It’s great you’re helping all these random people and everything, but it’s not going to fill that hole in your heart.

The Equalizer 2

(2018)

(SPOILERS) I was going to suggest The Equalizer 2 is to The Equalizer (2014) as Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is to Jack Reacher, but then I remembered Jack Reacher is pretty good, and The Equalizer is just okay. Denzel broke his no-sequels rule for this?

Richard Wenk returns on screenplay duties – he also contributed to Never Go Back, which is telling, and the previous Fuqua/Washington team-up The Magnificent Seven– and dutifully returns to the beats of the frequently sluggish not-so-original. The difference here is that for much of the proceedings there’s little sense of flow or pace. The first hour seems like a borderline random succession of incidents, some of which you know will have importance, others designed to build our sense of McCall's calling and all-round-great-guy persona.

The opening scene briefly suggests a sense of humour these movies – and Fuqua's generally – rarely show much propensity for, arriving armed with Denzel in Muslim disguise as he seeks to rescue a kidnapped daughter. I'd have loved to see McCall in a succession of oddball outfits à la Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther as he equalizes those bringing harm to his "clients" (I’m not sure he ever gets paid, judging by this; rather, he "touts" for business through his day job as a Lyft driver and takes it upon himself to help whether asked to or not). Later, surrounded by bad guys/ex-colleagues after he visits his old DIA partner-come-private-sector hitman-come-DIA-again Pedro Pascal – there's never any doubt Pascal is going to be revealed as in on the hit on McCall’s pal Melissa Leo; the twist would have been if he wasn't – he cheerfully hitches a lift with Pascal's oblivious wife and kids.

But the paceless sludge of clients – a Holocaust survivor trying to find a painting of his sister, a neighbourhood artist (Moonlight's Ashton Sanders, good in a cheesy role) prey to dealers and creeps – leaves the picture struggling for motivation, no matter whether individual scenes deliver (McCall dealing retribution to the men who drugged and raped an intern). As damaging is how corny it all is, failing to recognise the irony of a man whose vocation is dealing vigilante justice mentoring a kid on the path of the straight and narrow.

There's a nearly-decent scene when McCall confronts Pascal's Dave York, and the latter attempts to justify his choices, suggesting their previously "righteous" career together was only that because the government told them it was, but the movie isn't really interested in exploring such ideas seriously, hence one of the closing scenes in which Sanders shows a girl on the bus his designs for a superhero based on McCall; as I suggested in my review of the first movie, McCall is Batman (unlike Chuck Bronson or Bruce in the Death Wish remake, Washington escapes relatively lightly from charges of irresponsibility with this now-franchise).

As usual, Fuqua directs with personality-free slickness that extends to a finale invoking Witness; McCall invites his antagonists to an evacuated, storm-lashed town where he deals with them post-haste. It's rather lacklustre and all-too easy, particularly since York and his ruthless cohorts would surely have used captive Sanders as their bargaining chip from the first. Elsewhere, the director evidences his sub-Guy Ritchie eye with McCall planning out his takedowns in advance (close-ups of Denzel's mince pies being about the extent of it). Oh, and the brutality. Fuqua just loves it, with some particularly nasty depictions of the assassinations of an agent and his wife and then the attack on Leo.

Do we get an Equalizer 3?Well, The Equalizer 2 came in fairly cheap, and isn't significantly trailing the first movie for its gross, so I expect Denzel can add a solitary, forgettable little trilogy to his career legacy if he so wishes.

Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog