Spondonman

I never saw Edward Woodward's Equaliser so I went into this one with an open mind: I guess they're completely different stories sharing the marketable name. However there's just enough puzzling comments made in here to make me think the previous tv series may have some missing jigsaw pieces for me (for example why was he supposedly asking the CIA types for their "permission"?) Enigmatic nice guy with OCD's and plenty of books takes it upon himself to revenge the routine beating up of a harmless prostitute by a troupe of violent Russian gangsters by violently destroying them in various surprisingly ballet-like ways. The exhortation rings out to all baddies: Do The Right Thing - if only Good vs Evil was always so simply and efficiently addressed. By the end of the bloodfest Washington passed the test to be The Neutraliser.

The violence is concentrated cold and callous - and an utterly unnecessary bore. These are maybe characters better gone, but to display and revel in gratuitous gore is always demeaning and insulting to the audience whether realised or not. If I watch it again I'll probably fast forward the obscene bits because I prefer my Revenge Cool. Fuqua certainly passed the test to be The Brutaliser.

Apart from that negative and an over-long Gunfight at the DIY Corral it's an enjoyable and well-made time-passer. And as it spawned a sequel it passed the test to be The Sequeliser...

I've seen this satisfactory black humoured violent revenge action film a few times now, it reminds me of Fargo and In Bruges. And Revenge is always best served Cold, as in here.

Liam Neeson is a cold man of few gravelly grunts but plenty of action as he seeks revenge for his son's murder at the hands of a drugs gang. One by one lots of 'em are brutally murdered in a trail of cold destruction, all marked on the film by whimsical headstone intertitles. The Law is always a few miles behind and frozen out, as personal justice is meted out and gratuitously snowballed; Do-gooders would state even such icy characters as drugs barons have a right to life and justice, but really? Neeson's playing of a snow-plougher clearing snow-blocked roads ahead is hilarious symbolism.

Coupled with fascinating bleak scenery bleak people and bleak architecture the droll story is worth following all the way past the nonsensically violent climax to the placid afterglow and credits.

Like most films made worldwide nowadays, this US motion picture is arty and well made. Is it likely to be more aesthetically pleasing to an international woke person of fluid or no gender or simply entertaining rhubarb to the uncultured illiterate multitude though? The latter I'd guess, which includes me. The former aren't amused easily, even if someone like Obama would approve of the sentiments shown in here (didn't he take down Bin Liner?) Someone like Bush would!

Relentless gung ho plot has state funeral in London with many world leaders attending suddenly beset by lots of bad terrorists (all world leaders have their own lists of "good" terrorists) who apparently can leap into violent action at the drop of a state hat. Hundreds of pointless deaths mainly from shootings, stabbings, squashings and explosions later, well, Good Triumphs. For this to work at all you have to stoically believe that after years of planning for such an event the baddies can operate so fast and seamlessly on so vast a scale. The only thing they couldn't plan for of course was solid Gerard Butler. There are other nonsensical bits, such as the London air raid system. What?

Reassuringly everything runs true to course with no surprises; I liked it as it's nothing but a fiction fantasy, and decent people can only hope it stays that way. Felt sorry for all the naughty people who like naughty bad language peppering conversations to the extent of it being the conversation - it'll never be on the tv schedules at teatime. Non-enriching entertainment.