The novel DEATH WISH is a very different story from the movie(s). It's not
at all that kind of dumb vengeance fantasy. Recommended.
I have DEATH SENTENCE on my TBR pile, I guess I should check it out soon.
Could it really be that bad? In general, I like Garfield.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of Nathan Cain
Sent: den 26 oktober 2008 00:15
Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Death Wish
I tried reading Death Sentence, the sequel to Death Wish, and I've got to
say, I only made it about forty pages in before I had to give it up. It was
terrible. Garfield's writing was clumsy, the main character was a real piece
of shit, and people said ridiculous things like "Someone born in Chicago has
more are more likely to be killed than a soldier in WWII," without any hint
of irony. I mean, the 70's were a time of urban decay, but more likely to
get shot than a soldier in a World War? Seriously? I found the whole
exercise to be labored, simple minded and unpleasant. I figured the movies
were just a reflection of the crappy story set up by Garfield.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Anders Engwall <email@example.com
> Just saw Michael Winner's DEATH WISH for the first time in years. Jeez,
> utter bollocks. What is left of Brian Garfield's novel is a simple-minded
> "exterminate all the brutes" kind of vengeance fantasy. And Bronson could
> not act to save his life.
> Anyhow, then I checked it out and I found it was initially supposed to be
> directed by Sidney Lumet, and to star Jack Lemmon. Now, that sounds like
> of the great "what if" movies...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Oct 2008 EDT