Prime Time: Out Of Time (2003)

While this isn't the best noir directed by Carl Franklin, nor the best star vehicle for Denzel Washington, nor the best noir directed by Carl Franklin that ALSO doubles as a star vehicle for Denzel Washington (that is, of course, Devil In A Blue Dress), Out Of Time is the kind of enjoyable and silly entertainment that makes you wish that Franklin and Washington worked together on a dozen more movies.

Washington is Matt Lee Whitlock, a police chief in Florida who is separated from his wife, Alex (Eva Mendes), and tries to make plenty of time to get hot and heavy with Ann (Sanaa Lathan) whenever her husband (Chris, played by Dean Cain) is busy at work. Ann has some bad news though. Cancer. The treatment that might save her life is far too expensive. Whitock thinks he may be able to help though, if he can temporarily make use of a large stash of cash being held in his evidence room. The evidence won't need to be examined for a while, which gives him plenty of time to sort everything else out and get it back before anyone notices. Unfortunately, things change very quickly. Whitlock needs to work fast to stay one step ahead of people investigating a crime on his patch, as well as some people heading to his office to collect that pile of money.

Out Of Time is ridiculous for almost every moment of the runtime, but it's ridiculous AND entertaining. The 105 minutes just fly by, helped by the fact that Whitlock has to keep moving faster and faster as soon as he knows that people are breathing down his neck and watching his every move. One of those people being his ex-wife adds a layer of tension, but that's offset slightly by a good friend (Chae, played by John Billingsley) who is always eager to help. Dave Collard's screenplay keeps the emphasis on the fast-thinking and happy coincidences that allow our lead to maintain his freedom, even if that looks set to inevitably come to an end before the end credits roll, and Franklin directs everything with the perfect level of energy and Denzel-charged charism.

Washington is great in the lead role, at his most charming and confident, even as the walls close in tighter around him. Both Lathan and Cain also do well, with the latter really making the most of a moment opposite Washington that is the absolute highlight of the entire movie, both men speaking to each other directly while covering the truth in a very thin layer of metaphorical clothing. Mendes does well with what could have been a nothing part, considering how she is one of the people who have to be kept a step or two behind Washington's character, and Billingsley is just the right kind of comic relief, highlighting the true moral compass of our lead by often referring to his own willingness to exploit the situation. 

Absolutely disposable nonsense, more interested in allowing a star to spend time delivering some of that star swagger than anything else, but everyone gives their usual attention to their individual work, from Theo Van De Sande's cinematography to Graeme Revell's score. It may not be one you'll think of revisiting often, but it's a fun time while it's on.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Pelican Brief (1993)

I remember when I first read The Pelican Brief, another John Grisham "thriller" that was adapted into a slick Hollywood movie. I wasn't a big fan. And I was bemused by the fact that it did actually revolve around a plot point that concerned penguins. I had the same reaction when I got around to watching the movie.

Julia Roberts plays Darby Shaw, a young law student who comes up with a hypothetical link between some recent deaths that turns out not to be as hypothetical as she may have first thought. Denzel Washington is Gray Grantham, an investigative reporter who could be a great help to Darby, if she can really trust him. Politicians are nervy, but a chameleonic hitman (Stanley Tucci) remains calm as he looks to tie up a lot of loose ends.

Adapted and directed by Alan J. Pakula, a man who would seem to be as good a fit for the material as Pollack was for The Firm, the biggest thing working against The Pelican Brief is the weak source material. It's a decent idea, but the actual details are a bit too dull to hang the plot on, and the tense set-pieces are hampered by the fact that viewers will have a hard time thinking that the entire chain of events has a decent risk to reward ratio.

Roberts and Washington give the star turns they are paid to give, both doing well with roles that need their charisma to make the film even remotely watchable, and Tucci is sadly underused in a role he doesn't really fit. There's the usual great supporting cast though, including Sam Shepard, John Heard, Tony Goldwyn, William Atherton, Robert Culp, Hume Cronyn, John Lithgow, Anthony Heald, Cynthia Nixon, and Jake Weber. Whether you like them or not, many of these performers have very recognisable faces, even if you have to later search online to remember where you last saw them.

