cinema history class: death wish ii (1982)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Be Vigilant (Week 2)
Movie: Death Wish II (1982)
Directed by Michael Winner

Plot:

After his housekeeper and daughter are raped and murdered (in a crime reminiscent of a tragedy that befell his wife and daughter two years earlier), Paul Kersey digs out his gun and ammo and goes hunting. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

In a rare move, Keith showed us a movie I'd already seen before. So, going in, I kind of had a good idea of what I would want to say.

Death Wish II was actually an interesting choice for to include in a month of vigilante movies. Keith hasn't yet shown us the original Death Wish, which was a better movie and much more of a pure vigilante film. Keith did note two reasons for going with the sequel. The first is that he doesn't want to just show the most popular things that everyone has seen*. The other reason is that he has a hard-to-find version with footage that was cut from the film upon its theatrical release in the U.S.**

In addition to the fact that the sequel isn't as good as the original, it's also more of a revenge film than a vigilante film. In the original, Kersey (played by Charles Bronson) goes out seeking criminals -- any criminals -- to kill. In the sequel, he is specifically searching for the thugs who broke into his apartment and victimized him (and his family). In fact, in one scene he purposely tells some criminals to leave so that he can kill the one he's after. In a sense, the film felt like a modern-day version of a spaghetti western.

I stated above that it's not as good a movie as the original. A big part of that is the fact that it clearly shows the franchise beginning it's descent into cartoonishness. It hasn't arrived there yet -- Death Wish 3 and Death Wish 4 accomplish that. And despite the drop in quality, this is still an exciting, suspenseful film. I was bothered a bit by the reliance on Kersey's perfect memory for faces. The others in the class found that believable, but it seemed implausible to me.

another subject of in-class disagreement centered on the end of the movie. Specifically, the part where Kersey fights with (and ultimately kills) the last of his targets. Others in the class believe that the target (let's call him "Bob") knows who Kersey is and why he's attacking him. I don't think so. I think Bob just knows some guy is trying to kill him -- which wouldn't surprise him, given his violent life. The fact is I would find the others' interpretation more satisfying, since I like the idea of the villain realizing why he is being killed. But I just don't think that was the intent here.

Another interesting aspect of the film is the racially-integrated gang. Keith noted that gang integration wasn't really a thing, but it was needed to make the movie more acceptable. Which makes one particular choice all the more odd. During the scene where the gang attacks, rapes and kills Kersey's housekeeper, the three black gangmembers are hooting and hollering like chimpanzees while the two white gangmembers strike cerebral poses as if they're trying to puzzle out the logistics. It's actually an interesting bit of racially-tinged imagery. Was it done on purpose? By accident? I'd be curious to know.

Ratings

Me: 8.5

Bob-O: 9.9

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 8

Cats: There were definitely rats. I don't recall cats or other domesticated animals, so there were none that played a prominent role. Maybe some showed up in the outdoor crowd scenes? At any rate, this should not be considered a cat movie.

______________________________________

*as evidenced by our screenings of such gems as Blood Freak and Yongary, Monster from the Deep

**Interestingly, when I saw the movie some years ago, I saw the same version with the extra footage. Admittedly, Keith's version was cleaned up and so had fewer flaws. I believe I saw it on Youtube.