The Equalizer

Not rated yet!
Antoine Fuqua
2 h 12 min
Release Date
24 September 2014
Thriller, Action, Crime
In The Equalizer, Denzel Washington plays McCall, a man who believes he has put his mysterious past behind him and dedicated himself to beginning a new, quiet life. But when McCall meets Teri (Chloë Grace Moretz), a young girl under the control of ultra-violent Russian gangsters, he can’t stand idly by – he has to help her. Armed with hidden skills that allow him to serve vengeance against anyone who would brutalize the helpless, McCall comes out of his self-imposed retirement and finds his desire for justice reawakened. If someone has a problem, if the odds are stacked against them, if they have nowhere else to turn, McCall will help. He is The Equalizer.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?



Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
John Hanlon3
John Hanlon Reviews

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Equalizer
    Denzel Washington often plays quiet men thrust into life-or-death situations (Unstoppable, thumb John Q.) or loud overconfident men whose personal failings undermine their innate abilities (Training Day, see Flight). He plays a mixture of both...
    (Review Source)
  • Jimmy Fallon Lip Sync Battle
    Denzel Washington often plays quiet men thrust into life-or-death situations (Unstoppable, thumb John Q.) or loud overconfident men whose personal failings undermine their innate abilities (Training Day, see Flight). He plays a mixture of both characters in his new action...
    (Review Source)
  • The Movies of 2014
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The end of 2014 is quickly approaching. With that in mind, page I went back and created a list of all of the films that I reviewed this year and the different ratings I gave them. Of course, this this isn’t a complete list of all of the films I saw this year. It’s...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff2
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • September's 10 Most Popular Movie Trailers
    Lifestyle Fall is decisively under way. September saw the release of many new movie trailers. It’s an interesting time of the year, not quite late enough to start seeing much from next year’s highly anticipated lineup of blockbusters. That clears the way for some lesser known projects to take a greater share of the public’s attention. Here are the top 10 most popular movie trailers released in September. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'God Help The Girl Official Trailer #1 (2014) - Emily Browning Movie HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10. God Help the GirlEmily Browning has a stealthy little career going for her, working steadily in films which no one sees. Her most mainstream appearance came in Zack Snyder’s directorial misstep Sucker Punch. The other places you may have seen her were this year’s Pompeii and the Jim Carrey showpiece from a few years back, Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.She has a trademark beauty which oscillates between strange and captivating. It’s a look which suits this eccentric musical drama well. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 Most Popular Movie Trailers Released So Far This Summer
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Very Good Girls Official Trailer #1 (2014) - Elizabeth Olsen, Dakota Fanning Movie HD', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); This month sees a new feature here at PJ Lifestyle, our review of movie trailers promoting upcoming theatrical releases. This will be a work in progress, guided heavily by your feedback and insight. So don’t hold back.To kick things off, we present a list of the top 10 movie trailers released in June, based on their online popularity. There’s a surprising mix of several-hundred-million-dollar would-be blockbusters and smaller independent films, everything from chick flicks to the epic actioners you might expect. We begin with:10. Very Good GirlsTwo actresses work to advance their careers in this sexually charged coming-of-age drama. Dakota Fanning continues to shed her child star image, while Elizabeth Olsen continues to distinguish her individual brand from that of her more widely known elder sisters. The two play girls who “make a pact to lose their virginity during their first summer out of high school,” a plan complicated when they both pursue the same man.Both Fanning and Olsen have portrayed older roles, and this may seem like a step backwards but for the mature subject matter. Peter Sarsgaard looks to turn in another performance as a pervy creeper, something he’s quite good at. The film also stars Demi Moore, Richard Dreyfuss, and Marvel’s Agents of Shield lead Clark Gregg. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)

Plugged In1
Focus on the Family

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Equalizer
    DramaAction/Adventure We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.Movie ReviewIt's a good thing Robert McCall takes the bus. This is one guy you wouldn't want to accidentally cut off on the freeway. Oh, he's pleasant enough when you haven't crossed him. In fact, he seems like a really good guy. He works at a Boston Home Mart, cutting plywood and helping customers. He's been training Ralphie, a fellow Home Mart employee, to lose a little weight so the guy can apply for a security guard position. When he can't sleep (which is every night), he heads on down to the local diner and reads, exchanging a friendly word or two with the other night owls. The only time Robert gets pushy is when the subject turns to diet. "Thought you were giving up on that refined sugar," he chides Teri as she picks at a piece of pie. "I am," she says, "… one of these days." Teri's a call girl, probably underage. She asks him about the book he's reading; he questions her eating habits. She'd like to be a singer, and sugar can be murder on the vocal chords. They barely know each other. Then one dark evening, sporting a fresh bruise on her cheek, Teri sits down beside Robert at his normal table and hands him a CD—a collection of songs she's recorded. Alina's her real name, she tells him. And in the space of a minute or two, without saying much of anything, she somehow spills out her hopelessness, her sorrow over what her life has been, what her life will always be. "You know what I really am," she says, embarrassed. "You can be anything you want to be," Robert tells her. And they walk out of the diner together, just talking. A block or two away, an SUV pulls in front of them. A man gets out, grabs Teri and hits her, forcing her into the vehicle. He looks at Robert and, mistaking him for a John, says Teri's "no good." He has one of his henchmen give Robert a card—advertising Russian prostitutes—and tells him to give the number a jingle to get someone better. Next time Robert sees Teri, she's in the hospital, her face looking like it's been grated. He doesn't say hello. She's half unconscious anyway. But in that moment, Robert decides to pay a visit to Slavi, her violent pimp. He hopes the meeting will be just a simple business transaction. But if things turn ugly, Robert knows he can be particularly persuasive when he wants to. Before Home Mart, Robert killed for a living. He could make it quick or excruciating, using a gun or a knife or a hose or a blowtorch. He can transform into a bear just woken, a wildfire just sparked. And he's about to make Slavi an offer that the man really, really shouldn't refuse.Positive ElementsRobert becomes the Equalizer again reluctantly, it would seem. When we first meet him, he's just fine being a regular ol' guy, a friend, an employee, a diner patron. He later says that he laid down his weapons and brutal methods out of respect for his dead wife, and he never planned to pick them up again. But when he sees such a grave injustice, and when he knows he can do something about it, he begins to feel like he has to act. And while we'll take issue with Robert's way of intervening, his motives are always admirable. He's sort of like Batman, you might say, only with a penchant for death and power tools. He very much wants to rescue Teri (a victim of human trafficking), and he even tries to do so at first without violence, plopping nearly $10,000 in front of Slavi as payment for her freedom. When he discovers that policemen are shaking down businesses for "protection" money, he gives the cops an opportunity to do the right thing too. He's enraged that these dirty officers are "disrespecting the badge," and he'll do what he can to encourage them to return to the straight and narrow—before laying down the hurt. Indeed, almost every time Robert's about to start maiming and killing folks, he gives them a chance to escape their fearsome fate. But Robert's much more admirable when he's not the dealer of death. He's a mentor, it seems, for nearly everyone he comes across—encouraging Ralphie to lay off the potato chips and helping the guy and his mother repair their restaurant when it suffers a mysterious electrical fire. When a thug robs the Home Mart, Robert makes the right decision and gives the guy what he wants, protecting innocent lives. (He does get the stolen merchandise back later. Forcibly.) And when Teri gets out of the hospital, Robert gives her a gift, in secret, that will make a huge difference in the girl's life. His kindness is repaid, particularly by Ralphie, who risks his life to save his friend in a time of need.Spiritual ContentRalphie's restaurant-running mother clasps her hands in prayer when her "protection" money is returned. A Russian icon of Madonna and Child hangs in Slavi's lair. (It's sprayed with blood during a battle.) When we first see Teri, she wears huge cross earrings. Her friend Mandy—also a prostitute—wears a necklace with a sideways cross on it. Teddy, The Equalizer's main villain, is covered in satanic tattoos. Robert says his wife was a big reader; when she died he decided to take up the hobby so that "one day we'll have something to talk about" (suggesting a belief in heaven). Slavi snidely asks a henchman if he (Slavi) looks like Jesus Christ.Sexual ContentTeri wears revealing getups, including super-short shorts, cleavage-baring tops and tight dresses. A website for her prostitution service is covered with pictures of women in lingerie. Characters make crude and lewd remarks about prostitution, masturbation and bits of the human anatomy. We see a guy's torso and quite a lot of his midsection, too, while he showers.Recommended ResourceA Chicken's Guide to Talking Turkey With Your Kids About SexKevin LemanEven the bravest parents feel timid about discussing sex with their 8- to 14-year-olds! This resource offers reassuring, humorous, real-life anecdotes along with reliable information to help you with this challenging task.Buy NowViolent ContentRobert would have us believe that he is a reluctant killer—but once he gets started he's an unstoppable machine, and the results are very, very bloody. Among other things, he jams a corkscrew through a man's chin (and the camera shot is so explicit we see the metal inside his mouth), he hangs a henchman with barbed wire (staring into the eyes of the gasping, struggling man as he chokes and bleeds out), he skewers somebody with a tree trimmer, he repeatedly shoots a guy with a nail gun (pausing after each pull of the trigger to accentuate the agony), he stabs a man to death with shards of glass, he dispatches another dude with a drill (burrowing into the back of the man's neck). That's one long sentence. But it's not really even long enough, because the carnage just continues and continues. Robert kills 20 or more villains in increasingly "creative" ways. Most deaths involve some sort of blade (we see pictures of the corpses, some sporting grotesque injuries), but he's not above using guns or microwaved oxygen tanks or household electricity or his own neck-snapping hands. Sometimes he aims to hurt, not kill—pummeling a pair of dirty cops into submission until they promise to right their wrongs. Another he threatens (and begins) to kill with carbon monoxide poisoning. When a thug steals a ring, Robert "borrows" a hammer from Home Mart: The ring mysteriously comes back, and we see Robert wiping blood off the hammer before putting it back on display. He gets shot at least twice, and he painfully patches himself up, once using boiling honey to seal the wound, another time cauterizing it with a heated doorknob. He gets cut and pounded on. One of his friends gets shot. Everyone seems to leave trails of blood behind them as they move about. Ships and trucks explode. A man is nearly beaten to death—before we watch his assailant picks things (bone fragments?) out of the scrapes on his own knuckles. A woman is strangled. Two crooked cops are found dead, and we're told their testicles were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. (We see pictures of their bloody bodies.) We hear a story that suggests Teddy killed his adoptive mother and father. Someone says a prostitute had her face scarred with battery acid.Crude or Profane Language"Why do you curse so much?" Robert gently chastises some of his Home Mart colleagues. We could ask the same question of this movie's scriptwriter. While Robert doesn't do much swearing here, everyone around him seems compelled to make up for his reticence. We hear close to 100 f-words and about a dozen s-words. Also "a--," "b--ch," "h---" and "p---," along with "p---y" and "c--k." Teri flips off a pair of flirty construction workers. God's name is abused a few times, twice with "d--n."Drug and Alcohol ContentA baddie bites down on a cigarette. Robert buys some over-the-counter medication as a ruse. There's talk of drug dealing.Other Negative ElementsConclusionThe Equalizer is based on a television show that aired—when else?!—in the 1980s. And while the original show wasn't exactly opposed to showing some violence, this R-rated film version takes things to a new, disturbing level. While Robert may want to keep his adversaries alive and simply chastened, the movie seems to relish the high degree of pain he inflicts. And the gore he creates. There are heavy doses of sadism administered here that rub against our protagonist's loftier ethos—a desire to see these villains not just eradicated, but made to suffer in extreme ways as they die. If Robert was in charge of the country's death row inmates, he might initiate a program for penance and reform in hopes that not all would die. If director Antoine Fuqua was making a movie about that same thing, he might simply swap lethal injections for a hungry pack of dogs. Or for a hedge trimmer. Or for an iron maiden filled with wooden skewers. Pro-social ContentObjectionable ContentSummary AdvisoryPlot SummaryChristian BeliefsOther Belief SystemsAuthority RolesProfanity/ViolenceKissing/Sex/HomosexualityDiscussion TopicsAdditional Comments/NotesEpisode Reviews]]>
    (Review Source)

Debbie Schlussel2
The New York Post

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Wknd Box Office: Gone Girl, Equalizer, Annabelle, Boxtrolls, Hector & the Search for Happiness, Skeleton Twins, Kelly & Cal
    Blog Posts Movie Reviews Hector and the Search for Happiness“: While this quirky movie starts out well–fun and entertaining–it ends up being a messy, annoying chick flick that tries too hard to be too cute and quirky by half. I enjoyed the first two-thirds of the movie, but it quickly deflates with the protagonist male crying and declaring his love for his chick. Please, make it stop. The story: Hector (Simon Pegg), a quirky English psychiatrist, gets tired of hearing how unhappy his patients are. And he’s kind of bored with his regimented life that is the same day after day. Plus, he’s not sure he’s really in love with his beautiful girlfriend who takes care of his every need. So, he goes on a trip to search the world for the meaning of happiness. He goes to China, Africa, and Los Angeles and encounters a number of adventures and characters, including a Chinese prostitute (that he doesn’t know is one), Tibetan monks, a Spanish mobster in Africa, and Hector’s ex-girlfriend, who is now married with kids. The movie is good until he ends up in Los Angeles. But, again, it tries too hard to be quirky and cutesy. And I generally loathe movies in which men bawl and declare their love in the process. ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Wknd Box Office: Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, Equalizer 2, Unfriended: Dark Web
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    By Debbie Schlussel This weekend’s new movies have two things in common: 1) they are all sequels, and2) I hated ’em all (though in varying degrees). Remember, you can hear my movie reviews most Fridays on “The Larry The Cable Guy Show” at around 10:35 a.m. Eastern on SiriusXM’s Jeff and Larry’s Comedy Roundup Channel […]
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff2
Counter Currents Publishing

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • Blackwashing Us Out of Our Own Culture
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Dev Patel is a natural for David Copperfield in Victorian London.

    2,040 words

    At the beginning of this year, I wrote an article exposing the Huffington Post’s double standard and anti-white agenda [2] when it comes to racialized casting in film and television series. The Huffington Post’s position reflects that of the mainstream media at large, whereby persons of color being cast in white roles is to be applauded, whereas whites being cast in non-white roles is to be denounced. We have yet another high-profile example in the current news, as Indian actor Dev Patel has been cast in the forthcoming cinematic adaptation of Charles Dickens’ novel David Copperfield entitled The Personal History of David Copperfield. Patel is best known for his lead role in 2008’s Slumdog Millionaire, for which he was nominated for a BAFTA.

    Neither his acting talent nor lack thereof are in question here; what ought to be apparent is that yet another white male actor has been discriminated against in the name of “diversity.” In fact, judging by the photo above, the cast seems rather laden with men of color. Catherine Zeta-Jones having taken on a Hispanic role was an exception rather than the rule and her marriage into the Jollywood elite also probably had something to do with it, as well as other reasons into which I go in the article. In any case, it is the white male who is the primary target for blackwashing, because then the non-white man/white woman interracial couple can be propagandized as a norm in order to push white genocide through miscegenation. If you are new to Radical Rightist Websites like this one, just watch any commercial break on television and you will see what I mean.

    One of the latest tricks in television advertising is to use a white female cancer patient in such a relationship. This evokes pathos by using the woman’s spiritedness while suffering from the disease so that the viewer’s sympathies are aroused towards the family unequivocally. Of course, the meta-narrative is aimed at white genocide and the people in the advert are mere actors, but the general public absorbs this propaganda uncritically, and pointing out the anti-white agenda in the advert would provoke a negative and hysterical reaction against the person doing so. And this would rather prove the point, because the masses would be synthesizing the two narratives, and a critique of the miscegenated family would be bound up with a perceived attack on someone with cancer. And because no one wants to be seen as a sociopathic monster, the propaganda goes unchallenged, and so do the real monsters behind the propaganda, who know precisely what they are doing every step of the way and hide behind an ostensibly benevolent charity like Macmillan Cancer Support, whose CEO Lynda Thomas earns at least £161,000 per annum, because charity begins at home . . . *cough*

