— by all accounts, and I’ve read several of them, including a synopsis of the whole film, Denzel’s character is every bit as omniscient and indestructible as he was the first time. In other words, no bad guy can match him.
Which undermines the suspense. The best thrillers of this type – – and I’m including the greatest Bond films here – – have a bad guy who is at LEAST as tough as the hero.
Very odd that these films went the demigod route.
Also very stupid.
that was my problem with the first one. I think they kinda saw that too and so here they reduced the number of times he's just flawlessly beating the crap out of people and they've put him in more dangerous situations like a fight in a moving car or like the final battle taking place during a hurricane. it's ridiculous but I thought Denzel handled himself well, both in acting as well as in the action.
Have a short review of this movie if anyone is interested. If you feel there is something I could be doing better, I would definitely love to hear it. Review here - https://youtu.be/xFcAYAGqPGQ
No. They didn’t handle it well. Handling it well would have meant giving him an INDIVIDUAL OPPONENT who is at least as strong, fast and tough as he is, if not more so. Y’know, like Oddjob to Connery’s Bond. Or Jaws to Roger Moore’s Bond. Or the T1000 to Arnold’s less advanced cyborg.
But they made a deliberate decision not to do that.
And I see this more and more at the movies lately. They did the same thing with the Bourne series. They didn’t want Bourne to be overmatched — ever (which would have been great! Make him sweat the victory!)
But they punked out.
I think it works for the Equalizer franchise. Your sense of fear is for other, more vulnerable characters, such as Susan, Miles, the co-workers at the hardware store, Susan's husband, etc. The suspense is in whether or not they will be harmed or whether McCall will be able to protect them.
McCall, on the other hand, is an agent of catharsis. His role is to even the score and to satisfy the audience that the victims have been avenged and the evil have been punished. If he becomes a victim himself, the franchise is no longer delivering the "equalization" that is its trademark.
“If he becomes a victim himself, the franchise is no longer delivering the ‘equalization’ that is its trademark.”
Was James Bond a “victim” in Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me simply because one of the bad guys was stronger and tougher? (Bond still won)
Was Indiana Jones a “victim” in Raiders of the Lost Ark simply because a brutish Nazi was stronger and tougher?
Was Mel Gibson a “victim” in the first Lethal Weapon movie? After all, Gary Busey’s character was pretty badass himself and his final fight with Gibson was touch & go.
Was Batman a “victim” in The Dark Knight Rises?
Was Ah-nold a “victim” in Terminator 2?
The list goes on.
Having a bad guy who is tougher than (or at least JUST AS TOUGH AS) the good guy actually helps the story ... and it helps with audience identification, too (“Hey look! The hero is having to STRUGGLE against his opponent! It isn’t easy for him, but he’s not giving up! And, by God, neither will I!!”)
In short:
David vs. Goliath, good.
Bambi vs. Godzilla, bad.
That's the problem with equating the Equalizer to these other movie franchises: The hero here doesn't serve the same purpose in the story as they did. He's not supposed to represent how the audience members would actually struggle and endure weaknesses in the face of similar adversity; he's supposed to be an idealistic "balancer" of all of life's wrongs, to represent a perfect world where evil is always punished and the vulnerable are protected.
You're mistaking the intention of the movie and what the target audience is getting from it. We're not supposed to see ourselves in the Equalizer, but in the ordinary people he defends. The wish fulfillment that this character represents is that of some powerful, moral harbinger of justice swooping into your life to make things right.
You can't criticize this movie for not being like other movies when that wasn't even its intention to begin with.
Well, if that’s the intention of the movie ... if the character of McCall is supposed to represent the Fist of God or some such ... then on that level these movies definitely succeed. So I suppose I’m speaking only for myself now when I say that I prefer my movie heroes to be brave and smart and capable – – but fallible, too. And to be overmatched on occasion. In other words, I strongly prefer heroes like Martin Riggs and Sean Connery’s Bond to heroes like McCall.
Now, some people might say “I like both” and that’s great. Totally fine. For them.
As for me? I like good guys who, when it comes time for the final death match, have to really, really, REALLY sweat the victory.
But your mileage may vary.
I'm definitely in the "I like both" camp.
It works for me because they spend a good amount of time developing the more vulnerable characters (Miles, Teri, Ralphie, etc.) so that we can imagine ourselves in their shoes, using them as a way to mentally enter the world of the film. McCall is basically functioning as their guardian angel; that's the true story.
If it weren't for the focus given to these more relatable characters, the films really would feel shallow and one-dimensional.
Well, millions of people agree with you. So the filmmakers definitely knew what they were doing when they decided to go the Avenging Angel route. And Denzel Washington — like Bogart, Hackman, Newman, McQueen, a few others — is never less than watchable. Terrific actor. But I’m kind of a Scrooge when it comes to omniscient/omnipotent heroes. Just one of my things.
Another example of this: I much prefer Clint Eastwood in the first couple of Dirty Harry movies — where he’s smart and tough and clever but still makes mistakes and, on at least one occasion, gets the crap beat out of him — to the Eastwood of PALE RIDER where he is essentially playing God.
— by all accounts, and I’ve read several of them, including a synopsis of the whole film, Denzel’s character is every bit as omniscient and indestructible as he was the first time. In other words, no bad guy can match him.
^^^
I actually think They Tried to fix this exact complaint with the new film....
In This new film The Bad Guys are in fact Denzel's Former Crew...They are his Killing Mates from his past life, which should mean they have the same training and skills....
by all accounts they should be real threats, but of course Denzels easily kills them In The movie....
But they certainly are better and more skilled Bad Buys than The first film...If It was real life, They should have posed a great threat to Denzel...
Why would I want to see some Dragon Ball Z type of shit? I'm so tired of this. It's the exact same formula and just as predictable. Weaker Son Goku faces a stronger enemy, fails, trains, and eventually beats the enemy. I want the hero to reign supreme. I don't want him to face challenges. God mode: on. I know life is hard enough. I dont watch motion pictures to "be cleansed". I want fantasy.
But the movie, as much as it pains me to say it, is shit. I can't believe it's the same director.
“I want the hero to reign supreme. I don't want him to face challenges. God mode: on.”
Good lord.
I mean, good friggin’ lord.
That runs counter to the greatest stories of the last 3000 years.
“I don’t want him to face challenges.”
Good lord.