In 1972 a writer named Brian Garfield published a novel titled Death Wish. A story about a man who loses his family to unchecked crime and decides to take the law into his own hands by becoming a gun-toting vigilante. This story has been told dozens of times before in various ways, but this is arguably where the most popular version of the story mentioned above began. Having looked up the books Wikipedia page, it does not sound like something I would enjoy reading, as it seems to have some very big political motivations that just rub me the wrong way. Then, in 1974, the book was adapted into a feature film starring Charles Bronson, which I have seen and...did not like at all. It was, in every way, an ugly film. Not only was it poorly crafted with lousy cinematography, a repetitive script, and a go-nowhere sense of direction, but it also perpetuated a repulsive political ideology that just does not hold up. Not only that, but it became overly successful prompting Cannon Films to produce three sequels, with each one getting progressively dumber.
Now, with Hollywood still in the middle of its story crisis, refusing to take any risks with original scripts preferring to bank on recognizable names and titles, we are treated to a new adaptation of the book. To my surprise, it's a significant improvement. Unfortunately, it's aggressively held back by some bad decisions and poor judgment on most parties involved in its production. This honestly had the potential to be so much better than it is.
In this iteration of the story, Bruce Willis plays a surgeon named Paul (more on that in a moment) whose wife and daughter are attacked during a home invasion. They both get shot and, sadly, his wife dies, and his daughter slips into a coma. Unable to cope with the feeling of having failed to protect his family, and disheartened by the police's inability to bring in any suspects (despite their genuine best efforts), Paul decides to take up a gun and search or the perps himself, taking down other muggers and ruthless street thugs along the way. Building himself a reputation as a kind of urban hero taking down crime and helping those who can't help themselves.
The most prominent obstacle anyone will have to deal with when talking about this movie is its central subject matter, i.e., the politics surrounding guns, gun ownership, and the various arguments for self-defense. While I am not going to get into any of the political discussions in this review, I will say that I think this movie does a better job of presenting a middle ground with the debate. It does advocate vigilantism to a small degree, but it makes an effort to showcase it more realistically, i.e., that it's not always the best solution to the problem despite how tantalizing it may be.
The screenplay was penned by Joe Carnahan who previously directed and co-wrote The Grey and The A-Team. Carnahan's script does a remarkable job at removing the more ugly political aspects of the original story and focusing on the more critical elements of the story. It does a better job at building a world where the actions of the protagonist are better justified and presented. Furthermore, it provides a much more satisfying narrative with more believable and sympathetic characters, especially from the supporting cast. It's really just a shame that the whole script is bogged down by a lousy lead performance and the wrong choice of director.
The film was directed by Eli Roth who previously made Hostel and The Green Inferno. Roth was really, really not the best choice of director for this script. See, Roth specializes in a specific type of horror films dubbed "torture-porn." A horror sub-genre that prefers to showcase gruesome and horrific acts of torture to unsuspecting victims for no reason other than it's apparently cool. Movies like the ones mentioned above and all of the Saw sequels fall into this category. Because of this, Eli Roth doesn't really know how to handle character pieces. As such, while there are few and far in between scenes of graphic violence, when they do happen, Eli Roth can't help himself but choose to focus on as much gory detail as possible. As a result, all scenes that are supposed to be dedicated to character moments and narrative impact are not given the attention they deserve and are sort of brushed off. It further cements Eli Roth as a one-note director, and I am personally insulted by his irresponsibility towards this script.
The lack of proper direction is further exacerbated by Bruce Willis's terrible performance. Not only is he the wrong choice for this role (regarding both age and persona), but he is also incapable conveying the emotional transitions and internal struggles of the character. Bruce Willis's negative attitude towards being a movie star as of late is put front and center as he just stumbles through the story with his dull "I don't care" attitude and his tired monotone delivery. Also, it really doesn't help that given his track record of movies, it's almost impossible to see him as a surgeon. Nothing about his appearance and charisma (or lack thereof) conveys a caring doctor type.
His aggravatingly dull performance is made even more frustrating when compared to Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays his brother Frank. Vincent is by far the best performer in the entire film. He shows emotional range, likable charisma, and puts genuine effort into playing the character. Sadly, Vincent has little presence in the story, so when he does show up, you just wish that he was cast in the lead instead of the block of wood that resembles Bruce Willis. Vincent D'Onofrio deserves better projects to work on, and I hope he gets them.
This is a sad case of a high-end script that has been horribly mishandled. Maybe if the studio had let Joe Carnahan direct and given the lead role to Mr. D'Onofrio, this might have been a great film. As it stands, it's a waste of time and talent. I hope that the more talented people involved in this movie get better projects to work on in the future. As for Eli Roth and Bruce Willis, I am done with the both of them, and submit that they should quietly and gracefully step down. They are taking up too much space in Hollywood and must make room for the real talents who actually care about proper storytelling.
Is this movie worth seeing?
Maybe.
Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No.
Why?
It's an entirely well-crafted script that has been horribly mishandled by an incompetent director and further mistreated by an apathetic performance from a dull movie star. If you're the least bit curious, please wait for the rental.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment