"Death Wish" - Am I the only one who is uncomfortable?

[Cikomyr]

So my Youtube Adbot decided to bombard me with "Death Wish" ad. The movie about Bruce Willis whose wife apparently got killed and decides to take the law into his own hands to go kill colored criminals.

Am i the only one who.. feels uncomfortable about this whole movie premise? I mean.. this movie seems to hype up the idea that criminals are always just around the corner, and that the police are unwilling to do anything to protect innocent people. Is it meant to be a glorification of suburban white adults to go beat up urban criminals?!

The guys "wants to find the criminals who did that". Geez. What, does he thinks the police just twindle their thumbs and know who commits crime but can't be bothered to do anything?

I know its a remake of a 1971 movie, but I find there is something extremely unbearable about a call to vigilantist violence in our day and age. Especially considering a segment od the population who wants to push the idea of colored people all being criminal thugs and white people being innocent victims.

[Rogar Demonblud]

It was pretty bad in the original as well, although the movie is more about Paul's descent into the same barbarism as the (white) criminals who struck his family for thrills.

The sequels bounce around between drug lords and street gangs and whatnot as the main bugaboo.

I'm pretty sure the remake is going to get torched by the competition. Regardless of its quality, remakes aren't doing well at the box office.

[Anonymouswizard]

The guys "wants to find the criminals who did that". Geez. What, does he thinks the police just twindle their thumbs and know who commits crime but can't be bothered to do anything?

I mean, maybe it's like over here, where the perception of American police is that they spend all day shooting people.

To be serious, all such films disturb me. I live in a country where police do not routinely carry firearms and have expressed a preference not to, and where the death penalty only exists for treason and it's considered barbaric by a decent proportion of the population. If you're going to kill criminals you might as well whiten your teeth!

So yeah, I'm uncomfortable with vigilante movies and ask other 'private citizens taking justice to the criminals' films. Gangster films and detective films are a different story, because they're about different things (generally focusing on a web of mystery or intrigue). Even if the film is portraying it negatively the fact that people consider it a potentially moral thing to do disgusts me and makes me highly uncomfortable.

[Narkis]

Eh, I really don't see the problem. Movies like that are a dime a dozen. They're a time honored Hollywood tradition. Bruce Willis built almost his entire career on them, though he's not the only one to have starred by far. In pretty much all of them authorities are useless or you don't have a story, and the protagonist wracks up ridiculous body counts by the end. Not my cup of tea, but you can't argue that they're popular. And I wouldn't read into them anything other that people really like revenge fantasies.

go kill colored criminals.

push the idea of colored people all being criminal thugs and white people being innocent victims.

Really? I had to hunt down the trailer. In that, in order, he brutally kills a white dude fixing a car, shoots a bunch of black dudes on a porch, shoots another white dude in a club, hits a white dude with a guitar (presumably killing him), is hiding from another white dude behind a car before shooting and presumably killing him, shoots in an alley someone who is maybe hispanic but definitely not black, shoots a white dude off a balcony and down some stairs, and I can't tell what's going on in the end. Seems like a pretty inclusive rampage.

[2D8HP]

So my Youtube Adbot decided to....

......victims.

They're going to re-make that trash?

Well "The Market" is giving "The Market" what it wants.

Hooray for THE MARKET!



(I'm old enough to remember when the Bronson movies were in the theaters and on the television along with "Dirty Harry", that this kind of thing is being brought back doesn't bode well. I hope it flops)

(I also hate "Dexter").

[Dragonus45]

So my Youtube Adbot decided to bombard me with "Death Wish" ad. The movie about Bruce Willis whose wife apparently got killed and decides to take the law into his own hands to go kill colored criminals.

Am i the only one who.. feels uncomfortable about this whole movie premise? I mean.. this movie seems to hype up the idea that criminals are always just around the corner, and that the police are unwilling to do anything to protect innocent people. Is it meant to be a glorification of suburban white adults to go beat up urban criminals?!

The guys "wants to find the criminals who did that". Geez. What, does he thinks the police just twindle their thumbs and know who commits crime but can't be bothered to do anything?

I know its a remake of a 1971 movie, but I find there is something extremely unbearable about a call to vigilantist violence in our day and age. Especially considering a segment od the population who wants to push the idea of colored people all being criminal thugs and white people being innocent victims.

