Death Wish II (1982)

Touches You

Great Film overall

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

While I wasn't overly impressed with the first "Death Wish" movie from 1974, I still went on to watch the rest of the movies in the franchise.It turned out that "Death Wish II" was almost exactly the same story as in the first "Death Wish" movie. With the exception that it takes place in California instead of New York. But this time it is his daughter who dies, whereas it was the wife in the first movie.Sure, "Death Wish II" was fun to watch, but don't expect to be intellectually challenged in any way by director Michael Winner.Now, I will say that it was hilarious to watch Lawrence Fishbourne in this movie, especially since he looked like a gay futuristic skater.

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.

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.

Death Wish II is just as haunting and good as the first film. It is a good sequel. It's not a horrible film like some of the critics say it is. The story of Death Wish II is good. The gang of thugs find Paul Kersey's (Bronson) daughter and housemaid - this is where the movie gets graphic. I will give fair warning: It is extremely violent/graphic - there is murder and rape within the film.I saw this movie when it first came out - I was 10 years old. This movie has haunted me ever since I first saw it. I've seen it several times as a teen - but I was crept out every time I watched it - it's almost a crime horror film due to the graphic violence in the film.After Death Wish II, the film franchise went into another direction... and I did not like them. I personally feel that only the first two Death Wish films are worth watching.8/10