I was hoping that this rewatch would give me something else to mention. Me being a bit older, and sometimes a bit more patient, could maybe allow me to appreciate aspects of the film that I completely ignored when younger. But no, nothing here feels worthy of praise. The cinematography feels as dull as the material at times, I have already forgotten every part of the James Horner score, and, as rude as this may seem to say, even the wardrobe choices and production design, and other technical aspects, come across as a bit . . . lethargic and uninspired. It's almost as if the screenplay was putting everyone to sleep, leading to them throwing everything together as quickly and cheaply as possible.

I doubt I'll ever go back to this. Although there are a few Grisham adaptations I have yet to see, I'd put this one very near the bottom of the pile. And that is coming from someone who didn't mind Christmas With The Kranks. 

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Highest 2 Lowest (2025)

There are very few times, if any, when Spike Lee doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Whether you like or dislike any particular movie from him, it's impossible to come away from any of them still trying to figure out the point that he was making. I mean . . . I'm not including his remakes here, but that's only because I have yet to be brave enough to see how he handled Oldboy (although I did enjoy Da Sweet Blood Of Jesus). The point is that Lee has been a unique and brilliant cinematic voice for four decades now, and Highest 2 Lowest shows that he's far from done when it comes to grabbing viewers by the scruff of the next and forcing them to look at the very best and worst of humanity.

Based on a film by Akira Kurosawa, which was itself based on a novel, "King's Ransom", by Ed McBain, Highest 2 Lowest is the tale of David King (Denzel Washington). David is known to have the best ear in the music business, which is reflected in his status and wealth. It's a tricky time though, with King looking to rearrange finances to allow him to buy back a majority share in Stackin' Hits Records, which would stop a rival from swooping in. Things are made trickier by the fact that his son, Trey (Aubrey Joseph), is kidnapped by someone demanding a ransom of $17.5M. The kidnappers have the wrong victim though, having snatched Trey's good friend, Kyle (Elijah Wright), who is also the son of David's driver, Paul (Jeffrey Wright). That could save David a lot of money, although image is everything. Not to mention morality.

Lee and Washington working together again would have been enough to get me keen to see this, and Washington is as good as you think he will be, but the rest of the cast is just as appealing, and everyone seems to be bringing their A-game when selected to share the screen with the mighty Denzel. Jeffrey Wright has been delivering great performances for years, and he has the bonus in this feature of also sharing some screentime with his actual son portraying his onscreen son. Joseph does very good work as the son who knows when he can push his father a bit and when he has to stay quiet after making a point. Ilfenesh Hadera is Pam King, and is a graceful and calm presence at her husband's side, the main investigators of the kidnapping case are played by LaChanze, John Douglas Thompson, and Dean Winters, there's room for Wendell Pierce to pop in for a minute or two, and A$AP Rocky and Aiyana-Lee Anderson convince as two very different musicians ready to take our main character in two very different directions.

A portrait of a character, summing up their attitudes and attempts to push back against some of the vices of the modern world, and an entertaining crime thriller, Highest 2 Lowest is also, as has happened with other Spike Lee movies, a film that makes New York City feel like a main supporting character. From the opening shots, accompanied by "Oh, What A Beautiful Mornin'", to the literal journey that David King goes on while also moving through some distance internally, this is a New York movie, and there are times when it feels more like an audio-visual music video than a movie. That's no bad thing though, not when Lee just wants to share the joy of roaming through familiar streets with some classic tracks blasting from your speakers.

I've not seen the Kurosawa film, which I'm sure is a great film (because, well, KUROSAWA), nor have I read the McBain novel, but this seems like a fantastic way to interpret the core plot points from the source material. It feels more like a funky remix than a slavish remake, and the main battle that we see in the third act is obviously the main point of interest for Lee. It's old vs. new, it's instant gratification vs. hard work and paying dues, it's (sometimes) visionary artists vs. a system that makes it all too easy to put the business side ahead of the art. The soundtrack choices alone earn a bonus point from me.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Gladiator II (2024)

While it's true that it may seem a bit too little too late when considering a sequel nowadays to Gladiator, there were a number of factors that could allow viewers some small sense of optimism. Ridley Scott back at the helm, and a cast including some hot stars of the moment, and a couple of people returning from the first film.

I couldn't really say whether or not that optimism ends up misplaced. Gladiator II is decent enough, there are some fun set-pieces and the focus is much more on the political scheming of one main character, but it pales in comparison to the 2000 movie that it is following. Maybe my opinion was tinged by watching both one after another, but what was I supposed to do when I wanted an excuse to work out my sound system while wearing a home-made toga (aka knotted bedsheet)?

Paul Mescal plays our hero this time around, a young man thrown into bloody battles after he has been enslaved during a Roman conquest of his home, in a sequence that shows him yearning for revenge after the death of someone very close to him. Pedro Pascal is General Acacius, the man who was at the head of that Roman horde, although we soon learn that he is weary of doing the bidding of Emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), two twisted souls who seem to be leading Rome further and further way from the glory of what it once was. Lucilla (Connie Nielsen) is still trying to stay safe while positioned very close to the rulers, and there's a man named Macrinus (Denzel Washington) who will twist and turn around everyone I have just mentioned as he figures out a way to get himself into a position of great power.

Springboarding directly from the original movie, David Scarpa's screenplay does everything that everyone involved must have decided it needed. That's a bit sad, because what it apparently needed was plenty of callbacks to the first film, some unnecessary ret-conning that paints one or two people in an annoyingly different light, and fights that are all about entertainment and spectacle ahead of any sense of plausibility. Fair play though, the fights worked for me, but I can see why some would hate one or two of them.

As much as I like Mescal, and as good as he is here, he isn't quite good enough. There's some steely core missing, and he's not helped by the fact that the script doesn't give him much to work with. The same can be said about Pascal, another actor I tend to really like in the right roles. Washington gets much more to say and do, which at least makes everything easier to accept and enjoy as he steals scene after scene, and both Quinn and Hechinger are a lot of fun delivering a double dose of oddness (even if it feels a bit like someone went "Gladiator had one evil Emperor so we'll be twice as good because we'll have TWO!"). As for Nielsen. She's arguably more wasted than both of her male co-stars, and her journey, still intertwined with that of Gracchus (played again by Derek Jacobi), feels almost laughably overstuffed with coincidence and misfortune. 

None of the dialogue stands out this time around, apart from the lines that will make you either groan or laugh, the main arc for our hero feels more like a clumsy scribble than a satisfying straight line, and a bit too much obvious CGI gives it that problem that many other modern blockbusters have: a feeling of weightlessness and everything being of less consequence because so much of it is made up of computer programming. Sorry to sound needlessly snippy, but even the score from Harry Gregson-Williams fails to come close to the soaring Hans Zimmer music from the first film. 

Did I enjoy this while it was on? Yes. Did I feel the 148-minute runtime? Also yes. Will I rewatch this? Probably. Will I rewatch the original film ahead of this? Absolutely. That remains a bit of a modern classic. This is mildly diverting fun that may well be forgotten in a year or two (much like that sequel to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon . . . remember when that happened?)

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Malcolm X (1992)

The more films I watch, or rewatch, from Spike Lee, the more I am inclined to shout at everyone around me about him being one of the most sadly under-appreciated master directors of modern cinema. I'm not saying that every film he does works, and there are many elements that you can dissect and argue over in even his best films, but, more often than not, the man knows how to make his points. That sometimes means bringing the film to an end with a number of people addressing the viewer directly in a plea for them to understand the point, to empathise with long-held grievances against social injustices and racism that are, despite being given some modern alterations, just as painful today as they have been decades ago.

Malcolm X is a biopic of the titular figure, but it's also so much more than that. It's a celebration of a man who had his fair share of problems, and it's another scorching statement from Lee on the need to accept human flaws when those humans end up working hard to embolden and progress people who have spent too many years abused and held down.

Denzel Washington takes on the title role, and he delivers a performance that may well be the best he's ever delivered. If you're at all familiar with his work then you'll know that is no slight compliment. Malcolm X is shown from the earliest scenes to be a charming and magnetic presence. He's also shown to be a bit of a criminal, and quite fearless about it. This puts him in the orbit of West Indian Archie (Delroy Lindo), but also eventually puts him in prison. That's when his life starts to change, eventually, and he grows more fully into the man that would make such an impact on the African American community, and a major impact on the life of Betty Shabazz (Angela Bassett).

It’s hard to be even-handed in praising Malcolm X, as it is hard to be even-handed with so many other Lee films that feel unfairly forgotten or neglected nowadays. Is this his masterpiece? Maybe. It’s definitely a strong contender, and the only reason I cannot rate it here and now as his very best is due to the quality of his output throughout his career. It’s certainly not perfect, but that feels nicely in alignment with the imperfect figure at the centre of it.

Everyone onscreen is doing great work, which is to be expected when you read through the cast list, but even the brilliant Lindo and Bassett are overshadowed by the brilliance of Washington here. It doesn’t unbalance the film though, and is no criticism of their performances. It is exactly how it should be, considering the power this man had over so many others, and the energy he could pass along to motivate others.

The pacing is the only main issue I have with this, but it’s easy to see why Arnold Perl and Lee would have a problem deciding what to leave out of any screenplay adaptation of the autobiography of Malcolm X. I am happy that they tried to give us too much as opposed to not nearly enough.

Like so many other Lee features, this is riveting, passionate, angry, intelligent, and quick to underline major problems that continue to affect people every single day. I am sure that it’s not a coincidence that the same words could be used to describe Malcolm X himself.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

The Preacher's Wife (1996)

Because I have been a fan of The Bishop's Wife for so many years, I was never in a rush to check out this mid-'90s remake. I knew I would get around to it one day, Whitney Houston and Denzel Washington in main roles would see to that, but I never made it a priority. Until now. I wish I could say that I enjoyed it, but it pales in comparison to the original film, as well as not really doing good enough in simpler, Christmas movie, terms.

Courtney B. Vance is Reverend Henry Biggs, a man who is struggling with his role. He seems to be stuck in a bit of a rut, unable to truly inspire members of his congregation, and unable to figure out the best way to effectively help the community. He's also not been present in his marriage to Julia (Houston), a young woman who tries to support her husband at all times, and who provides the best singing voice in the church choir. Thankfully, an angel (Dudley, played by Denzel Washington) is sent down to help. Nobody really believes that he is an angel though, and everyone should forget all about him once his work is done. 

Written by Nat Mauldin and Allan Scott, reworking the source material from the Robert Nathan novel and the 1947 movie, The Preacher's Wife should work much better than it does. There are great people in central roles, including Gregory Hines, Jenifer Lewis, and Loretta Devine, and Penny Marshall is the talented director helming the thing. It actually does well, raising a smile here and there, when focusing on the character of Dudley, largely thanks to an absolutely charming performance from Washington helping to keep any negative thoughts at bay. It's also altogether easier to enjoy whenever Houston is lighting up the screen with her presence. Sadly, and somewhat paradoxically, it is dragged down by moments that feel obviously inserted into the plot to give screentime to Houston's singing talent. She has a great voice, no doubt about it, but the whole film screeches to a halt for a few different songs that could easily have been excised in service of much better pacing.

As horrible as it might seem, I could also have done without the horrible performance from the main child star in the cast, Justin Pierre Edmund. Playing Jeremiah Biggs, the son of Henry and Julia, Edmund is just overdoing everything in a film that works best when the cast are allowed to be relatively quiet. He's not alone, this is a film that feels very much like the professional adults were happily giving a chance to amateur youngsters. 

I could heap praise on both Washington and Houston all day long, and I'd kill to just once look as sharply-dressed as the former, but Vance also does really good work, despite the fact that he has the toughest of the three lead roles, as the harried man trying to balance his faith and love with harsh realities. Lewis does well with her role (playing the concerned mother of Houston's character), Devine is left with little to do, but she's someone I tend to enjoy in any role, and Hines has to be the main villain, but suffers from a rushed third act that delivers the expected ending without any of it feeling truly earned. There are also roles for Paul Bates and Lionel Ritchie, the former playing a kind-hearted soul pining for Devine's character and the latter playing, well, Lionel Ritchie.

Some people will be able to enjoy this more than I did, especially those just wanting to hear Whitney Houston sing some songs that aren't in the usual rotation of her many hits, but it's hard to view it as anything other than a huge disappointment. It's also (pleasantly) surprising that nobody has tried to remake it again recently. I wouldn't even mind if they gave Washington another chance in the role of the helpful angel.

4/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Noir-vember: Devil In A Blue Dress (1995)

Written and directed by Carl Franklin, adapting a novel by Walter Mosley, Devil In A Blue Dress is a confident and traditional neo-noir that gains extra cool points, and kudos, by providing a great lead role for Denzel Washington. 

