As chance would have it, less than 12 hours ago,  I watched a documentary looking back on the “Dirty Harry” films where Carnahan said, and I am paraphrasing, “I’m liberal on a lot of things but very much a law and order right-winger.”

That’s all well and good, but I doubt present-day Hollywood has the maturity to tell this story with the same courage of conviction we saw in director Michael Winner’s 1974 genre-masterpiece. For starters, Paul Kersey’s (The Mighty Charles Bronson) vigilantism is shown to work and is portrayed as a solution to a serious crime problem the ineffectual police and liberal courts can’t solve. For emphasis, there’s a wonderful scene where we see how Kersey’s actions inspire everyday people to finally fight back.

Secondly, the Kersey character (a conscientious objector during the Korean War) is made to see up close and personal the cost of his limousine liberalism and haughty pacifism. Intolerant Hollywood giving a character that kind of arc today is inconceivable. In films like the superb 2007 remake of “The Hills Have Eyes,” we’ve seen it. But if you listen to the director’s DVD commentary, you learn it was by accident.

Finally, this first entry in what would become a fantastic five film franchise isn’t like its sequels. Here, Kersey isn’t exacting revenge on the same punks who blew a hole in his family. He’s simply working through his grief and refusing to be a victim through the awesome act of cleaning up the streets and, in the end, he is not at all repentant for his actions.

It’s very hard for me to see today’s immature industry allowing the very thematic elements that made the original (and its sequels) so satisfying to shine through again. My guess is that Carnahan goes back to the original novel, which portrays vigilantism as a more serious problem than the crime it’s meant to solve. That will give all involved the cover necessary to completely screw the remake up.

If you want to see an unapologetic “remake” of “Death Wish,” check out The Mighty Michael Caine’s almost-as-good but just as satisfying “Harry Brown.”

Note to leftists: In real life, I obviously oppose vigilantism. But this is a movie were talking about, and what I am not opposed to is wish-fulfillment or being manipulated by a crowd pleaser.

The Mighty Michael Caine plays the title character, a retired British pensioner who once served as a Marine in Northern Ireland and now resides in a massive, generic, depressing and dirty housing project called The Estate. It’s here that Harry’s life became one of precision and sameness. He wakes, dresses, eats his jelly toast and then walks to a nearby hospital to visit his ailing wife. The most convenient route for this daily commute would be through the tunnel that runs beneath a busy freeway. But that tunnel is constantly infested with a rotating menagerie of dangerous youth gangs looking for a place to hang when not out terrorizing the Estate’s residents.

Because his wife is rarely conscious, Harry’s sole company is Leonard (David Bradley), a widower and fellow pensioner. To wile away the lonely afternoons, the men enjoy quiet, leisurely pints and games of chess at the local pub.  Though the old friends are comfortable in silence, when they do speak it’s frequently about the violence they’re forced to live with. Harry prefers to keep his head down and stay out of trouble. Leonard, however, is tired of being harassed and vows to start fighting back.

When you’re Harry’s age an unexpected knock on the door can only mean bad news. Inspector Alice Frampton (Emily Mortimer), a warm, caring woman who could’ve left this dirty job to a subordinate, informs Harry that Leonard’s been murdered. It’s here that Harry’s outward calmness cracks just enough to make clear that he’s fed up with the inability of the police to stop such open and brazen crime, fed up with the injustice of it all.

**SOME SPOILERS BELOW***

Harry’s first kill is in self defense. Despondent, drunk and on his way home he’s mugged by a knife-wielding junkie. Without even realizing it, Harry’s military reflexes kick in and later the police find the punk dead, stabbed with his own knife.  After this experience, Harry understands his duty and sets out to do it.

The secret to crafting a successful genre picture – in this case a vigilante pic — is to hold tight to the elements people expect and enjoy while at the same time presenting them in a fresh way. First time director David Barber and screenwriter Gary Young obviously understand this. For starters, Harry Brown may be dangerous but he’s no Charles Bronson. He has emphysema and once the chase is on, well, it doesn’t last very long. Secondly, in a memorable interrogation scene, the narrative takes the time to stop and help the audience comprehend the depraved, nihilistic and very dangerous mindset of the villains and why the police – who want to help – cannot.

If this doesn’t convince you a reckoning’s necessary, there’s a later scene, a stunner of a set-piece that takes place in a drug den that further exposes the black, degenerate heart of what the helpless residents of the Estate face daily. Sub-human doesn’t begin to describe them. Time to do what a man’s gotta do. And do it Harry does, in a number of ways that not only brings about an immense amount of satisfaction through the cinematic execution but also in the knowledge that our effete critical class will soon be harrumphing about fascism.

But it’s not fascism. It’s duty. Rather than using old age as an excuse to let loose his inner child, Harry selflessly risks his life to avenge a friend and make life livable again for his neighbors. That’s a noble thing, and thankfully there’s no last second narrative bait and switch. The filmmakers think so too.

The story isn’t perfect. A subplot involving Mortimer’s Inspector and her cold, ambitious boss feels a little out of place – like a movie that couldn’t quite come up with a proper third act. But that’s why you hire a Michael Caine, a movie star’s movie star – an actor’s actor – an extraordinary screen presence who carries in all that hushed stillness an edge of competence and danger. The two-time Academy Award winner grew up in the same housing project “Harry Brown” is set in. So there’s “street” in Sir Michael and bring it to this incredibly satisfying grinder he does, along with all the dignity and force his righteous character deserves.

“Harry Brown” was one of Britain’s biggest hits of the year and is now in limited release here in U.S. Though not as close in spirit to ”Taken” or “Gran Torino,” as you might think (the all kinds of awesome “Death Wish II” comes pretty close), if you enjoyed either, catch Caine if you can.