The initial movie was as much about the psychosis and failures of Paul Kersey as he descends into madness after the loss of his family. However much like the first Rambo and Dirty Harry the subtlety and nuance of the plot and the message that this kind of thing is insane and bad got lost in the many crappy sequels. And it is worth noting that New York was a very different city from the one it is today. Violent crime was rampant and the city was so bad that a movie like Escape from New York could score cheap laughs with the joke we could just wall the place off and call it a day. The feeling that the whole place was falling apart and the authorities were either to inept, or too in on it to do anything about it was commonplace.

Side Note: For real though, no one gains anything when people toss accusations of racism into random places for no good reason and totally without evidence.

[Kitten Champion]

I think you can write around the premise and be interesting as long as you consider that it's (present year) and sociopolitical attitudes aren't the same. What they did with the Punisher on Netflix was enjoyable for the most part, for instance.

Though, even ignoring the potential problematic pitfalls of the premise -- Bruce Willis has been sleepwalking through his acting career for a while now, such that I can't muster any interest in a Willis movie anymore.

[dps]

Fun bit of trivia: In the original, one of the thugs who killed Paul Kersey's wife was played by Jeff Goldblum in his first movie role.

[2D8HP]

Fun bit of trivia: In the original, one of the thugs who killed Paul Kersey's wife was played by Jeff Goldblum in his first movie role.

The same year as "Death Wish", "Bananas" had Woody Allen mugged by Sylvester Stallone (another bit of trivia).

Unlike "Death Wish" (which is actually really boring), "Bananas" is funny.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, but then there was Death Wish 3. It's worth it. There's a mail-order rocket launcher. And the guy that plays Bill in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I don't remember as much of the others, but at least in the case of DW3, I feel like ethnicities were fairly evenly distributed in the random evil punk gang. The punk overlord was a white guy. And Bronson's protecting a tenement full of all ethnicities, too. I think there's a clear effort not to depict the criminal gang as representing any racial or ethnic stereotype- they are punk/anarchists in very 80's style.

Death Wish 4: the Crack Down. It's about stopping a crack dealing drug lord. How can you say no?

[Metahuman1]

Fun trivia, Denzel Washington got what I think was his first appearance in the 1st Deathwish movie as one of the muggers the main character dispatches after he goes vigilante.

Also, in Deathwish 3, the gang leader is played by the same actor who did the badguy in the original Highlander movie.


The follow ups are mostly just dumb action movies, but the first one has some merit in terms of period political commentary. Some of it still holds up today. There's a particular bit were Kurzey is at an upper crust party after he starts the Vigilante thing, and some of the snippets of conversation are things I could actually sort of see happening today under the circumstance's. And the fact that a fair number of them are not accurate and the audience knows it is also interesting.

[Lemmy]

Seeing the trailler for the movie... This is one of the most random and baseless accusations of racism I've seen in a while. Most of the people being killed are white.

The accusation itself sounds more racist than anything in the trailler.

Action movies where the protagonist tries to avenge his family because the authorities can't/won't do it are a dime a dozen. That's probably one of the most common plot-lines in cinema... But because the protagonist is white, it's racist?

[BWR]

Meh, pass.
I can understand the appeal of revenge fantasies but they tend to be very same-y and underwhelming. Also, as already noted, Willis isn't an interesting actor any more. Whether that's because of him or because that's what the producers and directors think we want to see, I don't know.

[BeerMug Paladin]

It can't be worse than "Taken".

I've never seen the original, but revenge/power fantasies aren't generally my kind of entertainment.

I did happen to see the trailer, though and didn't see anything remarkable about it.

[Dr.Samurai]

So my Youtube Adbot decided to bombard me with "Death Wish" ad. The movie about Bruce Willis whose wife apparently got killed and decides to take the law into his own hands to go kill colored criminals.

Having seen the trailer, this is such a gross misrepresentation of the movie that it calls to question pretty much anything else that you might write on these forums.

Am i the only one who.. feels uncomfortable about this whole movie premise?

The premise you described or the one in the trailer?

I mean.. this movie seems to hype up the idea that criminals are always just around the corner, and that the police are unwilling to do anything to protect innocent people. Is it meant to be a glorification of suburban white adults to go beat up urban criminals?!

The guys "wants to find the criminals who did that". Geez. What, does he thinks the police just twindle their thumbs and know who commits crime but can't be bothered to do anything?

