Showing posts with label Denzel Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denzel Washington. Show all posts

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The Equalizer


The Equalizer poster.jpg

Released:  September 26th, 2014
Rated:  R
Studio:  Columbia Pictures
Starring:  Denzel Washington, Marton Csokas, Chloë Grace Moretz, David Harbour, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo
Directed by:  Antoine Fuqua
Written by:  Richard Wenk
Personal Bias Alert:  Never seen any the television show or any of Fuqua’s movies

7.8 of 10





            So how many of you managed to see The Equalizer without realizing it’s based on an ‘80s television series, because I somehow did.  Not that I would expect myself to remember the show; It technically lasted into my infant years, but for all intents and purposes it was on before my time.  Granted, I didn’t pay much attention to this film’s promotion either, but I saw the trailer several times and don’t recall it ever mentioning the series (I do recall it advertising the use of a brand new Eminem song, though).  So why leave it by the wayside?  Was it bad?  Did it fail to retain an audience?  Normally, these questions would nag at me, but the film’s so rooted in genre that it felt familiar even without references to the series.

            The Equalizer draws on many genres, but it primarily mixes the slow burn of a spy thriller with the moral certainty of a revenge pic.  Robert (Denzel Washington) is our former spy (or old man, to steal the film’s The Old Man and the Sea metaphor), a guy who’s unable to turn a blind eye to the abuse of a young woman.  Utilizing some of his formidable skills, his quest to save her eventually leads him into a much larger battle than he intended, and to start a habit of sticking up for anyone who’s being taken advantage of. 

            The film exists in a black and white world, where stereotypical bad guys (Russian mobster, corrupt cops, etc.) are hunted down by Robert to ‘equalize’ the score.  In such a basic world, it may seem odd to point out how necessary the film’s prolonged setup is, but giving Robert time to establish normal relationships and his own moral barometer goes a long way to making the later action sequences work.  In fact, these early scenes brim with so much life, particularly the ones between Robert and the young woman played by Chloë Grace Moretz, that you forget you’re watching a bunch of setup.  I’d be happy to pay for a feature length character study of those two.

            Unfortunately, Moretz doesn’t get enough screen time to fully establish her character, but she knocks the few scenes she does have out of the park.  That lack of depth applies to all the characters not played by Washington, but the assembled cast of recognizable character actors play their parts well enough that I didn’t really mind.  The most attention is given to Robert’s alter, the formidable Russian mobster played with sneering glee by Marton Csokas.  I’m not generally a fan of such one-note bad guys, but the barely contained menace that Csokas brings to the role won me over.

            Helping to sell this black and white world is the stylish cinematography, which threatened to be a bit on the nose with its prominent use of shadow, but ultimately sold the whole theme.  I mean, there’s few portraits of evil in American cinema more classic than a man leaning confidently forward, one half of his face murky in the darkness, calmly spouting threats in a Russian accent.  Sorry Russia, I have nothing against you, but the Cold War had long reaching effects on Hollywood.

            There are times when the style goes too far, particularly when Director Antoine Fuqua breaks out the slow motion, and the film becomes too actiony for its own good.  This occurs mostly during the ending, which has a couple of ridiculous sequences that took me out of the film, but also features a great set piece that’s milked for all its worth.  That set piece is a reminder that The Equalizer works best when it sticks to the basics, letting its stellar cast and slow burning tension carry the audience through.

Other Notes: 
Ø  I always wait to wipe off the murder weapon I “borrowed” from my employer until I’m in public and seconds away from returning it.
Ø  Don’t go to this film for Bill Pullman or Melissa Leo.  It’s not worth it.
Ø  Cue a dramatic walk home from the grocery store.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Philadelphia

Philadelphia imp.jpg
Released:  December 22nd, 1993
Rated:  PG-13
Studio:  TriStar Pictures
Starring:  Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington
Directed by:  Jonathan Demme
Written by:  Ron Nyswaner
Personal Bias Alert:  who doesn’t love Hanks and Denzel?

