Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) is an everyday New York City architect who one day discovers that his wife has been murdered by street punks and his daughter has been badly injured by the same group of yobs that murdered his wife. Paul, understandably, is angry and upset following this incident and initially turns to the police for help. However, when the police seemingly have no leads and when his daughter refuses to look through mug shots, Paul decides that he will take to the streets and dispense his own form of justice on the muggers and low life that are living in New York.
The biggest problem for me with this film is that it starts out as one thing and then changes to another without much logic surrounding this narrative shift. Let me explain;
Paul's wife is killed by a group of robbers and his daughter ends up being badly injured by them. This isn't a whodunit as the robbers break into the apartment unmasked and attack the two women. An investigation begins to take place but comes to a halt due to there being no leads. Then... well that's the end of that thread and then it never gets re-established again. The rest of the film then seems to focus on Kersey prowling the mean streets of New York dishing out punishment on unsuspecting muggers. I didn't mind that this aspect factored into the film as Kersey becomes an 'anti-hero' and as mentioned during the film he alone actually helped reduce muggings overall in the city. What surprised me is that there was no focus on anyone tracking down his wife's killers? After the first 20-25 minutes this is never mentioned which just seemed really odd to me. If you think about it, those that killed his wife were far worse than any of the would be 'chancers' that Kersey killed because their attack was far from 'opportunistic'. Those that targeted Kersey could definitely be classed as 'opportunists'. I would have preferred it if this aspect had acted as a sub plot and if Kersey tracking down his wife's killers would have acted as the main focus of the film. Again it might just be me but it seemed strange from a narrative perspective. Even more bizarrely, the police then focus all their attention on catching Kersey again without bothering looking for his wife's killers?
Going back to Kersey's family, did anyone else think it strange that they were side-lined after the first half of the film? There is a very moving scene where Kersey goes to see his daughter in hospital when he gets back from Arizona and he gives her a hug after he is told that she is in a catatonic state - that scene was beautiful. Shortly after that, the film forgets about his daughter and son which again seemed strange to me. It's almost like the film was making one step forward and then taking two steps back. I also thought it was odd that they showed clips of other 'anti-heroes' dealing with muggers in their own bizarre ways - it didn't sit well within the tone of the film.
Overall, this is a decent film and as mentioned my only really big gripe is that it seemed to lose all focus in the second half. Why did both the police and Kersey give up on trying to find his wife's killers?
The biggest problem for me with this film is that it starts out as one thing and then changes to another without much logic surrounding this narrative shift. Let me explain;
Paul's wife is killed by a group of robbers and his daughter ends up being badly injured by them. This isn't a whodunit as the robbers break into the apartment unmasked and attack the two women. An investigation begins to take place but comes to a halt due to there being no leads. Then... well that's the end of that thread and then it never gets re-established again. The rest of the film then seems to focus on Kersey prowling the mean streets of New York dishing out punishment on unsuspecting muggers. I didn't mind that this aspect factored into the film as Kersey becomes an 'anti-hero' and as mentioned during the film he alone actually helped reduce muggings overall in the city. What surprised me is that there was no focus on anyone tracking down his wife's killers? After the first 20-25 minutes this is never mentioned which just seemed really odd to me. If you think about it, those that killed his wife were far worse than any of the would be 'chancers' that Kersey killed because their attack was far from 'opportunistic'. Those that targeted Kersey could definitely be classed as 'opportunists'. I would have preferred it if this aspect had acted as a sub plot and if Kersey tracking down his wife's killers would have acted as the main focus of the film. Again it might just be me but it seemed strange from a narrative perspective. Even more bizarrely, the police then focus all their attention on catching Kersey again without bothering looking for his wife's killers?
Going back to Kersey's family, did anyone else think it strange that they were side-lined after the first half of the film? There is a very moving scene where Kersey goes to see his daughter in hospital when he gets back from Arizona and he gives her a hug after he is told that she is in a catatonic state - that scene was beautiful. Shortly after that, the film forgets about his daughter and son which again seemed strange to me. It's almost like the film was making one step forward and then taking two steps back. I also thought it was odd that they showed clips of other 'anti-heroes' dealing with muggers in their own bizarre ways - it didn't sit well within the tone of the film.
Overall, this is a decent film and as mentioned my only really big gripe is that it seemed to lose all focus in the second half. Why did both the police and Kersey give up on trying to find his wife's killers?