There are such things as cold cases. There are real life stories of family members taking matters into their own hands. There are things that a vigilante might do that a police officer won't, and so there is a chance that a vigilante can solve a case that the police have failed to. There are also stories where the police are corrupt, and the only way to find justice is to do it yourself. Or stories where justice isn't enough and the protagonist wants revenge.

I haven't seen the original, but judging by the comments from other posters here, I'm guessing it's warning against the corruption of revenge-seeking, and maybe the protagonist is suffering survivor's guilt and wants to die (based on the title of the movie).

Revenge is an extremely popular trope, as is taking matters into your own hands. As is the idea of letting things go and the corruption that can occur if you don't.

I know its a remake of a 1971 movie, but I find there is something extremely unbearable about a call to vigilantist violence in our day and age.

Why? Many people have almost no confidence in government and authority. Many people feel the masses are getting screwed by the institutions in place to supposedly serve them. Many people have the lone wolf mentality and struggle to understand why others don't take matters into their own hands as well.

There is a lot that movies like this can tell us. Or it could just be a popcorn flick.

Especially considering a segment od the population who wants to push the idea of colored people all being criminal thugs and white people being innocent victims.

I can't groan enough at this sentiment. If these people exist, they are simply wrong. Acknowledge that and move on. Why allow them to determine what is and isn't appropriate cinema?

There's nothing in the trailer to support your "concerns" in any way, shape, or form, so I'd suggest maybe unplugging from this political nonsense for a bit so you can see things more clearly.

[Strigon]

I mean, pretty much every superhero movie is a vigilante movie. Sure, there's an argument to be made that some of them are supervillains that can't be stopped without powers, but certain powers (such as any gadgets or serum-based powers) are transferable.
Do Iron Man and Batman make you uncomfortable?

The difference here, of course, is that this is a lot more personal and low-level - and that he's specifically setting out to kill them. But personally, I feel a lot more uncomfortable with the thought of people killing a family and then getting to go right back to their lives than I do with vigilante violence. Will I go see the movie? No, because it's not my cup of tea. But if we've established a world where the police don't stop criminals, then your only options are to have civilians stop criminals or have nobody stop criminals.

Edit:

... Is it meant to be a glorification of suburban white adults to go beat up urban criminals?!
... Especially considering a segment od the population who wants to push the idea of colored people all being criminal thugs and white people being innocent victims.

Wait, what? Where did you get that idea, in any way shape or form?
You do know that not every character's race is a generalization about all people of that race, right? By this logic, we can't make any movie with any bad guys, because then we're generalizing all people with that coloured skin as bad guys.
If we replace Bruce Willis with a "coloured" person, as you say, then the message becomes that "coloured" people can't contain their anger, and have to take the law into their own hands. There can never be a movie that isn't racist, if you think this movie is racist.

[2D8HP]

It can't be worse than "Taken".....

"Taken" was pretty bad, but not as much as the "24" television series (full disclosure my wife was a fan of that ugly show).

..Many people have almost no confidence in government and authority. Many people feel the masses are getting screwed by the institutions in place to supposedly serve them. Many people have the lone wolf mentality and struggle to understand why others don't take matters into their own hands as well...

I mean, pretty much every superhero movie is a vigilante movie...

... if we've established a world where the police don't stop criminals, then your only options are to have civilians stop criminals or have nobody stop criminals.

Superhero movies get a pass because they take place in what are clearly fantasy settings (but I'm not a fan of most of them anyways).

It's vigilantism as an ideology that I find offensive

I invite you to read an essay by Science Fiction writer David Brin:
Our Favorite Cliché

But in any case to the OP's question, no I don't like seeing modern day revenge flicks, I also hate "Zombie apocalypse" films, both make me feel uncomfortable.

I prefer my fictional violence to be dressed up in "Worlds that never were" ("7th Voyage of Sinbad", "Lord of the Rings", etc.).

And when the setting is real world and violent I prefer that it take place in the past, and even then it's easier to take in black and white (I enjoyed "Casablanca" but "Saving Private Ryan" made me cry).

[Rogar Demonblud]

Since that was the point of Saving Private Ryan, congratulations. I'm continually amazed at how few people realize that was an anti-war themed movie.

[2D8HP]

Since that was the point of Saving Private Ryan, congratulations. I'm continually amazed at how few people realize that was an anti-war themed movie.

