It’s interesting to compare two adaptations of the same novel, as it highlights the impact of the director’s vision and choices on the final product. “Death Wish,” a novel by Brian Garfield published in 1972, was first adapted into a film in 1974, directed by Michael Winner.
If you are not familiar with Winner, he wrote and directed dozens of projects from 1957 to 1998. He is most famous for a series of car insurance advertisements featuring his catchphrase, “Calm down dear, it’s just a commercial,” which has become deeply ingrained in my subconscious.
Despite receiving mixed reviews, Winner’s adaptation was a commercial success. I remember seeing trailers for the movie in the 80s and thinking it looked really cheesy. However, when I finally watched it, I found it to be great. While the film does have some drawbacks, it remains very entertaining, and I will explain why a bit later.
Disclaimer: Screenbuzz will make money if you sign up using this link below. This will support the blog and we can keep writing great content and reviews for you.
I’m a big fan of Bruce Willis, so I was excited to see the 2018 adaptation directed by Eli Roth. Roth previously directed the Hostel films, among other entertaining horror movies. He is also well-known for his impressive role in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, where he played a character called “The Bear Jew.”
To compare these movies, I will break down the analysis into the following categories: cast and performances, script comparison, and production.
Bronson Versus Willis
I admit that I’m quite biased after years of watching Bruce Willis. He has been a constant presence throughout my childhood, appearing in some of my favorite movies, such as *Die Hard*, *16 Blocks*, *Death Becomes Her*, *Pulp Fiction*, and *Unbreakable*, to name a few. On the other hand, Charles Bronson, being from an earlier generation, never really appealed to me. However, I realize that I have seen very few of Bronson’s films, so it may not be fair for me to judge him. For the purpose of this article, I won’t be watching every Bronson movie to gain a better understanding of the actor, and I hope that you will forgive me for that.
Let’s start with Charles Bronson’s performance in *Death Wish* (1974). At the age of 52, Bronson portrayed the main character, an architect named Paul Kersey. Throughout the film, Bronson’s tough and manly image is accompanied by a notable lack of emotion. One has to wonder whether this was a directorial decision. It’s puzzling to see how little grief he shows following the death of his wife.
One particular scene highlights this absence of emotion. After her death, he sits on the bed, looking through recent holiday photos of his wife enjoying herself at the beach. There’s a close-up of Bronson’s face, but strangely, there’s nothing to convey. This moment made me chuckle, and I replayed the scene to ensure I wasn’t missing something.
In the movie, the character seems somewhat flat, but this trait makes his turn to vigilantism more believable. There are notable highlights in his performance. For instance, when a mugger confronts him on the street, Kershey (played by Bronson) quickly reacts by drawing his pistol and shooting the attacker. Upon returning to his apartment, Kershey appears shaken, and Bronson delivers a strong performance in this moment.
Does Bruce Willis perform better in this role? Yes, but only slightly. A younger Bruce Willis would have brought much more to the screen. However, it’s possible that he was affected by a mental condition known as aphasia, which was officially diagnosed in 2022. Symptoms of aphasia can include memory loss and apathy. I can’t determine if he was experiencing these symptoms at this point in his career, but there are reports in the LA Times indicating that coworkers noticed a decline in his health years before the diagnosis.
In “Death Wish,” it doesn’t quite feel like we are seeing the same Bruce Willis. Still, there are moments where his charm shines through. In my view, Bruce Willis will always look like a cool badass. Additionally, the script, the director’s pacing, and an extra 13 minutes of runtime allowed Bruce to showcase more character development, which I will discuss in detail later on.
Jeff Goldblum and His Thuggy Workmates
Jeff Goldblum, or ‘Blummeister’ as I call him, plays one of the thugs in the movie and is involved in a disturbing scene at the beginning. Although he doesn’t have many lines, he does have a wild grin, which is characteristic of him.
The thugs in the 2018 adaptation are far more believable and i’ll expand on this later.
Jack Toby
Jack Toby played by Steven Keats, is Paul’s son-in-law and what an annoying wet blanket of a man he is! We only ever see him moan. His face is very punchable, and I’m not at all a violent fella.
Perhaps Jack only exists to make Bronson look better by comparison. However, he does have one redeeming moment when Paul mentions that he has been waiting for ages, and Toby responds, “We’ve only been here for 2-3 minutes.” Did Paul have an acid flashback that caused him to lose all sense of time?
In the remake, the character of Jack Toby has been removed and replaced by Paul’s brother, played by Vincent D’Onofrio. We get to see the uncle’s dynamic within the family; he is well-liked and seems to share a close bond with them. Additionally, we learn that he is an ex-criminal who relies on his brother for financial support. This intriguing subplot gives him a motive to rob Paul, which adds depth to the story. Overall, I think replacing Jack Toby with the uncle was a smart decision.
In the 1974 version, we are introduced to the main character, Paul, and his wife during a romantic getaway on a beach in Hawaii. However, we learn very little about the wife, and we only see their daughter for a few minutes before they are attacked. In contrast, the remake takes the time to portray the family dynamics more fully. We see Paul and Lucy reacting to their daughter’s acceptance into university, and they share light-hearted moments at lunch with Paul’s brother. These scenes help us connect with the characters, which heightens the tension when the attack occurs. In the 1974 version, the daughter, played by Kathleen Tolan, delivers a memorable performance as a vegetable, but due to the lack of character introduction, I found it hard to care about her. Sorry!
The burglars from the 2018 version think more sensibly than the idiot thugs. For a start, they burgle a house at night with helpful information of when the house is empty. In the 1974 adaptation, the thugs go to the house during the daytime with no plan. Are thieves that impulsive? Thieves at least make an effort to plan these things… right thieves? These are cardboard cutout thugs that have no brains or relatable aspects in their personalities. What I like about the 2018 adaptation is that when the one guy starts being sexual with the daughter, his co-burglar puts a stop to it, probably because it endangers the job at hand. At least there is a sign of life and a thought process inside these burglars. No idea how the novel handled this but please feel free to share in the comment section. I guess the thugs in the original are meant to personify pure evil, and they do to a degree. But it’s far more likely that people who do bad things are the same as you or me except they are in a predicament that leads them to wrongdoing. I could be wrong.
The 2018 screenplay features a significant change in Paul Kersey’s occupation, shifting from architect (as depicted in the novel) to surgeon. This decision enhances the character’s transformation. Now, he transitions from high ideals centered around saving lives to a life of taking lives. While one could argue that “cleaning up the streets” saves lives, it feels like a more profound change when someone who once healed now kills.
The film even includes a split-screen montage that juxtaposes Paul Kersey saving lives in an emergency room with scenes of him cleaning, preparing, and practicing with his gun. This contrast enriches the narrative, making his dramatic transformation more impactful and adding depth to the character’s development.
Revenge. Actual revenge on the perpetrators. In the original, we never get to see Paul Kersey take revenge on the individuals. The reason for that according to the internet is that Paul Kersey is fighting against crime or thuggery in general. Ok, fair enough. I can get behind that. It also allows Paul Kersey to keep killing and create four more movies. The remake however does allow Paul to kill a bunch of random thugs plus at the end, he gets the guys directly responsible for his wife’s death. For me, this felt amazing. I love a good revenge story and when he takes each guy down, the feeling of satisfaction makes this movie much more enjoyable. Especially when (spoiler alert) a car falls and crushes the thug’s head like an elephant sitting on a grape. Lovely.
The foreshadowing of violence in the 2018 movie, occurs when the family is at the restaurant. The uncle reveals that Paul was a fighter in his younger years, having fights with his father. In the original film, there are additional lines that mention Paul’s experience in the Korean War, which helps us understand that he has witnessed violence and knows how to handle a gun. Additionally, the Texan character Aimes Jainchill, played by Stuart Margolin, takes Paul to a shooting range and is astonished when Paul hits a bullseye on his first attempt. This scene gives us further insight into Paul’s background and his father, who was a hunter and taught him how to shoot.
Social Media
Social media plays a significant role in the 2018 adaptation. Paul’s heroic actions are captured on camera and shared online, which has a much greater impact than a traditional newspaper or TV news report. The audience gets to witness the event itself, making it far more dramatic. The film also engages in deeper discussions about the morality of the vigilante known as the ‘Grim Reaper’ and whether his actions are justified. This adds complexity to Paul’s character as he becomes a ‘living legend.’ Additionally, there’s a poignant moment when Paul watches a video of his exploits on social media. It’s difficult to read his emotions during this scene, but it seems likely that he is taking pleasure in reliving these moments repeatedly.
Paul (2018) attends therapy sessions to cope with his grief, offering the audience a glimpse into his deep sorrow over the loss of his wife. In contrast, Bronson appears to be going through life with a detached demeanor, showing little indication of any emotional struggle.
Favourite quote from Death Wish (1974)
“Why haven’t you found my dog yet? He is vital to my income, he paints such marvellous pictures with his paws” – The man in the purple shirt.
Production
The direction and pacing of the 2018 adaptation demonstrate more thoughtfulness and make a concerted effort to build tension. Just before we meet the intruders, the mother and daughter are in the kitchen preparing to bake a cake. The mother asks the daughter to retrieve an iPad from upstairs. As the daughter leaves, the camera follows her into the next room and up the stairs, setting the stage for what is to come. This movement creates a point-of-view shot that gives off a creepy, stalker-like vibe.
Now alone, the mother is using a cookbook. When she turns to the stove and then looks back at the table, she finds that the page in her cookbook has mysteriously turned. This mark the beginning of rising tension. She investigates and discovers an open window, prompting an instinctual reaction from the audience of “Oh no!” Then she notices muddy footprints, and once again, the audience reacts with a stunned “Holy moly!” And then, of course, chaos ensues.
The original film is well-made, but the remake feels like it has been carefully thought out and executed. One significant advantage of the original is its score, composed by jazz legend Herbie Hancock. If you enjoy that funky jazz vibe from the 1970s, you’ll likely appreciate the soundtrack. The introduction features a blend of smooth wah-wah guitar and Rhodes keyboard, accompanied by bursts of melodic orchestral accents. Several tracks follow a similar style, while others lean more towards the typical action movie soundtrack, incorporating abstract sounds that underscore the tense scenes, all while incorporating hints of jazz.
I encourage you to check out the soundtrack for yourself!
**Conclusion**
I enjoy a good revenge plot, and the original movie is satisfying and entertaining, even though it lacks the emotional depth that could have been enhanced with additional scenes and a stronger performance. However, the remake really exceeds expectations by incorporating those elements and even more. It features better performances, an adapted screenplay that develops the characters more fully, and improved direction that creates tension and maintains pacing throughout. The only thing it’s missing is a jazz legend to provide the score.
If you haven’t seen either of these movies, they are definitely worth watching. Check them out and see if you agree with my comments!
If you haven’t already, you can purchase from Amazon. If you do, screenbuzz will recieve some money and we can continue writing reviews. Go on!!!