    To return to David Copperfield, the casting of a non-white has been perpetrated not only against whites in general, but against Charles Dickens in particular. Dickens was firmly on the Right when it came to politics, as I have discussed several times before, setting up literary magazines to combat Whig propaganda, and was a disciple of the philosopher Thomas Carlyle. Dickens’ novels and stories expose the evils of Whiggish liberal capitalism and exhort the middle classes into real and meaningful acts of charity. He gave public readings of A Christmas Carol, with a collection at the end so that the audience would donate alms for the poor. The character David Copperfield was very much based on Dickens himself, who wrote in the Preface to the 1869 edition:

    Of all my books, I like this the best. It will be easily believed that I am a fond parent to every child of my fancy, and that no one can ever love that family as dearly as I love them. But, like many fond parents, I have in my heart of hearts a favourite child. And his name is DAVID COPPERFIELD.

    [3]David Copperfield’s initials are a reversal of Charles Dickens’ own and, although the episodes and characters in the novel are fictional, they are based on real characters and events in Dickens’ life. Indeed, it is interesting that the novel is written in the first person. The original illustrations by Hablot Knight Browne (a.k.a Phiz to Dickens’ Boz) show a very fair-looking boy, and later man (see the image to the right), in keeping with the native English. If all this seems very obvious to you, it is because you either already see through the Leftist and Zionist establishment’s lies or you were schooled before the minions of cultural Leftism completely rewrote the syllabi and history.

    Much of our cultural information about the Victorian era comes via Dickens and cinematic interpretations of Dickens’ work. Dickens as culture-bearer pretty much dominates that period. As in all cultural texts, there is a degree of exaggeration for effect, and characters sometimes tend towards caricature and events arranged as to engender the maximum emotive reaction. The idea behind this is to motivate people into doing good and combating evil. Ninety percent of people are naturally lethargic until pushed, and a mitigated and qualified examination of “the condition of England” in novel form is not going to get people motivated and off their arses! Dickens’ observations on the era are therefore true, but an exaggerated Truth. This contrasts with the Left, who have no commitment to Truth whatsoever. The casting of Dev Patel is to perpetrate a lie about our history quite deliberately, to plant the notion in the masses’ consciousness that England and Europe beyond has always been multi-racial. To borrow from Marxism, the Leftist filmmakers are adding to the creation of a false consciousness in which white culture and civilization was not created by the white man.

    This is why we have seen a reevaluation of the Victorian era over the last few years. One of the former incarnations of the Left – that of classical Marxism – very much sided with Dickens’ view of Victorian England as exploitative of the workers. In fact, Marx and Engels borrowed heavily from Dickens’ descriptions of English working-class life. As the current Left has no interest in the white working class, made up as it is primarily of creamy bourgeois self-loathing whites and a multi-ethnic rabble hailing largely from their respective countries’ underclass, Victorian England has been re-presented and represented as a diverse melting pot seeped in racial hatred, with non-whites portrayed as having been oppressed and struggling against adversity, yet having gone on somehow to make some vital contribution to society. Examples of such texts are the 2003 book by various “scholars,” Black Victorians, Black Victoriana; Walter Dean Myers’ 1999 book At Her Majesty’s Request: An African Princess in Victorian England; Gareth H. H. Davies’ book of last year, Pablo Fanque and the Victorian Circus: A Romance of Real Life; the 2010 Radio 4 program Britain’s Black Revolutionary about William Cuffay; the film Victoria & Abdul from last year, directed by Jewish director Stephen Frears; and so on.

    Victoria & Abdul is particularly significant in that the name Abdul is similar phonetically to that of Victoria’s late husband Albert and is again an example of blackwashing, of directly replacing a white male with a non-white. In the film, Abdul very much serves as a replacement for Victoria’s lost husband, and she becomes subservient to him in the way in which feminists scream hysterically about “patriarchy!” in the case of white husbands. The film is very much reminiscent of the 1997 film Mrs. Brown, which uncoincidentally also stars Judi Dench in the same role of Queen Victoria. One could easily see this as essentially a remake in which John Brown has been blackwashed out by Abdul Karim, in which a white working-class male has been replaced by an “ethnic minority.” Of course, blackwashing in cinematic remakes and reboots goes on all the time: think of The EqualizerKing Arthur: Legend of the SwordThe Manchurian CandidateThe Fantastic FourAnnie, and so on.

    The director of this latest, very deceptive and dishonest interpretation of David Copperfield is Armando Iannucci, the son of Italian anti-fascists. He is very much of the postmodern Left that deconstructs everything European. It would be inaccurate to call him a Communist because he deconstructed Stalinism in his film, The Death of Stalin – although I suspect he would never have ridiculed Trotsky’s death. He is naturally beloved of The Guardian, who wrote a eulogy steeped in anti-white racial hatred [4], praising Iannucci for his allegedly “color-blind” casting. The Guardian is of course as dishonest as Iannucci himself. There is no colorblindness here, which is exposed by the producer Kevin Loader in the article itself:

    “Armando always knew he wanted Dev,” says Loader. “Once you realise that, then you’re making a statement about the fact that you’re going to cast actors who are capable of embodying the character as perfectly as possible, regardless of their ethnicity. I was standing on the side of the set the other day, watching a scene between three of the younger characters. I suddenly realised I was watching three young black British actors in a Dickens adaptation, none of which were written as black characters. And it didn’t seem odd. It’s just another scene in the film.”

    Loader makes the point that London in the 1840s was more diverse than costume dramas tend to depict. “London was the centre of a huge global empire and was full of everybody. Just as it’s a global city now. Traditionally, Dickens adaptations haven’t reflected that.”

    It is the typical doublethink of the Left in which they try to convince themselves of being race-blind and yet simultaneously obsess over race. If one thinks about it, one has to obsess about race if one wishes to convince oneself it does not exist, just as the atheist obsesses about the Judaic god. I think about race, therefore I am racially aware. And there yet again we see the Ministry of Truth in action, rewriting Victorian history, just as I have outlined above. We are diverse; we have always been diverse. There is no white genocide because there is no such thing as whiteness, except when they deconstruct and denigrate it and place a white woman next to a man of color, or a white man next to an Asian woman, as a prompt to miscegenate. Is that not propagandizing white genocide? Is it not propagandizing White genocide every time a white is replaced by a non-white in his own cultural text? Yes, blackwashing is the promotion of White genocide.

    The question remains as to what is to be done about all this. The first step is to stop going to the cinema. As Iago says, “Put money in thy purse.” After the box office abandonment of The Last Jedi, the Star Wars franchise is already in jeopardy. Let it be so with the whole establishment propaganda machine. Cut off the cash flow and you cut off their life’s blood. Secondly, and I have said this many times, but will say it many more until people get off their arses and become proactive: become culture-bearers yourselves. Learn our real history and write about it to inform others. Create your own films, stories, and cultural texts for our own people. Write articles critiquing the anti-white anti-culture of the Left and Zionists like this one. It costs nothing but time. Thirdly, disseminate and publicize these texts far and wide and make people aware of their existence. It takes little effort. You can do it with a few clicks of the mouse.

    Speaking of such texts, as if by magic, our latest episode of Mjolnir at the Movies is on cinematic adaptations of a Charles Dickens novel, as we look at David Lean and Roman Polanski’s interpretations of Oliver Twist. Along the way, we discuss sexual abuse in Hollywood, the privileged status of the (((eternal victim group))), Tommy Robinson and his Zionist handlers, and racial awareness in history. And, as the still of Alec Guinness’ Fagin shows, the Happy Merchant meme has a long and distinguished history:

    This article originally appeared at the Mjolnir Magazine [5]Website. Be sure to check out Mjolnir‘s YouTube channel, Mjolnir at the Movies [6], which features film commentary from a Right-wing pagan perspective.

    (Review Source)
  • It’s Not Always Good to be King: The Folk Horror of Philip Loraine’s Day of the Arrow
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]3,654 words

    Day of the Arrow [2] (1964)
    By “Philip Loraine” [Robin Estridge]
    UK: Collins, 1964; US: Morrow, 1964
    US reissue: Valancourt, 2015

    Eye of the Devil [3] (1966); aka 13
    Directed by J. Lee Thompson and others
    Screenplay by Robin Estridge
    Starring David Niven, Deborah Kerr, Donald Pleasance, David Hemmings, Edward Mulhare, and “introducing” Sharon Tate. 

    “He isn’t living at Bellac, he is Bellac.”

    Christopher Pankhurst’s excellent review [4] of the apparently quite worthwhile Folk Horror Revival: Field Studies,[1] or rather, some comments thereon, has reminded me that I have been slothful in getting ‘round to reviewing Day of the Arrow, an extremely interesting novel published by “Philip Loraine” — a pseudonym of novelist and screenwriter Robin Estridge — which served as the basis for the Brit-horror cult film Eye of the Devil — and perhaps another, more well known, movie popular among neo-pagans.

    Out of print for decades, it now reappears as one of the “20th Century Classics” being reprinted by the estimable independent publisher Valancourt.[2]

    Here’s Valancourt’s description:

    James Lindsay has been summoned to the ancient estate of Bellac by his old flame, Françoise, to help her husband, Philippe de Montfaucon, who has inexplicably become convinced that he is about to die. His fears may not be unfounded: in old tomes in the castle’s library, Lindsay learns that almost every male Montfaucon has met with a mysterious and untimely end. Now with the ancient festival of Les Treize Jours approaching and the castle filling up with strange and sinister visitors, Lindsay must unravel an intricate and horrifying web of legend and superstition to save Philippe from a terrible fate . . .

    And the critics weigh in:

    “The sophisticated and the primitive, the seen and the half-seen . . . homosexuals and witches, in an intriguing mixture of old and new.” — Chicago Tribune

    “Brooding, atmospheric . . . an ancestral castle and its village are the setting for a highly civilized and aristocratic nightmare . . . full of tantalizing and terror-filled symbols.” — Anthony Boucher, New York Times

    You can’t blame Valancourt for making the book sound much more like the conventional Dennis Wheatley or William Peter Blatty type of “satanic thriller.” Marketing aside, it’s probably best to let the reader discover for himself that this is no ordinary “occult horror” tale.

    In fact, the most impressive thing about this short novel is how comfortable it is with ambiguity and uncertainty. Unlike the usual heroic priest/investigator takes on the evil/Satanic cult/conspiracy dreck, both of our protagonists are thoroughly conflicted.

    Both, when we first meet them (Philippe, at least, in Lindsay’s memories) are modern, secular hedonists. Phillipe, it turns out, was only attempting to escape his fate — contrary to Mel Brooks, it’s not always good to be the king — and having been drawn back to it, ineluctably, comes to even accept his role as the dying savior of the vineyards. Lindsay, who initially sees himself in the conventional, bourgeois role[3] of saving Phillipe, finds himself more and more responsive to the ancient call of the blood; as Chris Rock said about OJ, he doesn’t approve, but he understands.[4]

    I must admit that my interest was piqued by that “homosexuals and witches” line, thinking there might be something here along the lines of the Aryan Männerbund on display, but both are not so much red herrings — though Lindsay is relieved to think his old pal has abandoned his family and hangs out at the old chateau with a lovely young man (one “Christian”!) simply as a typically French mid-life crisis[5] — as they are symptoms, clues, or symbols, of deeper concerns.

    Philippe’s gay romp has less to do with what Judeo-Cons would call dissolute European morals than with the survival of the more ancient and authentic European traditions:

    “The Romans had brought the god Mithra into France: the god who was a god of soldiers, a god of men — of men without women; and he spoke also of the ancients, to whom the love of man for man was pure love, while the love of man for woman was not.”

    “The Troubadours, as you may know, came from Languedoc, and the songs they sang—as you probably don’t know—were nothing to do with the love of knights for fair ladies; they were hymns of the old religion, and any physical love they extolled had nothing to do with women, for you see, the love of man for woman was of the flesh, evil; to bring more souls into a world ruled by evil was, in itself a sin.”

    We’ll get back to this remarkable little history lesson in a bit, but as for witches, this element is also a mere symbol of a deeper theme: paganism, that is, the rural belief system that preceded and survived Christianity, and for which here even the country doctors have a grudging respect:

    “Your husband’s just like the rest of them; they’ve always had this trust in their wise old women.[6] You always get that sort of thing in real country places—harmless, and useful kinds of witchcraft. Such a stupid name for it!’”

