Le justicier braque les dealers

After death wish 2 and 3 came out, the series seemed, to well, have a death wish. 2 was unremarkable, and 3 cared more about a very high body count then anything. Unlike in 3, the relationship between Kay Lenz's character and Kersey doesn't seemed forced, doesn't seem like ti was tacked on like the third entry. the fourth entry seemed to be a better level then the previous. Not as good as the first, face it, hardly any action flick with a vigilanty storyline as been as good as the first death wish, the 4th one makes kersey a little more human. You want him to find those responsible for the death of his girlfriends's teen daughter. You cheer when he gets the bad guy. Personally, I would to have loved to have seen a little more interaction between Bronson and Soon Tek-oh, perhaps one of the most underrated supporting actors in movie history. Overall a decent little flick that doesn't try to outsmart itself.

With the "D W" complete body of work being shown on consecutive nights on the cable AMC Channel -- I was able to see the original and this one a couple of evenings apart, both for the first time in several years.

Again, I found myself drawn to a couple of distractions, namely, an unimportant and curious one: Why entitle II and V with Roman Numerals, and 3 and 4 with Arabic ones? Just wondered. Also, couldn't help but ponder from reading Puzo's book and seeing the movies: Who lost more close friends, family, etc., to murder, Don Corleone, or mild-mannered architect/conscientious objector, Paul Kersey?

The original gave a plausible reason for Paul's ability with guns, although he had eschewed them following his gun collector/father's death in a hunting accident.

But as these series installments proceeded, and you look at them anew now, there are other fascinations: Charlie performed these roles beginning in his 50's to a period where he had been eligibile for early social security payments for over a decade.

Further, he rotated between both coasts, having no trouble becoming ensconced comfortably every time, with successful business activity, a host of friends (many of whom met their demise), and a dual schedule which would keep either a full-time businessman or a full-time mob button man busy at his singular profession -- but Paul handled both with little detraction from either by the other.

And his affinity for hand guns (and undoubtedly rifles) as previously explained aside -- Paul also seems to have had the ability to acquire capabilities with regard a wide variety of heavy weaponry and ordnance exceeding a level reached by, say, even General Patton.

Finally, while I've always lived several hundred miles from each coast, my best friend is in L.A., and I have friends in New York City, and have spent regular extended periods in both. In these flicks, unlike any experience my friends (or I) have had, or know of anyone who has -- Paul keeps a dual schedule in both his lives whereby he seems never to be impeded by traffic jams or any big city delays - whether engaged in architectural duties, dispatching hosts of villains, and evading detection just about every time. {He also seems to have the time also (along with the cleverness of a CIA/FBI operative), to infiltrate when and where necessary to further his objectives of vengeance.}

A fascinating "body of work," even more so decades after original release. Among them, though, this one has more intricacy and some essence of plot/some twists/etc., not much evident in the others.

Charles Bronson, back again as vigilante / architect Paul Kersey, goes back to the L.A. setting in this fourth "Death Wish" movie, the first not directed by Michael Winner (that honour goes to J. Lee Thompson, another frequent collaborator). Kersey is dating reporter Karen Sheldon (Kay Lenz), whose teen daughter Erica (Dana Barron, a.k.a. the original Audrey Griswold) overdoses on cocaine. He then takes up a stranger (John P. Ryan) on his proposal: get the city's competing drug empires to go to war with each other. This Kersey does in his inimitable style, with the body count hitting very respectable numbers.

The story (by Gail Morgan Hickman) is patently nonsensical, with holes in the plot to match the many bullet holes in the onslaught of expendable henchmen. That said, it IS entertaining, straightforward stuff: action-packed, gleefully violent nonsense with an anti-drug message to justify itself. At least by having Bronson take on entire gangs (in part 3) and these criminal organizations here provides enough of a spin on the standard "Death Wish" formula. You have to wonder why Kersey would ever get close to anybody, though, since from that day on they seem to grow targets on their backs.

At the end of the day, there are enough amusing moments to make the thing worth watching, such as Bronson's response to a thug inquiring why Bronson is in his kitchen. And there is absolutely no shortage of utterly scummy bad guys whose demises we can cherish. But none of it can quite match the opening credit sequence in a parking garage: it provides a punchline that's more interesting than anything that follows.

An ageing Bronson is still a potent hero here, and he receives capable support from much of the cast. Lenz is sorely under-utilized, but Ryan, Soon-Tek Oh (as a police detective), and Perry Lopez (as one of the drug kingpins) are all good. You can also play "spot the familiar face", because there's a bunch of them: George Dickerson, Danny Trejo, Mike Moroff, Tom Everett, Irwin Keyes, Tim Russ, Mark Pellegrino, and Mitch Pileggi. Trejo exits the picture in hilarious fashion.

Fairly good fun overall, the movie is best recommended to undiscriminating action fans.

Six out of 10.

No home invasion for the first time in these. Although I guess drugs entering ones system, can be viewed as an invasion too, yes? I'll leave that up to you. The movies and Charles Bronson hit a nerve, with cracking down on criminals. Now I assume many things will not sit well with people and their views today and maybe further in the future, but it is what it is.

When Bronson has someone near to him being harmed, he goes ballistic. Though as we know from the first movie, he does not have any love left for the people he would consider scum. This mixes a bit of what made westerns succesful. So after being inspired by Dirty Harry, this has also elements of the Man with No name trilogy by ... Clint Eastwood. At least that is what you can call Bronson playing two sides of crime families ... nice touch overall if you are not too sensitive

"Death Wish 4" is easily my favorite of the DW series, even though I really like most of the first entry. But you see, I find graphic, luridly depicted rape in films distasteful. I could take it in the first film, because there was at least some thematic and emotional need for it (though I still think it was overboard and gratuitous). Parts 2 and 3 escalated the rape and humiliation sequences and writer/director Michael Winner actually seemed to be trying to get us to enjoy the sight of tortured, crying, beaten, naked woman as much as he obviously did; combine this with zero plot, zero character development, and inept action, and you had some really, really bad flicks. Number four was directed by J. Lee Thompson, a frequent collaborator with Bronson since 1976's "St. Ives." Thompson took the usual DW revenge formula, eliminated the obligatory rape sequence, and ratcheted up the action. So what we have is a Death Wish picture more similar to "Murphy's Law" than any of the other films in the series. Of course Bronson's 80s films are often the butt of jokes (to those who remember them at all, that is) but I happen to enjoy them immensely--there's just something I dig about this charismatic, elderly guy running around shooting bad guys; I can't even explain it. If you dig the salt and pepper Bronson as well, then give DW4 a try.