Washington is "Easy" Rawlins, a man who has just lost his job and needs some money coming in so that he can keep up the mortgage payments on his home. He ends up taking on a job from Dewitt Albright (Tom Sizemore) which involves locating a young woman named Daphne Monet (Jennifer Beals). It's not long until people start dying, Rawlins finds himself as a prime suspect, and the people trying to locate Monet may not have been honest about their reason for wanting to do so.

Despite being a film from the mid-90s, Franklin isn't interested in delivering anything other than a bloody solid noir. The script, plotting, and pacing are all unfussy and unrushed, taking time to set up the pieces that will all be turned around slightly to fall into place in time for the finale. There’s nice attention to period detail throughout, crafting enough of the late ‘40s Los Angeles world to make it a very real environment in which the action unfolds, and Franklin keeps track of every plot strand and ties everything together nicely by the very end.

The biggest problem that the film has, and that will put some people off, is just how happily traditional it is. You get some flashes of violence, you get one or two sexy moments, and you get plot points that will give even the most casual noir viewer a sense of deja vu. Thankfully, the execution is strong enough to compensate for the lack of any new ground being broken. And any film working within the noir framework is rarely looking to break new ground.

Washington is a great choice to star here, bringing his not inconsiderate amount of charm and cool to the role. He’s so good that you end up immediately hoping there are other noirs that have made use of him (suggestions welcome, I have currently drawn a blank). Sizemore is excellent as the employer who may not be as nice as he initially seems. Beals isn’t the best choice for her role, considering how vital she is at the heart of the events, but she does okay. Mel Winkler does great work in a supporting role, and you have fun little roles for Don Cheadle (sorely underused), Maury Chaykin, and Terry Kinney. There’s rarely a mis-step in the whole cast, and it’s a shame that Franklin actually doesn’t indulge himself with some more scenes just showcasing some of the smaller roles.

It’s not going to change your world, and is unlikely to become an absolute favourite, but Devil In A Blue Dress is quality entertainment that benefits from all involved taking care with the material and delivering low-key excellence across the board.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Roman J. Israel, Esq (2017)

There are good things in Roman J. Israel, Esq, quite a few good things, not least of which is the lead performance from a superb Denzel Washington. It's just a shame that the film suffers from a real lack of clarity. Does it want to be a character study, or a magnifying glass hovering over some of the biggest flaws in the American justice system, or a look at the slippery slope you can end up on when you make a wrong moral choice even just the one time?

Denzel is the titular character. He's a man who knows the legal system inside out, he has almost total recall of court statistics and numbers, and he's a good man to have on your side if you're ever in trouble. He doesn't appear in court, however, because he does the work behind the scenes while his partner makes the court appearances. That's an ideal situation until his partner has a heart attack, and when Roman turns up to court it doesn't take long to see why he's normally hidden away behind the scenes. He has no filter, which can lead to trouble for himself, and perhaps even his clients.

Trials are expensive. The American system is designed in a way to minimise people actually going to trial. So lawyers will offer plea bargains. Go to trial and risk a sentence of 25-30 years if found guilty, plead without going to trial and we'll give you 5, you can get out in 3 with good behaviour. That kind of thing. Which means, on a lot of occasions, people are too scared to even take a gamble on their RIGHT to a trial, even if they may actually be innocent of the crime.And that's what writer-director Dan Gilroy seems to want to look at here. Then he wanders over to a different area. Then back to the right to trial idea. And then somewhere else. He looks at it, and goes away and comes back to look at it some more, but not as pointedly. It leaves viewers feeling exactly how my wife feels when she sees me hovering around a nice new movie boxset I want to buy, going to other parts of the store before going back to it, making my pleading face until she caves in and says I can buy it. The frustrating thing is that Gilroy doesn't need our permission to commit to his idea, he just thinks that he does. Or he doesn't think he can make a whole movie from it, so he mixes in other ideas that just don't feel as if they belong there.

The great shame is that this confusion, this muddying of the waters, will lead to a lot of people missing one of the better Washington performances in recent years. Despite some of his familiar tics appearing here and there, this is far removed from the usual confident and cocky turns Washington has given us over the past couple of decades. There's also two fantastic supporting performances from Colin Farrell, playing someone who seems like an enemy to Roman but is actually a slick lawyer looking for a chance to improve things somewhat while still working well within the system, and Carmen Ejogo, a young woman who is inspired by Roman, as he is in turn further inspired by her.

