ShareThis Page

Review: 'Equalizer 2' atones for original dud

| Friday, July 20, 2018, 2:39 p.m.
Denzel Washington attends the premiere of Columbia Picture’s “Equalizer 2” at TCL Chinese Theatre on July 17 in Hollywood, Calif.
Getty Images
Denzel Washington attends the premiere of Columbia Picture’s “Equalizer 2” at TCL Chinese Theatre on July 17 in Hollywood, Calif.

“Equalizer 2” is the kind of raise-the-bar sequel that can convert a franchise skeptic into a fan.

Denzel Washington had a bad first turn as aged avenger Robert McCall in 2014’s “The Equalizer.” It felt like a faded 1980s action film full of embarrassing false notes.

McCall, a mild-mannered old hand, worked at a Boston home improvement superstore and ran a side business as a freelance vigilante. The finale was an in-store massacre with McCall using construction tools to turn Russian gangster/pimps into a gooey mess.

It was equal parts “The Punisher” and “Home Alone” ineffectively staged and painfully dumb.


If you forget that movie — which shouldn’t be difficult — and approach this as a stand-alone rather than a sequel, it’s pretty snazzy. It can’t quite keep its mind on telling a story, but it’s grounded, features a good villain and has a mix of tense suspense and kinetic bloodshed that is enjoyably nasty.

This is all the more surprising seeing as how, like the first movie, it is directed by Antoine Fuqua and written by Richard Wenk.

It’s easy to see why Washington would make this his first sequel. McCall is a quiet, keep-to-yourself workingman, but it’s suggested that he once was the king of Black Ops

That signature Washington expression where he looks at some unlucky sap with cold eyes and smiles like a shark comes into play very effectively. And when trouble arrives, he can pound his enemies like a blacksmith. What created his hard side is more implied than explicitly detailed, and that makes us watch Washington eagerly, searching for clues.

McCall is now a Lyft driver, so he gets to tool around Boston crossing paths with trouble rather than waiting for it to come find him. In his spare time, he’s a neck-snapping guardian angel, appearing where youngsters are in danger, beginning with a brutal, Bond-esque showdown against kidnappers.


The CIA experience that the first film hinted at is expanded here as colleague Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and her husband Brian (Bill Pullman) reappear to offer friendly support. In a stroke of excellent casting, the film also brings in a younger teammate in “Game of Thrones” heartthrob Pedro Pascal, who owns almost every scene he’s in.

There are still areas that need to be sanded and repainted.

McCall has the ability to see slow-motion outcomes of approaching fights, and the predictive mumbo-jumbo is grating. There’s also an extended side story about McCall’s involvement with an artistic teen who’s being recruited by a drug gang, an added level of hokum on a lean, mean story.

Still, following the first film, this feels like a solid triple after a swing and a miss. This time the guilty party isn’t obvious from the outset, the gumbo of red herrings we are served is quite tasty and the inevitable final showdown is remarkably well-crafted and menacing.

I haven’t seen anything like it before, and I have seen a lot.

‘Equalizer 2’ trailer

Colin Covert is a Minneapolis Star Tribune writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me