I'd say that "Johnny Got His Gun", and "Paths of Glory", or even "Taps" which is a military academy movie, not a war movie are more effectively anti-war, but even pro-war films like Frank Capra's 'Why we Fight" feel like a gut punch to me.

I guess I'm just a "cheap date" in terms of how emotional I get viewing films.

[Friv]

Superhero movies get a pass because they take place in what are clearly fantasy settings (but I'm not a fan of most of them anyways).

It's vigilantism as an ideology that I find offensive

I feel like there are two branches of superhero stories, which I'm arbitrarily going to call the "Batman" branch and the "Superman" branch, even though that's not entirely fair to Batman.

The "Batman" branch of superhero stories posits a setting in which institutional corruption has set in to the point that people are forced to go outside the law to improve things, usually with the support of the few remaining agents of authority. Generally speaking, in these stories the end-goal is the restoration of law and order, at which point the superhero intends to retire. In comics, order can never be restored because it would end the story, so the hero never retires. In movies, the hero tends to either step into the background, retire, or die at the end. These stories tend to draw on noir pulp for their inspirations, but dialed up to 11 - corrupt cops, dangerous mobsters, and the like, plus a dash of magic or super-powers. (See also - Daredevil and the associated MCU TV shows).

The "Superman" branch of superhero stories posits a setting in which institutions are functional, but the threats facing them are so vast that only super-powered individuals have a hope of reasonably stopping them. In these stories, the government may work with the heroes, or oppose them out of fear, but ultimately is powerless only because the power of their opposition is so vast. (See also: the Avengers, as a rule.)

In "Batman" stories, vigilantism is usually portrayed as necessary only because the system is a mess. In "Superman" stories, it's possible only because the hero is extremely powerful. Usually, in both stories ordinary people trying to become vigilantes ends badly.

[2D8HP]

I feel like there are two branches of superhero stories.....

.....In "Batman" stories, vigilantism is usually portrayed as necessary only because the system is a mess. In "Superman" stories, it's possible only because the hero is extremely powerful. Usually, in both stories ordinary people trying to become vigilantes ends badly.

Yeah it's weird, I kind of draw the line with how close to my current reality is the setting, and how realistic something seems.

Double Indemnity is a "Noir" film I enjoy, but I don't think I'd like it in color with a contemporary setting.

I admire Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath who fights opressive growers goons and deputy sheriffs (with his fists), but it takes place in my grandfathers time (and place) not mine (and for the record I do plumbing repairs in a jail so I encounter lots of deputies and inmates),

I cheered (along the rest of the audience) when Indiana Jones shot the swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but when Jack Bauer on 24 shoots people I cringe.

Two movies I watched on the same night (my wife selects DVD's from the library) I watched this last year, '71 and Sicario had similar themes, the one that took place where I've never been (the UK) when I was three years old I found very watchable, but the one that took place in the contemporary USA and Mexico, I just didn't enjoy, so "close to home" on screen violence just disturbs me.

I avoid watching local news for much the same reason.

I do intellectually realize that "It's just fiction", and others have an easier time maintaining an emotional distance from viewing violence on screen.

Another oddity is I enjoy watching Jon Snow on Game of Thrones fight Zombies, but seeing modern people fight them in Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead is something I never want to see again, I will not watch The Walking Dead for that reason, which is a bit odd because the dead don't rise hungary from the grave, so not "close to home" but I still dislike it.

[Kitten Champion]

Though, if you want an example of that violent authoritarian fantasy played straight, the infamous Wonder Woman television series pilot is perhaps the best example in recent history. At least with Taken and Death Wish there's some attempt to justify the violence by the protagonists in understandable human terms.

The fact that it is set in a fantasy Superhero world only makes it more confusing and awful, really.

[2D8HP]

Though, if you want an example of that violent authoritarian fantasy played straight, the infamous Wonder Woman television series pilot is perhaps the best example in recent history........

You mean the one broadcast in the 1970's that takes place in the '40's?

I watched it but I don't much remember it.

[BannedInSchool]

You mean the one broadcast in the 1970's that takes place in the '40's?

No, there was a Wonder Woman series pilot in the past few years that didn't make it to TV at all. For those who remember more about it, didn't she go visit someone in the hospital to torture information out of them?