In terms of actual dialogue, the script works well. Characters are fleshed out, exchanges are sharp and smart, and interesting ideas are drip fed throughout the main narrative. Again, it's just the meandering lack of focus and structure that undoes a lot of the good work. Viewers don't really get a feel for the time and place, the events take place over three weeks and yet it all feels as if it stretches out for much more than that, and instead of provoking more thought the jumble of elements simply results in a bit of a disinterested shrug.

But those performances make it worth your time. They are THAT good. You also get a very good soundtrack, some cracking songs interspersed by a decent score from James Newton Howard, and at least things move along quickly enough that the 2-hour runtime feels slightly brisker than it otherwise might.

6/10

Americans can buy it here.

The Equalizer (2014)

I'm pretty sure that if Denzel Washington and Liam Neeson ever starred in a movie together then every criminal on the planet would either be dead, dying or fleeing to outer space to escape their fate. These two men have kicked more ass in the latter portion of their careers than most younger stars do in their entire filmographies. And I, for one, am happy to see it.

Anyway, forget about Liam Neeson now. He's not in this film. This is a vehicle for Denzel, and what a great vehicle it is. Updating a popular TV show from the 1980s, director Antoine Fuqua reunites with his Training Day star to deliver an immensely entertaining tale of vigilante justice.

Washington plays Robert McCall, a quiet, kind man with a secret past. He works in a DIY store, he likes to read books, and he often heads out to a local diner for a cup of tea when he can't settle down for the evening. This diner also has a regular patron in the shape of a young prostitute named Teri (Chloe Grace Moretz). Teri dreams of becoming a singer one day, and McCall encourages her to keep striving to make that dream a reality. That becomes a lot harder to do when Teri is hospitalised after being beaten by her boss. Which is when McCall realises that he needs to step up and try to make things right. He's civil at first, but when that civility is thrown back in his face he replies in the only language that these people seem to understand. Violence and death.

Although it runs for a little over two hours, The Equalizer is not a film that feels bloated. The few main characters are set up nicely, the action set-pieces deliver plenty of impressive pain and bloodshed, and there's a lot of fun to be had in watching McCall resign himself to the fact that what he does best involves punishing criminals who have managed to evade the long arm of the law.

Denzel is excellent in the lead role. Some may feel that he's simply repeating the performance he gave in Man On Fire, but I prefer his work here. It's more fun to watch him move between two different personas, and the editing and other technical aspects are much better, complementing rather than obfuscating the acting on display. Moretz does just fine in her role, even if it is the pretty standard "young innocent in trouble/hooker with a good heart" that we've seen many times before. Marton Csokas is an entertaining, ruthless villain, and David Harbour does well as his temporary right hand man. Johnny Skourtis should win over most viewers as Ralphie, a man being helped by McCall to lose weight and pass the fitness test required for a security guard job that he's keen to land. There are also a couple of good cameos that I won't spoil here, although I am still sorry that we never heard an updated version of the classic TV show theme tune.

The script by Richard Wenk is well put together - having McCall work in a DIY store is a stroke of genius (okay, I might be overstating it, but it's a very good move) - and it's nice to see the film take the time to properly establish all of the main characters, even if some of their moments are cliched and slightly cheesy.

Fuqua manages to keep everything tense and visceral, handling the material with ease. Those with weak stomachs may find some of the violence a bit strong, but I think Fuqua knows his audience well and pitches the nastier moments at just the right level. The action is shot in a way that makes it cool, admittedly, yet it also constantly reminds viewers of just how quickly McCall gets himself into situations that are very, VERY dangerous.

The film covers a lot of familiar ground, yet it doesn't feel lazy or stale. And it has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fan-pleasing Denzel moments. Not quite as good as the TV show I was so fond of (and, yes, I have my rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on), this does end up being a surprisingly close contender. Dare I say that it's . . . . . . . . . . . almost its equal.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

2 Guns (2013)

Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg play two men who work together to rob a bank in this enjoyable action comedy. They aim to take the money, about $3M, that's been placed there by a major drug dealer (Papi, played by Edward James Olmos), but instead end up with over $40M. The money doesn't belong to Papi. It belongs to someone much more dangerous. As the situation gets worse for our two leads, they end up finding out more about each other, including the fact that both are actually undercover agents working for different organisations.

