It is not a terrible movie. The plot is okay. The action is handled very well. Michael winner is not as bad a director as people say he is. The soundtrack by Jimmy Paige is very good . The acting is not that bad except for Jill Ireland but everybody else was good. Why do people think its bad??
shareThe Rape Scene. Simple as that. And the Uncut Version is apparently very graphic. To the point where it shows her privates bloodied. Pretty damn sick, IMO. Not as bad as ppl say it is?
shareNo version of this film has a scene with "her privates bloodied."
So I guess that means this film is not as bad as YOU say it is.
Thought I was havin' trouble with my adding. It's all right now
I think it suffers from comparison to the first one. I tend to think of the first as a good action drama, and this as a good action flick.
http://continuedon2ndpagefollowing.blogspot.com/
I don't get the hate, either. If it is the rape scene, I can kind of see that, but I wouldn't condemn the whole movie for it (personally, I don't care for rape/sex in movies; keep it off-camera and everything's good). The point of the movie is that something unthinkable happens to Bronson's loved ones and HE GETS REVENGE. That is why I see it. The action is well-executed and the directing is fine. The reviews treat this movie as if it were shot in one week and doesn't have a quality production to back it up. It does. The picture looks good, etc. Compared to the movies of today with their unwatchable, quick-cutting editing, you can almost call this movie a classic. Not really, but you get the point.
Of all things, DW2 is easily the best of the sequels. It is a still step down from the original, and each following movie is further step away from it. The only one that truly disappoints on an average level is DW5. I feel like they waited too long to make it. That, and the slow pace does it in.
Edit: I take that last comment back. After just re-watching the whole series, I have a better appreciation for DW5.
I agree with the OP, I think this film is a flawed masterpiece. It's not perfect, nothing is, but the Paul Kersey character is amazing and utterly compelling. Consumed by an ice cold desire for revenge, he's like a machine, he uses everything and everyone in his life to get what he wants, revenge. He may not be likeable, but the film sets up a premise that is plausible in which you can understand what drives him. He uses revenge as a means to destroy the unending grief inside him.
The way he is out, night after night, like a hunter, the way he covers his tracks, his single-mindedness, he's like a human Terminator.
I don't think the film is popular with many people of a Left-Liberal persuasion, becuase Kersey starts out as a Left-Liberal, and turns into a right-wing icon, 'cleaning up' the street scum without mercy. In effect he is an Apostate for the pseudo-religion that is Left-Liberalism.
I just watched DEATH WISH 1 % 2 back to back on dvd.
Here's what's bad with 2.
1)Cinematography in 1 had a very scary feel to it where in 2 it's like made for tv episode.
2) The soundtrack in 1 one has a good urban feel to it where Jimmy Page's score sucks.
3) The thugs in the 70s' looked meaner and not clownish like in the 80s'.
i had just seen the first movie which is so strong and original, so i was quite eager to see this sequel (i have seen all before but i was just a kid then) and so i checked this out, but it was kind of just a remake of the first, one line in the movie even goes "same thing happened to you in new york", still this was the most watchable of the many sequels to come.
you brought light,
in the darkest of times,
though you had your hands full,
like a saint you i could count on,
i was in a dungeon with no place to go,
you were there a compassionate soul,
as the world had been stripped of light,
you were by my side, and guided me around,
in the darkest of times.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]