[Rogar Demonblud]

As I recall, yes. Wonder Woman doesn't really fit into an Iron Age/film noir aesthetic, and that series was apparently rolling in that like a dog on a fresh cow pat.

[Kitten Champion]

No, there was a Wonder Woman series pilot in the past few years that didn't make it to TV at all. For those who remember more about it, didn't she go visit someone in the hospital to torture information out of them?

....and the funny thing is she shows the prisoner she's torturing her Lasso of Truth and just kind of puts it aside as she breaks his fingers. That would be a darkly humorous comedy routine to lampoon the Dark Knight movies with, but it's played with the stark seriousness of 24.

Edit: SF Debris does a pretty funny review of the pilot if you've got half an hour and are interested. It really does show how the vigilante issue with superheroes requires a degree of deftness, because it can become horrifying quickly.

[Cikomyr]

So i rewatched the trailer, trying to pay more attention to the race of the thugs; and it appears that I was indeed wrong. I mean, they are somewhat coded "urban criminals", but they are definetly not colored individuals.

My bad about it. I still wonder about the taste of hyping the fear of an ultraviolent society and impotent policemen, and then using it as a vehicle for wish-fullfillment of going to kill urban criminals.

Although, i am more than ready to be proven wrong if it turns out to be about Bruce Willis' moral downfall into a spiral of self destruction, and the movie was just deliberately marketed as something else to make a point.

[2D8HP]

......I am more than ready to be proven wrong if it turns out to be about Bruce Willis' moral downfall into a spiral of self destruction, and the movie was just deliberately marketed as something else to make a point.

I've seen a deeply tragic film, that explored a couple mourning the death of their son, marketed as a "comedy" (I remember Morgan Freeman was in it, but I've forgotten the title), so it could happen.

As to being mistaken about race against race violence being a key component of a new Death Wish, you may still find that the film makes you uncomfortable, I'm not any less disturbed by changes in the races of those who are the victims and victimizers of Jack Bauer on 24 (my wife loved the show, I hated it. We're also split on Game of Thrones, I like the Dragons, she likes the betrayals).

[random11]

I think there is a much more basic problem with this remake.

Imagine entering a remake of a movie after it started, not knowing what the title is.
In cases like "IT" or "Wonder Woman", you will instantly recognize what it is they are remaking, even if you hate the result.

The original "Death Wish" just wasn't unique enough to make a remake out of it.
The main concept, character and plot is so generic, you might as well call it "A revenge movie", and it will change nothing.
The ONLY reason they use that name is to cash in nostalgia, and in this case it will be more obvious compared to other remakes.


As for feeling uncomfortable, that all depends on what they do with it.
The basic premise is so generic it can go anywhere between a good revenge movie to a horrible one.
I just remember a plot point from the third movie, where the gang calls the cops so they will take the weapons away from the law abiding citizens to make them defenseless.
No doubt that especially today, a plot point like this will make me cringe.

[Thrudd]

I think there is a much more basic problem with this remake.

Imagine entering a remake of a movie after it started, not knowing what the title is.
In cases like "IT" or "Wonder Woman", you will instantly recognize what it is they are remaking, even if you hate the result.

The original "Death Wish" just wasn't unique enough to make a remake out of it.
The main concept, character and plot is so generic, you might as well call it "A revenge movie", and it will change nothing.
The ONLY reason they use that name is to cash in nostalgia, and in this case it will be more obvious compared to other remakes.


As for feeling uncomfortable, that all depends on what they do with it.
The basic premise is so generic it can go anywhere between a good revenge movie to a horrible one.
I just remember a plot point from the third movie, where the gang calls the cops so they will take the weapons away from the law abiding citizens to make them defenseless.
No doubt that especially today, a plot point like this will make me cringe.

It doesn't make me cringe except with how ridiculously contrived it is. It's the finest of 80's camp. The bad guys are basically the Mad Gear Gang from Final Fight, and Bronson literally cannot be friends with or romantically interested in anyone without them getting killed by the bad guys so he has a new revenge to get, and there's lines like "They shot the Giggler, man!"
And there's a high noon (or GB&U) style sequence where the good guys stroll down the street and bad guys pop up in windows and from around corners and they shoot them down, and they fall off rooftops. I mean, yeah.
It's cringe worthy the same way "Commando" is cringe worthy- in the funnest, silliest way possible.