Written by Blake Masters, based on some graphic novels by Steve Grant, 2 Guns is a fun time from start to finish. It may not be as action-packed as some might like, but it has enough beats to allow itself the title of action comedy. Director Baltasay Kormakur seems to rely on the charisma of his two leads, something I have no problem with when they work together as well as they do. Stylistically, he seems to take a cue from Tony Scott, although there isn't as much hyperactive editing. It's more about the sun beating down, some slo-mo replays here and there, and plenty of little moments to constantly remind the viewer that the two leads are badass.

Washington and Wahlberg are both fantastic, turning in performances that really play to their strengths. The former is cool and tough, as usual, while the latter does his abrasive, fast-talking routine once again. Edward James Olmos is okay as Papi, but it's the other supporting players that help to make the whole thing more watchable. Namely James Marsden, as Wahlberg's commanding officer, and Bill Paxton, as an agent working for yet another American organisation. Paula Patton isn't bad either, and it's always good to see Fred Ward onscreen, even if he's only there for a minute or two.

There aren't too many surprises here, although there are one or two twists, and the fun definitely stems more from the journey than the destination. The finale isn't as good as it could/should be, yet it's still enjoyable enough because of that ongoing banter between the two leads. Thankfully, the main set-pieces that come along beforehand are all well executed, and the build-up to each sequence is nicely played out. Which all amounts to enough to make me like it. I enjoyed watching it for the first time recently, and I wouldn't mind watching it again at some point.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Siege (1998)

The Siege is an interesting thriller that may seem overly familiar to viewers now, but certainly seemed quite unique and daring when first released back in 1998. I'm not going to say that it was the first film of this kind, but I will say that after the real shock of 9/11 and then the subsequent escalating war on terror it has become a movie unfairly overshadowed by many more recent releases (including, for example, the thought-provoking Unthinkable).

The basic plot of The Siege concerns retaliation against America, on American soil, by a number of terrorist cells who want one of their leaders returned to them unharmed. That would be all well and good, but nobody is admitting that they actually HAVE the leader in their custody, which makes for quite a stalemate. Caught up in the middle of this tension is staunch federal agent Denzel Washington, working alongside his partner Tony Shalhoub, and a CIA operative (Annette Bening) who keeps clashing with them as she works on her own agenda. Bruce Willis plays Major General William Devereaux, a man who may prove useful or may, in fact, prove to be the most damaging individual in the city.

With Edward Zwick in the director's chair you know that this isn't going to be a vapid and glossy action movie, though perhaps they tried to market it that way when it was first released (I really don't recall). Zwick is the guy who will take a closer look at courage and morality and will make it interesting, entertaining and invested with emotion. That blend isn't always appealing to some, and he doesn't always get it right, but I've enjoyed many of his movies BECAUSE of the mix of emotion and intellect that I'm sure provides plenty of ammunition for his detractors.

Bruce Willis isn't given too much screen-time here, so don't let his presence put you off if you're not a fan (I usually quite like him, but realise that many don't). The main focus here stays on the triangle formed by Denzel, who is on his usual good form, Shalhoub, who is given one of his better movie roles and does great with it, and Bening, who is the weak link, despite how much more interesting her character could have been. I've liked Bening in a lot of movies and tend to think that her weak turn here is more the result of some poor writing than any major failing on her part. And it's not that she's bad, it's just that she should have been better. Sami Bouajila does okay as Samir Nazhde, who might be able to help the good guys stop further attacks if they can keep him in the game long enough, and David Proval does well as another agent doggedly trying to get information that will help break the case.

The screenplay by Zwick, Lawrence Wright and Menno Meyjes is surprisingly good. While the first half of the movie seems to hit standard beats and be walking a well-worn path, the second half takes a different direction and looks at things from a completely different angle. The fact that it was a very prescient movie also adds to its interest. Protests were held by many Muslims and Arab groups when it was initially released, but the film has an ace or two up its sleeve to counter the criticism it received. One of those comes in the shape of Tony Shalhoub's character, a Lebanese-American who is undeniably a good guy through and through. The other ace? Well, I wouldn't want to give too much away. Needless to say, the film shows racial profiling and stereotyping as both a tool used by government agencies and also a mistake made by people driven to distraction while something possibly much worse transpires before their very eyes.

It's a flawed film, as most of Edward Zwick's movies are, but it's also well worth watching, especially in light of events that we've seen since the turn of the 21st century.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Siege-Blu-ray-Edward-Zwick/dp/B002M4CF0A/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1361828833&sr=8-5