Film Reviews by RC

I think people unaware of what this film offers need to be warned that as per the title of this review, this is a very violent and gory film complete with limb and head amputation and masses of blood everywhere.

That warning aside, these Equalizer films are also extremely unrealistic in a similar vein to other's such as Rambo, with one man seemingly unstoppable against an army of baddies. I think here though 'The Equalizer 3' takes the medal because we now have an older man single handily thwarting a mass of much younger, fitter, mafia types and achieving something that the CIA with all their resources seem unable to do. Stepping back and analysing the film and to me it's too far fetched and laughable if not for the gore. Of course, we don't always want realism.

Now, after that damning review, there is obviously something to these films that's adhering to people. We all want a super hero, whether it's Superman, Rambo, The Equalizer etc., they all fit the bill. I remember watching the 1985 Equalizer TV series with Edward Woodward, and despite it being a little corny, there was still the thrill of watching someone thwarting bad people to help the person in the street for no monetary gain. This series did not have the gory violence of course, but is the same character with the same agender.

I admit, I'm not a lover of gore and seeing pools of blood and heads falling off bodies etc., and if the argument is that it makes the film more believable, then that does not hold up for me considering the whole concept of the story is not in the slightest plausible. I think had the film less gory violence it could have been more suitable for a wider audience and still maintain the fun aspect of good over evil however unbelievable ,and after all, we don't always want to watch realism.

On the plus side, the filming location is a joy to watch, and Denzel Washington's performance as the meticulous avenger questioning what he's done in the past and what needs to be done now adds depth to the character which otherwise could just be seen as a killing automaton.

I gave three stars as despite the gore, I watched it to the end, I always like to see the baddies lose! However, unlikely to give it a second viewing.

I wonder why the writers chose the DC comics character of The Joker for this film. They have not been faithful to the character from the DC comics. First of all, deviating from the reason why he's called the Joker, which is not because he was a failing comedian/clown but because he looked like a Joker from a pack of playing cards after falling into a vat of chemicals. Secondly, and more importantly, the Joker in this film is not depicted as being particularly intelligent, at least I didn't get that impression. The Joker from the original DC comics is an expert in chemical engineering and a formidable adversary to Batman. Anyone like this is hardly going to be living on the breadline as a struggling comedian or clown. If they are going to use The Joker from the Batman universe then I really think they should be faithful to the character's roots as otherwise they may just as well have created their own unique character. Maybe the filmmakers just wanted to create a bleak story about an insane character that is struggling in life and turns to murdering people. This certainly reminds of recent cases of people mass murdering in schools etc. Perhaps the writers needed The Joker label as a selling point?

I think Joaquin's performance is clever but this is a very bleak story and not sure what message if any, it has to tell. We know there are insane people about, we know that many are on the edge of committing crimes and that it just takes a nudge to send them over the edge. Do we really need to see what they do? Do we need to see the gore? That I suppose is a matter of personal preference.

This story is reminiscent of others such as 'Falling Down' with Michael Douglas, a man pushed over the edge. Another bleak film, but at least this character is not borrowed from DC comics, and realistically is caught in the end. The Joker on the otherhand vades capture time after time though fortuitous events rather than through design. Compare that to the original Joker that is not only able to escape from the Police but also Batman! You would need more than luck for this.

To me, this is not a character from the Batman universe. I think it would have been better had the writers created a different character of their own and then let Joaquin's acting let loose with this individual.

I enjoyed this film, plenty going on and a little dry humour thrown in. The special effects were good, of course, and I liked the effect of the ships coming out of light speed, suddenly appearing and then coming to a halt. However, effects alone don't make a film, the story is far more important and in this respect I felt the film was good rather than great. The reason I feel this way is that although certain elements of the saga have now been closed and maybe needed to be, such as losing some of the main characters from the first three films, the creators are stirring the dying embers to keep the franchise going. We end up with similar story elements to the previous films and neither the First Order - previously known as the Empire, which really is just a name change - nor the Rebellion are ever defeated. History repeats itself and the battle goes on and on and on. How many more Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker and Emperor types will we have? I'm not sure at this point that I want to watch another sequel despite enjoying this one. I think the idea that neither side will win, that there will always be dark and light is the ultimate conclusion. Maybe the writers have many more ideas that will inspire me to watch the next incarnation, just maybe there is hope....

This film is based on the true story of Bill Bryson - played by Robert Redford - who attempts to walk the Appalachian Trail with his overweight, alcoholic friend played by Nick Nolte. It has some hilarious moments and a few more serious ones thrown in for good measure. The story is simple which in itself is not a problem, not everything has to be full of deep meaning in this life, so despite this I was compelled to watch the entire film and enjoyed it. The performances from these two stars is excellent and I never felt the film lagged at any point. If there is one aspect of the film which I felt may have been a little unrealistic is the ages of the two stars compared to the real life counterparts. When Bill Bryson attempted this very long walk of almost 2200 miles, he was in his fifties. However, maybe I'm wrong and there are plenty of 70 and 80 year old people perfectly able to walk this distance.