janichill, Stuart Margolis, for the great job that he did for him.

One night back home in New York City taking a stroll in the park with the gun on him Kersey is accosted by a local junkie who pulls a handgun on him but Kersey draws first and shoots and kills him. Sick at first over what he did, killed a human being, Kersey like a wild beast from the jungle tasting blood for the fist time begins to roam the streets of New York at night for prey. A vengeful Kersey goes out looking for criminals to put out of commission, like those who killed and raped his wife and daughter, as some kind of revenge and retribution against them. In the process Kersey puts the criminals of the city of New York into a state of absolute terror and panic. In his guerrilla-like actions Kersey knocks off some dozen of them sending the the city's crime rate falling as much as 70%! All this with the ineffective, in stopping crime, police being more interested in stopping "The Vigilante" then stopping the criminals!

The movie "Death Wish" hit a raw nerve with the public as well as the local politicians and police because it showed how, in the movie at least, one man with a gun and knowing how to use it can make a difference when it comes to stopping crime. The story is not that unlikely as those against it would want the public to believe. There's been many times when average people took to protecting themselves, with firearms, and did a much better job then the police; which is just what Paul Kersey did in the movie. That may have been one of the reasons that those in authority were so much against the film.

When Bernie Goetz in December 1984 gunned down four muggers, much like Charles Bronson did in the movie "Death Wish", who tried to attack him in the New York subway crime dropped a lot more then if one hundred policemen were put on the trains. Nobody can doubt now that Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" was not only a major milestone in films about urban crime but also a major milestone in what the public thinks about crime and what's best to do to stop it.

Just who is the vigilante killer?

[stebird · 7/10 · 22 August 2017]

Kicks ass and takes no prisoners, that best sums Death Wish..., indeed there were a few sequels that followed the original in later years, but none of them were as raw and shocking as this first one.

Charles Bronson was never the greatest actor, rather stoic in his approach he came across as unloving and didn't possess much emotion, hence why he was the perfect fit for the character of Paul Kersey, otherwise known as the vigilante killer!

The idea behind Death Wish was sound, who doesn't want to watch scumbags and general low-lives get their comeuppance? And that is basically what Death Wish is, a guy who's wife is senselessly murdered by a trio of thugs ends up heartbroken and mentally damaged by his loss, this leads to the guy going out on a killing spree, looking for the right kind of scumbag in the right kind of place and leading them to their death.

What struck me as odd was how lax the police were in finding the killer, it felt like I was watching a superhero film where the hero always seems to evade the law and everyone else, how Charles Bronson's Paul lasted so long without being caught was just a tad fantastical, in reality the police would've done better and Paul would've slipped up at some point.

Death Wish was also a shining example of the changing times, seedy and dreary, and a tad erotic too..., e.g. a woman at one stage shows her bear breasts for all to see, it goes into disgusting detail when the two ladies are being assaulted by the thugs, and I believe one of them may have been raped; the murders also were overly detailed and shown in all their vile glory...

...Alas the film Death Wish was released in 1974, only ten years prior though this kind of film would've been outlawed by the strict rules imposed on Hollywood at the time, how times change indeed, Death Wish was released well after the New Hollywood era has emerged and explicitly demonstrated how much freedom there now was in Hollywood.

Not an overly amazing film but definitely a landmark film of sorts, a perfect example of what a certain era in cinema history was like, in this case the 1970's and the New Hollywood era.

Pretty Boring, a Nixon Voter's Film

[quitwastingmytime · 2/10 · 6 July 2021]

An action film with almost no action. Scenes with long set ups and very quick "action." You find yourself fast forwarding a lot.

Pretty badly made on almost every level, poor acting, writing, directing, even lighting and score. Mostly historical interest only, for being the first of a very tedious predictable kind of film.

If you want a good revenge film, see Ms. 45.

What made this film appealing for some was the same kind of impulse that got Nixon elected, "law and order." Crime actually was declining at the time. But because of television reporting it more, some people believed it to be going up.