6 of 10








            Philadelphia is very much a period piece, a work intended to shed light on a prominent issue of its time.  Works such as this, no matter what the medium, can do the world a lot of good.  However, these stories exist due to their context, and as time moves on and cultural attitudes change, the issues they’re railing against often get resolved in one way or another, and the work’s commentary suddenly has nothing to comment on.  The path of history is littered with influential works of art that no longer matter, and I’m afraid that Philadelphia may be destined to join their discarded ranks.

To give this film its best chance, lets discuss some context.  The CDC first used the term AIDS in 1982, one year after the US became the first government to recognize the illness.  In 1983, the CDC ruled out transmission by casual contact, food, water, air, or environmental surfaces, which did little to stem the growing concern.  Actor Rock Hudson became the first celebrity to die of AIDS-related illness in 1985, the same year Ryan White was refused entry to middle school due to having AIDS.  By 1987, AIDS was a global concern, becoming the first disease ever debated on the floor of the UN.  Also that year, the US added HIV to its immigration exclusion list, making it impossible for any HIV+ person to enter the country.  It took eight years for the total number of AIDS cases in the US to reach 100,000 in 1989, and a mere six years for that number to quintuple to 500,000 in 1995.  Smack in the middle of that explosion, AIDS becomes the number one cause of death for US men between the ages of 25 and 44, and Philadelphia became the first major Hollywood film to focus on AIDS.

            With the furor surrounding the AIDS crisis at an all-time high, it’s lucky that a filmmaker like Jonathan Demme was the first to bring the story of an ill lawyer fighting to be treated equally to the masses.  Several of his trademark techniques are highly effective at getting audiences to empathize with his characters, a hurdle any film with a gay, AIDS-stricken character at its center had to overcome.  One such trademark of Demme’s is his stubbornly methodical pacing, which forced his potentially prejudiced audience to stop and take a good, long look at the disease in question.  Another calling card is having his actors look directly into the camera, which made connecting to its two main characters almost effortless.

The subsequent public embrace of Philadelphia’s ill lead has much to do with Demme’s presentation, but you can’t discount the brilliantly cast Tom Hanks.  Remember, at the time Hanks was known as a charming comedy actor, so his startlingly gaunt, sickly appearance was tempered by the public’s general goodwill towards him.  Make no mistake, Hanks turned in a great performance as lawyer Andrew Beckett, but having a recognizable presence such as his was a major aide in making people comfortable with this film.

            Just as important, if not more so, is the audience’s conduit into the film, here played by Denzel Washington.  As a prejudiced man himself, Washington’s Joe Miller is Andrew’s reluctant lawyer, who’s as uncomfortable around Beckett as the audience is.  Washington is the only character who undergoes any major changes, and it’s his journey towards understanding and acceptance that Demme steers the audience towards.

            So, we have a film perfectly set up for its time.  It did what was necessary to impart a message of tolerance to an unwilling audience, which is a wholly admirable undertaking, but the shortcuts it took to get there become blatantly obvious to those of us coming at it from a different perspective.  The time the movie takes to hit you over the head with just how decent Andrew is becomes ponderous.  The prejudiced bosses he’s suing are so evil they may as well pass their time twirling their mustaches, and Miller’s path to acceptance is filled with enough heavy-handed road markers to direct an incoming jetliner.  The whole thing is just so one note that it’s difficult to get whole-heartedly behind it.  If you’re like me, you’ll find yourself nodding along to the film’s message, thinking ‘well duh that’s wrong.’

            I can’t say I was particularly entertained by this film, but it’s pleasant and might still be useful in persuading stragglers to let go of their prejudices.  I can’t imagine anyone whose compassion wouldn’t eke out after seeing Hank’s Kaposi’s sarcoma riddled body.

            Other Notes:
Ø  To write this review, I relied heavily on A Timeline of AIDS found at http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/
Ø  The excellent makeup work got across the progression of Andrew’s illness very well.
Ø  I tried not to explain this movie to you like you were a four-year-old.