1972, Michael Winner (Death Wish) -- Amazon
Migawd this movie dredged up a bias in me that I had thought I had worked through -- a distinct dislike for movies made, and set, in the 70s. From the opening quirky discordant more suited to horror movies music, to the haircuts, to the clothing, I hated it all. And while I tempered to the movie the more it went along, as the story became tighter feeling, for much of it all I could think was, "OMG, this is everything I hate about low-budget, badly directed, badly acted 70s movies."
That said, the opening establishing sequence was nicely done, despite the trappings I hated so much -- the quiet, methodical nature of hitman Arthur Bishop's (Charles Bronson, Death Wish) setup of his hit, the likely hitech aspects his equipment, his precision. And then the switch, from the grotty apartments of his job, back to his obviously opulent house that the hitman money bought. I cannot say where the hitman genre was at this time, but I have seen enough 70s movies to think this movie was extremely rough around the edges, but was establishing something not before seen. If the same tactic was taken now, if this mythology of hitman was being established now, I would applaud it. And yes, I can see, as Kent did, that it was this mythology that setup The Killer by David Fincher so many years later.
As said, Arthur Bishop is a hitman for a syndicate. After the introduction kill, he is invited over by the old family friend Big Harry (Keenan Wynn, The Clonus Horror [!!!]), who has his own connections to the syndicate. Harry has run afoul of his business partners, and asks Bishop to intercede on his behalf. Instead, the syndicate assigns Bishop to kill Harry. Arthur doesn't argue. The movie does present the emotional toll of his job, from the pills he pops, to the unexpected panic attack he has. But Arthur knows the cost of doing anything other than what the syndicate asks.
And he runs into Harry's son, Steve (Jan-Michael Vincent, Airwolf), who is not all that bothered by his father's death, considering the wealth he inherits. Steve shows an interest in Bishop, admitting an awareness of what Arthur does for a living. Steve's a bit of a hedonistic, narcissistic layabout, and while you get the sense that Bishop doesn't care for his lifestyle, he indulges the man, allowing himself to be introduced to Steve's annoying hippy friends. Bishop sees something in him, but what, I don't know? Amorality? If Bishop is all about control and moderation and precision, I am not sure why he thinks Steve can attain that. Never the less, he invites Steve along on a hit, which goes awry, and Steve finishes the job for him.
That doesn't sit well with the syndicate, that Bishop would involve someone in their business without their express permission, especially the son on the man they just had killed. In recompence, Bishop is sent to Italy to take out another of their own. Do this job and all is forgiven. Except, its a setup -- they are killing Bishop away from his own terf.
Arthur and Steve survive the attempted kill on the boat where he was supposed to perform the hit, and then fend off a number of other thugs on a precarious coastal highway. They survive and return to the hotel with the nice view. Steve is pleased with himself, Bishop seems far too at ease considering his own organization wants him dead. They share a glass of wine, and then Arthur begins to feel the effects. A poison, clear and tasteless, applied to the inside of the glass. Steve is very pleased with himself. But he intimates he won't be slipping into the void Bishop leaves behind, more doing it for the joy of killing. Maybe for money? Maybe not?
Steve (Jan Michael-Vincent, Damnation Alley) returns home, home to Arthur's house, now his. Fully pleased with himself, gets into his fancy muscle car and finds a note from Arthur -- you just triggered a bomb, so long kid.
BOOM.
That the last act took place in Italy kind of surprised me -- maybe the movie was not as low budget as I thought? Winner did have a decent film career before Death Wish, two years later, but maybe the rough edges was his style. I don't do a lot of digging when it comes to these write ups. They are more about the experience at the time, and only on occasion warrant some digging.
And in saying that, I want to think of this movie as having set a tone for hitmen, that it established something in the sub-genre that would be further repeated. But I cannot say for sure. I kind of liked the movie, but still had to deal with my hangups. And I could never stand Jan-Michael-Vincent, even when he was the centre of much of my childhood viewings, but at least here he embodies the smarm of sociopath Steve. Bronson is Bronson.
Recently, Paramount decided to pull down a lot of the archives of websites they own, including much of the backlog of MTV. Disk Space is expensive, I guess. More likely paying people to maintain is expensive. But I am so glad that the Roger Ebert site hangs onto to everything cuz we get this less than favourable review from 1972.
Also, you can see the creases in the poster. Hee!
No comments:
Post a Comment