I guess by now you could call this movie a "classic." It would meet most definitions. It was so popular that it spawned a number of sequels, but they just got dumb and dumber. This is one of the most famous "revenge" movies ever made and still stands up today.

This was a very, very simple story and it panders to our base instincts which is probably why it was so successful. Most people want justice, and they want it now....which is what this movie preaches. At the time, the movie was shocking. If it came out today, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. However, the early scene of the mother and daughter raped and killed is still horrifying. That will never change.

The story then slows down as we see the transformation of the husband, from conscientious objector to vigilante. When Charles Bronson hits the streets, the film picks up big-time. The movie also ends on a very satisfying note.

Michael Winner's gritty slice of vigilante cinema has finally been released here after twenty-five years of unavailability. Like most films of the period that were "banned" as such, seen today this is relatively tame viewing material which has had its effect lessened by what has come since. Nonetheless, Winner's film is still pretty good viewing, a movie that actually has something to say about modern society and man's place in it. It's a film that gave me food for thought, in any case. Unlike the later THE EXTERMINATOR and even DEATH WISH II, this is a film that tones down the sensationalism to concentrate on the morals behind the story.

Firstly, the movie is not as unpleasant as I had imagined. The build-up to the actual attack on the wife and daughter is worse than the event itself, and thankfully Winner skims over the gory details other than in a couple of shocking minutes. Bronson's subsequent vigilante crimes on the dark streets of New York are staged well, with crisp photography giving the film a realistic, gritty edge to it. They're also invariably exciting, and without any unnecessary stylish trimmings; Bronson shoots people with an aim to kill, and that's it. There are no over-the-top gun battles a la John Woo; here it's straightforward cold-blooded murder, shot in a matter-of-fact way.

Bronson here is actually very good as the grieving husband and father who takes justice in the only way he knows how; the script gives him unusual characterisation which makes you feel for him. For instance, he doesn't just go out and start killing people; it's a gradual process, and scenes of Bronson being physically sick after shooting a man in the stomach remind us that he is human after all. The supporting cast are uniformly great, and watch out for a very young-looking Jeff Goldblum in his first film role as a thug.

So, not only is this a very slick thriller, it's also a film with important things to say. Winner is definitely behind Bronson in his actions, and shows the police as the manipulated buffoons that they really are, although he is sure to show both sides of the coin. No doubt the viewer will find himself siding with Bronson over his actions also. An essential slice of the hard-edged world of the '70s, this movie would have been unthinkable back in the peace-loving '60s.

I have to say that I have never particularly liked Charles Bronson movies--in particular, his follow-up movies to Death Wish. What was an exceptional film, has been marginalized by two factors--the utter stupidity of DEATH WISH 2, 3, 4, etc. as well as the loud wailing of the ultra-left about how horrible and offensive this film is. One of the later DEATH WISH films shows that Bronson has given up using his trusty .357 Magnum and replaced it with a shoulder-launched rocket! Talk about making a film to appeal to the idiots out there! And as far as the ultra-left goes, I doubt that in many cases these people actually saw DEATH WISH before condemning it in a "knee-jerk" way just because it DID have guns and vigilantism.

The film is an excellent portrait of an ordinary successful guy living with his family in the big city. One day, all this is interrupted when his wife is murdered and his daughter brutalized by a gang of scum. He's miserable and his life has been totally uprooted. Only later, when a business associate gives him a gun, does he consider looking for vengeance. And, I like how this was handled. He was NOT a jerk or crazy man--especially at first. Instead, he just carried the gun for protection. Trouble came to him--he wasn't initially seeking it. When he is mugged, he shoots back and is later horrified by his actions. But, as the movie continues, you see he then begins to deliberately walk the streets late at night in the hope that the thugs would attack. He never, by the way, solicited these attacks--they just occurred because he had the unmitigated gall to walk the streets after dark. So, he is technically a vigilante of sorts, but he was never a crazed killer and, quite frankly, I didn't shed too many tears when he shot these predators. The film exposed our breakdown in society in the 1970s without explicitly recommending we pack heat and blast away at the bad guys and in the process it really made me think.