Too much of everything

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Unfortunately I'm not able to compare this to the original because, well, I haven't seen the original, only the remake. Unfortunately I'm not able to compare it to the remake because, well, that probably wouldn't be all that fair, or appropriate. Anyway, it is a film made in the early 80s, so there is going to be quite a few differences, not counting the special effects. Actually, come to think of it, until the remake was released, I never really thought all that much of these films, and certainly didn't go our of my way to watch them. However, I've decided to at least give some of them a go, just to see what they are like. Anyway, the film is set five years after the first one, and Paul Kersey finds himself in Los Angeles, having moved there after his girlfriend takes up a job at a local radio station. His daughter seems better, and things seem to be going well, that is until pretty much the same thing happens that happened in New York. Not surprisingly, he decides not to help the police, and goes out and takes matters into his own hands. Unlike the first film, in this one he does go out to hunt down the perpetrators of the crime. This film certainly shows its age, and in fact I suspect that what happens here simply would not be tolerated in a more modern sense. For instance there are a couple of rape scenes, and they are pretty explicit. In fact these scenes seemed to go pretty overboard to the point that it is almost bordering on the exploitation of women. In a way scenes like these simply would not be tolerated in modern cinema, and in fact I can't recall any such scenes in any of the films that I've seen in a while. It turned out that I didn't really mind this film all that much, and it did actually keep me interested. Still, it wasn't something that stood out all that much, and it is a shame that I haven't had the opportunity to see the first one yet. However, other than some rather explicit scenes (which these days seems to be replaced by excessive gore), this film was okay. However, unlike the first one, it did have a bit more of a plot, and while once again Kersey manages to get away with murder, things don't always go quite his way, particularly at the end.

It's really hard to understand all the hate, critically for this film, like, Ebert's review or Maltins, who actually rates the third one better than than this. Maltin's a bit of a weird cat. You could actually say, it's, what I refer to as a stereotypical sequel, where there's a plain blatant excuse to make it, that having Bronson's traumatized daughter raped, and his maid killed (very familiar setting to the one in the first) after getting on the wrong side of this gang, who after clubbing Bronson on the head, kidnap his precious girl.This ultimately leads to a much worse fate, where another close soul is taken from him, where this catalyst, propels him back into gun firing, vigilante action. You can very much tell, the early rape scenes, have been cut heaps for the Aussie version, especially the one, involving the maid. The movie does has ordinary, uninspiring dialogue. I've seen much better in short film scripts. Who hired this writer? The film indeed has it's problems, with some unintentionally funny moments, one involving a kooky and confused psychiatrist, near the end, who's forgotten which way the men's room is. The hoods are very real, an early Laurence Fishburne being one of them, while the standout was Kevin Major Howard, a very underused actor, who at times, looked like he forgot his blocking. The line involving Jesus, where Bronson confronts him, is the one I'll remember. Jill Ireland is very good as Bronson's new love, adding a warmth to the film, while Gardenia (the old fogy detective from the first) visit's L.A. as pretty much knowing who this new hero/vigilante is, taking down the population number. With a bit of a comedown ending, relationship wise, this second Death Wish installment, is very lively, colorfully entertaining (popcorn fodder) and isn't a bad sequel, with some good plotting, the story going some places you don't expect. It's very 80's too, with it's share of violence, some of it a bit nasty and sickening. Hey, this is Death Wish, we're talking' about. One line in it, poses the "mulling over" question. "Is killing people who have killed people, right?" I don't have to mull it over. In my opinion: "Yes". Another opinion, is this movie has been wrongly vindicated. It is not a bad movie, despite this wrongful opinion from a majority of critics. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The darkest of the famed series, Bronson exacts calculated revenge under the neon lights of L.A. The soundtrack, which is performed by Jimmy Page, enhances this venture into the urban macabre. There is no other soundtrack that could be used here, it's equal parts grimy and iconic and fits the film perfectly. Not a film for the faint of heart, most of Bronson's 80's films tended to be a bit controversial, Death Wish 2's sheer brutality is what gives it its charm if you can call it that. This is top-of-the-shelf early 1980's exploitation fare at its dirtiest and is worth a viewing for fans of the genre and/or Bronson fans.

For reasons I am not entirely sure of, I revisit this movie every few years, this particular time having just watched the unrated version for the very first time. I will freely admit that in many ways, this movie simply isn't very good. The script is often simple- minded and unbelievable, with various plot turns and character actions that in real life would simply not happen at all. Director Michael Winner's direction often has as much subtle force as a swift sledgehammer. And the movie display of rape and violence is more often than not pure exploitation.Yet as I indicated in my subject line, there is something about this movie that makes it strangely compelling. It's kind of hard to pin down exactly why. I think one reason might be that as crude as the movie is executed at times, it all the same brings out an effective visceral response from the viewer. You'll really want Bronson's character to kill the gang that raped and murdered his housekeeper and daughter. Also, while Michael Winner's direction is often crude and sleazy, it does have some considerable bite to it, enough to keep the viewer interested. You will really feel the run down locations and eccentric residents of them, for one thing. And the movie certainly isn't dull - there's not one boring moment. "Death Wish II" is not my favorite of the series (my favorite being the over-the-top part 3), and I certainly don't think it's a good movie. But the movie all the same is weirdly watchable, like so many other tacky Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus movies of the 1980s. It's certainly not for everyone - many people will hate it, and for good reasons. But if you're a fan of Golan/Globus and Bronson, then there is a good chance you'll find it peculiar and offbeat enough to be worth a watch.