6 / 10
Death Wish (2018) is the Eli Roth-directed remake of the 1974 Michael Winner film, with Bruce Willis playing the Paul Kersey role originally performed by Charles Bronson. The screenplay was written by Joe Carnahan. The film transposes the setting from 1970s New York City to contemporary Chicago. Kersey’s profession changes from architect to emergency room trauma surgeon. The supporting cast includes Vincent D’Onofrio as Paul’s brother Frank, Elisabeth Shue as Paul’s wife Lucy, Camila Morrone as their daughter Jordan, and Dean Norris as the detective investigating the resulting vigilante killings. The film was produced by MGM and released through Annapurna Pictures on a budget of approximately thirty million dollars. The domestic gross was approximately thirty-five million dollars.
The 2018 remake is faithful adaptation of the original’s surface plot without successful translation of the original’s moral ambiguity. The killings of Kersey’s wife and his daughter’s incapacitation provide the inciting incident. Kersey acquires a firearm, develops his vigilante skills, and conducts targeted killings of the perpetrators across the film. A parallel narrative shows Detective Raines investigating the resulting vigilante murders. The plot mechanics function competently. The thematic content does not develop the moral seriousness the original provided. The remake is efficient action material without the cultural weight that gave the original its specific position.
The Willis Performance
Bruce Willis plays Paul Kersey with the star presence that defines his late-career action work. The performance is professional, competent, and emotionally limited. Willis communicates Kersey’s grief through restrained physical performance rather than through emotional display. This suits the character’s medical professional background. A trauma surgeon would handle personal trauma with the same controlled affect that he uses for patients. The performance choice is appropriate to the character’s profession even when it limits the range of emotional engagement available to the audience.
The performance comparison to Bronson is unavoidable and unflattering to the 2018 production. Bronson carried the original through his sustained physical presence and his specific star meaning. Willis carries the remake through similar but distinct presence that does not provide equivalent cultural weight. The actor playing Kersey in 2018 needs to communicate that vigilantism is a meaningful response to contemporary conditions. Willis communicates that vigilantism is a thing the character is doing. The difference is real. The film’s broader weaknesses partly emerge from the gap between what the character needed to communicate and what the performance actually communicates.
For Writers
Casting decisions in remake work require careful consideration of what the original casting communicated and what the new casting will communicate. The 2018 Death Wish cast Bruce Willis without resolving how his star presence would translate the original Bronson presence. The translation failed. The lesson applies to any adaptation across mediums. Identify what the original element communicated. Choose the new element based on what it will communicate. The substitution should serve the same dramatic function even when the surface element is different. Substitutions that fail to consider the function produce weaker adaptations than the original deserved.
The Political Adjustment
The 2018 production engaged with the political conditions of its production moment. The original 1974 Death Wish addressed 1970s urban anxiety about street crime. The 2018 Death Wish addresses contemporary American gun politics and contemporary discourse about civilian armed response. The shift produces changes in the film’s content. Kersey’s firearm acquisition is presented in greater detail than the original required. The film engages with contemporary debates about gun-store legality, concealed-carry permitting, and civilian armed response. The engagement is more direct than the original’s treatment of similar material.
The political engagement produces mixed results. Audiences who approached the film expecting clear political position were disappointed by both possible directions. Audiences expecting endorsement of armed civilian response found the film’s actual position more ambivalent than the marketing suggested. Audiences expecting critique of armed civilian response found the film’s actual position more sympathetic than the marketing suggested. The film occupies a middle position that neither side of the contemporary debate found satisfying. The original 1974 production benefited from operating in a different political moment where the moral ambivalence could land as serious examination and not as commercial compromise.
For Writers
Political content requires either clear position or clearly developed ambivalence. Material occupying the middle without sufficient development produces work that disappoints all audiences. The 2018 Death Wish occupies an ambivalent political position without developing the ambivalence to the level that would justify it. The lesson applies to fiction with political content. Take a position and defend it. Or develop ambivalence to the level where the lack of position becomes itself a position. Avoid the middle ground that is commercial compromise and not as genuine engagement.
The Eli Roth Direction
Eli Roth’s directorial background in horror cinema produces effects on the Death Wish remake. The violence is more graphic than the original required and is presented with the visual attention that horror cinema brings to violent content. The trauma surgery sequences in the early runtime are visually demanding. The vigilante killing sequences are filmed with similar attention to wound detail. The visual approach suits Roth’s filmography but does not necessarily suit the Death Wish material. The original Winner direction was less interested in violent spectacle and more interested in the psychological territory the violence produced.