If only because all the right people don’t want you to.

—–

The Mighty Michael Caine as an elderly vigilante gunning down street punks after reaching his breaking point?

Oh. God. Yes.

Christian Toto has more, including a second trailer and a warning about the obvious hand-wringing we can expect from left-wing critics (but I repeat myself):

Film critics make things worse, gnashing their teeth over the fact that audiences might – gulp – be rooting for the vigilante to win the day.

If “Harry Brown” is a straight-forward vigilante film in the vein of “Death Wish” and “Taken,” you can most certainly expect the same critics who root for the undermining of America and our military in one lousy Iraq War film after another to express “thoughtful concern” over audiences rooting for the death of murderous street punks (which will hopefully be cold and violent deaths either preceded or followed by iconic tough guy lines like, say, “You failed to maintain your weapons.”)

With the retirement of Gene Hackman, all my Favorite Movie Star delegates went over to Mr. Caine, and I can’t think of a movie I’m anticipating more this year than “Harry Brown.”

Conservative’s favorite vigilantes know that no justice system is perfect just like “Dirty Harry” Callahan knows there is no time for due process when people’s lives are at stake. These heroes always draw a distinct line between good and evil, and we trust them to do the right thing.

Watchmen, which was recently released on DVD, gives us a darker view of our heroes. It suggests that maybe we shouldn’t trust them, and takes a very cynical view of the fight of good versus evil. The characters are pitched as superheroes but most of them are as human as any of us.

The film takes place in a fictional 1985 where Richard Nixon is still the president. Over the years, “watchmen” had been working with the government to keep the world a safe place but eventually became outlawed. While President Nixon is trying to avoid nuclear warfare with the soviets, some “watchmen” see a world that is not worth saving anymore while others continue to operate as vigilantes.

The story is driven by the murder of Edward Blake/The Comedian (Jeffery Dean Morgan), who was a cynical hero who felt that there was no point to fighting anymore. Blake represents the kind of “reality of heroism” that liberals want to push on the rest of us. Too often it seems that they feel there are no truly good people or heroes.

Edward Blake was the most corrupt superhero, with a past of heartless murder of women and children. Once he realized there was a plan in place to kill thousands of innocent people to save millions, he decided to right his past by alerting his fellow “watchmen.” This decision ultimately leads to his murder.

The hunt for Blake’s murderer was spearheaded by Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), who refused to give up the fight for the greater good. He has zero tolerance for those who are soft on crime, often complaining about “liberal sensibilities.” In one scene he confronts a man who murdered and hacked up a child. When the man admits his crime and says “Take me in. I need help,” Rorschach puts a meat cleaver through his skull.

Some characters fell out of the crime fighting business because they managed to lose faith in humans as well as their own ability to rid the world of evil. This explains why the diegetic world is so dark and corrupt and also shows us what the world will be if criminals continue to be treated like victims.

Parts of this story do not want us to look up at any one person or group to “save us.” The original graphic novel was written as a critique to those looking up at Ronald Reagan as a superhero. Ironically, the same critique can be placed towards those who look up at President Obama as some sort of all knowing producer of good.

Most certainly a conservative’s favorite character will be Rorschach, whose actions are anything but soft on crime. He is programmed to fight evil, both foreign and domestic. Rorschach eventually sacrificed himself since he could not live with the decision to sacrifice thousands to save millions.

In the end, the “watchmen” decide to let the plan continue, or else the end result will surely be a nuclear apocalypse. This decision was a tough one and was in no way one of self interest. Regardless, film still tries to leave us questioning our heroes on some level.

Of course, anyone who believes the world has no heroes is looking through a polarized lens. There actually are people who fight for good and succeed. The USA hasn’t had a terrorist attack since 2001, and that is because we have our own heroes fighting for the greater good of the free world both here and abroad.

We don’t have one single hero, but rather hundreds of thousands of them. They are at every military base, fire station, police station, and every other institution that helps keep us safe every day. Without them, we would live in the dystopic world that occurs in the film once “watchmen” are outlawed.

Obviously no one is perfect and we all have flaws, but I want to believe that most of us know the difference between good and evil. The line between the two is not always blurred, like those on the left want you to think. Certain elements of Watchmen want us to believe the world is not worth fighting for, however, it most certainly is.

The film was highly successful with audiences, making Bronson a big star and inspiring several sequels. Critics hated it.

Both reactions were caused by the same thing: the film’s uncompromising truthfulness. Death Wish marked the death of liberal illusions about crime and punishment: the idea that crime is caused by disadvantageous social environments and that the solution is to pour even more taxpayer money into bad neighborhoods in an attempt to buy submission from the poorer elements of society.

Death Wish showed that process to be an absurd sham. The film, based on a novel by Brian Garfield, clearly showed that giving in to such political extortion was making social conditions worse and exacerbating the nation’s already terrible crime problem.

Death Wish and its sequels refused to sugarcoat the villainy of the criminals the architect Paul Kersey pursues, nor did it state that he was justified in what he was doing. It simply showed the characters doing what they were inclined to do, making their choices and following the consequences. Such truth was impossible for Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, and other elitist critics of the time to stomach.

As direct and truthful as Death Wish is, it is not simplistic or political, despite the ravings of critics at the time. It is a story that was all too plausible, and the characterizations and situations were accurately and insightfully portrayed.

In the years since its release, Death Wish and its sequels have received some of the positive reconsideration they deserve—long after I wrote a lengthy article defending Death Wish, Dirty Harry, and other vigilante films in Chronicles magazine in the mid-1980s.

AMC will show the film several times in the coming days; click here for a synopsis and schedule, and click here to have AMC send you a reminder to watch it.

Death Wish: Highly recommended.