Death Hunt

With a lurid title like "Death Hunt" and lead actors like Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin, it would be easy to dismiss this film as just another shoot-'em-up run through the mill to capitalize on the marquee names (particularly Bronson). To do so, however, would be to overlook a well-made gem of an adventure film.

The problem, of course, with most films of this ilk is that they offer a minimum set-up and characters and then set the guns a-blazin'. Not so here. The premise is established well, with Bronson as the noble loner and Marvin as the gruff, weary Canadian Mountie. The themes and plot devices are familiar, to be sure - the sense of honor, the anti-hero, the wet behind the ears rookie lawman, even a little bit of a love story.

I had seen most of this film on cable and thought I understood it. Recently I rented it so I could finally see the first half hour and my feelings about it changed. Seeing the film from start to finish, I realized I had misjudged the intentions of the Marvin character. I thought the character was just another "honorable to the point of dishonorable" hero, when in fact he's a conflicted man. During the film, you can see that he knows he's as much responsible for what has happened, and he's not so much interested in "doing the right thing" as he is in covering his own rear end.

I was surprised to see in the beginning that the film is set in 1931; it seems much like a Western. But then you realize that this was still a very isolated area and that, unlike the southwest, civilization hadn't quite caught up with this part of the world yet - particularly with lawmen like Marvin on duty.

"Death Hunt" delivers all the goods. There is plenty of action and excitement, yet also a lot of substance as the story unfolds. It's a notch above most films of its kind. I enjoyed it so much that I'm considering adding it to my own DVD library, and I'd also like to learn more about the real story that it is based on.

When you look at a lot of the action movies released today, all you can see are special effects. There is usually nothing else going on. When you look at a film like "Death hunt" it's something totally different. Marvin is great and Bronson is fabulous in this action movie set in North Canada in the early 30's. Besides the movie being decent when it comes to editing, directing etc,the two leading men are perfect in this hostile environment that the story is set in. . A must for every fan of a decent action flick. For Bronson fans it's obligatory!

I enjoyed this film. I thought the movie was entertaining and fun for Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson fans. Bronson does not have much dialogue, but has some good one liners mixed in with some good action scenes. Lee Marvin's character was very likeable. The movie for me served its purpose of entertaining me as is the case with most "action" flicks. It is one of my favorites. If you are a fan of Lee Marvin and have not seen this movie I recommend it.

Charles Bronson has less than fifty words of dialogue in this film, since he spends most of it running through the snow on his own pursued by the mounties, but it is still one of his better films from the late seventies and early eighties era.

He plays the real life character Albert Johnson, a fur trapper who killed some people in a dispute over dogs and went on the run in territory which had never been crossed during the ferocious Arctic winter. He successfully got away from them, despite the fact that they had many men, dogs and even an aeroplane to help them to track him down.

This movie version is simple blood and thunder stuff, with a starry cast, some strong language and a handful of sparkling action sequences. It has weak points too, such as the wasted character played by Angie Dickinson, and a few slow patches in terms of pacing. However, when you think that Bronson was mainly working on such dross as The Evil That Men Do, Death Wish II, and Ten to Midnight at this point in his career, this is at least a slightly above-average film worthy of his rugged talents.

Here is a story set in Canada about Canadians and yet it was made by the US. I have to ponder why Canada didn't jump on doing this story themselves. If one wonders why Canadian movies are so lame (about failure, disease, depression, weird humor) I would say it is because culturally we have an aversion to examining ourselves in a critical fashion whereas other countries do it quite naturally. England has made films about notorious murders, same with Australia, or Germany (Tenderness of the Wolves), and of course, the US. This story would have been perfect material for a domestic movie--but I can find no evidence that Canada ever sought to make this story themselves. I can understand with the stars involved that they dramatized it and changed the facts, but if it were done with no stars, and kept to the historical story, it still would have been fascinating. But the government film funding bodies don't like stories that present Canada in a negative light. At least in the English side-I know Quebec has covered stories on its history in fictional fashion. I remember the furor over a Canadian murder case when a Canadian producer wanted to make a film about it and was harshly condemned, so the US made it-and Canadian crew people vowed not to work on it. This is seriously screwed up thinking. If Canada wants to develop a normal film industry it needs to be less reserved and more self-examining.... On the film itself, I agree with the sentiments that you wouldn't see this film made today-and if you did, it would star model-types. Character actors have really gone extinct. Some of the melodramatic touches in the film worked for me (the dog, the trapper Bill), others fell flat(the inserted love story). Still, Bronson was effective (you could totally believe he was a rugged mountain man) and Marvin had some good lines (I am sure Canadian government culture ministers would have axed his comment calling the trappers "savages" if it was made in country).