The directorial shift produces consequences. The 2018 film is more entertaining action material than its source. The 2018 film is less serious dramatic material than its source. Audiences seeking pure action entertainment will find the remake more efficient than the original. Audiences seeking dramatic substance will find the remake much less serious than the original. The tradeoff is specific to the directorial choice. Different directorial sensibility would have produced different trade-offs. Roth’s specific contributions are clear and the work he produces is consistent with his prior career. The work suits some Death Wish audiences and disappoints others.
Craft Note
The remake’s medical-professional revision of Kersey’s occupation produces narrative consequences that the original architect occupation did not produce. The trauma surgeon protagonist treats victims of the violence the film documents before becoming a vigilante. The professional context allows the film to establish Kersey’s specific knowledge of bodily damage before he begins inflicting damage himself. The change is structurally interesting. The change also produces a protagonist whose vigilante violence is informed by professional knowledge. The audience watches a trauma surgeon weaponize his medical understanding against the criminals he targets. This produces ethically more disturbing material than the original architect occupation generated. The film does not fully engage with the implications of the occupational change. A more ambitious adaptation would have developed this material considerably. The 2018 production uses the occupational change for surface texture rather than for thematic development.
Verdict
The 2018 Death Wish is competent action remake without successful translation of the original’s specific contributions. The Willis performance is professional but does not provide equivalent cultural weight to the Bronson original. The Roth direction emphasizes violent spectacle over psychological territory. The political engagement occupies an unsatisfying middle position that disappoints both ends of contemporary debate. The film is recommended for audiences who enjoy efficient 2010s action material and have no specific investment in the original. The film is not recommended for audiences who value the original’s moral ambivalence or who expect remakes to develop rather than to simplify their source material. The 2018 production is competent action cinema. The 2018 production is not serious cinema in the way the 1974 original was serious cinema. The expectations gap explains long portion of the negative critical response the remake received.
FAQ
How does the remake compare to the original?
Unfavorably. The original is serious examination of urban anxiety and individual response. The remake is efficient action material with limited dramatic ambition. The comparison is unfair to the remake in some respects, because the original benefited from production moment that supported its moral seriousness. The comparison is fair in other respects, because the remake had access to all the original’s strengths and chose not to engage with them. The remake is not as bad as some critics suggested. The remake is also not as good as a Death Wish remake could have been.
Should I watch the remake if I have seen the original?
Optional. The remake adds nothing real to the original’s material. Audiences interested in completing the Death Wish corpus should watch it. Audiences satisfied with the original can skip it without significant loss. The remake exists as separate work and not as expansion of the original’s argument.
Is the Willis performance affected by his subsequent diagnosed aphasia?
The 2018 production preceded Willis’s 2022 aphasia diagnosis. The performance reflects Willis’s later-career style rather than emerging symptoms. Subsequent attention to Willis’s health condition has produced retrospective reconsideration of his later career performances that may not be entirely fair to the work as constructed. The 2018 performance reflects the actor’s choices at the time of production rather than later medical conditions.
What is Eli Roth’s appropriate role in the production?
Roth was a controversial choice for the material. The director’s horror background suited some aspects of the production and conflicted with others. The casting decision reflected commercial considerations about which director could deliver the production efficiently rather than which director would best serve the dramatic material. The decision produced predictable results. The film delivers efficient action spectacle and limited dramatic substance.
Does the contemporary Chicago setting work?
Partially. Chicago in the late 2010s provided sufficient urban violence statistics to justify the setting. The specific texture of Chicago does not produce the cultural weight that 1970s New York City provided the original. New York City in 1974 was synonymous with American urban crisis. Chicago in 2018 is a major American city with specific problems but not the same symbolic weight. The setting choice is reasonable but does not produce equivalent atmospheric contribution.
How does the film fit the contemporary American gun politics moment?
Uncomfortably. The 2018 release occurred during ongoing American debate about civilian armed response, mass shootings, and gun availability. The film’s ambivalent position on its central material produced criticism from both political directions. The marketing material attempted to position the film differently for different audiences. The actual film disappointed both intended audiences. The production timing was unfortunate. A different release window might have allowed the film’s actual content to receive more measured response than the political moment permitted.