Must be one of the few revenge movies ... Spoilers
That the group that do the raping and the murder don't get their comeuppance !
That was really surprising that they didn't !
That the group that do the raping and the murder don't get their comeuppance !
That was really surprising that they didn't !
loved it.
it would be unrealistic to find those gangbangers in NY !!
Yeah, it made it more realistic that he never found them. But he didn't even try, just shot random muggers.
sharei think the cops told him they can't really track them..
and he himself had no description on what they look like.
Yeah, and it kind of misses the whole point of the movie to expect him to go after the ones who got his family (which he did, in the sequel, but then he actually saw the crooks, and could identify them in that film). This movie was more about Paul Kersey and his response to NYC's out of control crime in general, and how that crime had made the city such a dangerous place for honest people, a place where you were taking your life in your hands to go into the parks after dark, or even the subway. It's about how, when it finally touches a man like Kersey personally, and costs him his family, that sort of societal decay can push him over the edge, and turn a formerly pacifist conscientious objector into a rage-filled, vengeance-driven killer who wants to strike back at the criminal element that has ruined his city and his life.
It resonated with audiences in 1974, as Dirty Harry had a few years earlier, because crime had gotten so bad by the seventies, that people who could remember safer times felt the criminal justice system had completely broken down and become an ineffective revolving door, that put violent criminals back out on the street as fast as overworked police could catch them, and overly liberal judges and politicians were more worried about the rights of the criminals than the victims they preyed on. So Kersey's vigilantism here is aimed at criminals as a whole, not at any particular individual crooks. And audiences in '74 cheered because Kersey was a hero venting the rage and frustration they felt at the time.
yah one of the main reasons i didn't like the new film is that we actually tracked down the thugs..........
get outta here
"...that put violent criminals back out on the street as fast as overworked police could catch them, and overly liberal judges and politicians were more worried about the rights of the criminals than the victims they preyed on."
And here we are in the early 2020s, right back there again, only worse.
I agree, would’ve been pretty thrilling if they did.
shareIt was very frustrating when the movie came out that he didn't get them. Very "70's" in a bad way. Dirty Harry got HIS killer. Modernly, ALL bad guys get it good. But the rapist-killers here - so horribly shown doing it -- disappeared. (That one of them was Young Jeff Goldblum haunts him forever.)
...and it sort of affected the story: its as if all those OTHER crooks that Bronson killed were almost "innocent bystanders" getting killed for the wrong reasons. They WERE bad, of course, but it felt a bit unfair to them.
Sorry, but armed, violent criminals getting the tables turned on them by their intended victims will never seem the least bit unfair to me.
shareIf it's any consolation, Bronson caught up (and dealt) with Jeff Goldblum in 'St. Ives' (1976)
shareIf it's any consolation, Bronson caught up (and dealt) with Jeff Goldblum in 'St. Ives' (1976)
---
Did he now? I must find that one! The frustration of Goldblum and his shaved head crony(and one more?) getting away always bothered me.
In the other direction, I was always amused that Andy Robinson -- the horrifically cruel villain Scorpio of Dirty Harry -- got stabbed, beaten and shot in Dirty Harry and then made his next movie (Charley Varrick) for the same director(Don Siegel) and ended up getting bloodily beaten to death in THAT one (he was a crooked jerk, but not a psycho in that one.) So if you hated Robinson in Dirty Harry, you could watch him die bloody again in Charley Varrick, too. Sweet!
Sorry, but armed, violent criminals getting the tables turned on them by their intended victims will never seem the least bit unfair to me.
---
I gotta say, I agree. Maybe as a "theoretical matter," I felt at the time that Bronson was killing the wrong guys...it was still most satisfying. Particularly the one on the subway (such a zone of terror all these decades later.)
Andy Robinson got pretty much a raw-deal in 1987's 'HELLRAISER' also (and he was the nicest guy in that movie)
share