    “‘Oh yes,” said the abbé, “she’s a witch, all right. Never underestimate the knowledge of a witch; mankind has forgotten more things, and more important things, than he will ever learn.”

    “If you asked anyone in this valley about the girl [Christian’s sister, Odile] they would tell you at once that she was a witch.”

    So things are a little more complicated here than in either your typical Evangelical screed against “the Awk-ult” or the gee-whiz enthusiasm of a “History” Channel “Mysteries of the Grail” doco.

    “To men like Père Dominique and Luchard and my son, Bellac’s festival of the Thirteen is . . . how shall I put it? Is debased. The people have always leaned towards the old witch cult. What you saw yesterday in the village is no longer pure, yet it goes hand in hand with the deeper secrets. And . . .’ The old voice faltered. ‘And . . . at certain times, it is the people who demand . . .”

    Gnosticism — specifically, it seems, Mithraism — survives in this French valley under the cover of Christianity,[7] while rural paganism lurks at an even deeper level, trumping both. The latter requires the sacrifice of the Marquis to return fertility to the vineyards, while the former provides the local nobs with an ethic of virility, courage, and service that makes their self-sacrifice possible.[8]

    “One comes at last,” he said finally, “to an acknowledgment of one’s responsibilities.”

    These underlying historic layers are, of course, also present psychologically,[9] accounting for the conflicts between the main protagonists’ modern, secular consciousness — which is relatively thin and brittle — and the underlying call of the blood.

    There was inside him some buried forest sense that warned him of danger.

    He would dearly have liked to rip off the dressing [applied by the old wise woman], yet, almost in spite of himself, he had an absolute trust in her methods; it was as if the sureness of those old fingers had stirred in him an ancient, long-lost belief.

    Perhaps, indeed, there was an instinctive knowledge in him deeper than the knowledge of mere intelligence.[10]

    I suppose paganism survives among “the ignorant” but how is it possible for Gnosticism to survive? By exploiting the central weakness of the orthodox: reliance on scripture alone (sola scriptura). As Alan Watts would say, the Church has replaced the religion of Jesus — verified by personal experience — with the religion about Jesus — blind “faith” in supposedly “historically true” scriptures.[11] But as Protestantism discovered, mere words can be “interpreted” any way one wants

    The theme of words is introduced early, as Lindsay mediates on how to broach the subject of Philippe’s withdrawal:

    Lindsay fell to thinking of the explosive possibilities of words. Supposing he were to turn now and say to Philippe, ‘Why haven’t you slept with your beautiful wife for three years?’ or ‘You know, I suppose, that Françoise has a lover,’ or even ‘Philippe, please tell me: what was that girl doing in your tower with a dead dove?’

    As Lindsay attends curiously disturbing Mass in the village, the theme reemerges in a theological or theurgic — context: “the words—or rather the meaning they had for this poised, utterly silent crowd.” In particular, the once familiar doxology: in the Beginning was . . . the Word.

    “They have never been true Christians in the valley of Bellac; when Père Dominique celebrates Mass, the words that the people hear are not the same words that you hear . . . But at Bellac ‘the Word’ means the old knowledge, the old pagan religion.”

    Besides this main theme, Loraine also sounds some of my favorite themes, such as the equivocal nature of “beauty” and “ugliness” when questions of spirituality are involved;[12] thus the lovely Christian is, like Christianity in the valley, an epiphenomenon of a more primitive substratum.

    [Christian’s] features were absolutely regular, and should have added up to good looks; however, they did not—not even to languid, vapid good looks.

    Lindsay knew that even the most faultless features, even the blankest type of young-girl beauty, revealed something strange during its transposition to a piece of paper. And this face was far from blank.

    Lindsay had discovered something odd about this face; it emerged from his first sketch of it, which was like and yet utterly unlike; was, in fact, the face of a half-wit, a mongol. Fascinated by the discovery and its implications, he did not speak for some time. Yes, it was true; the eyes were too widely spaced, yet in the flesh this was barely apparent. The surprising lift to the cheekbones was, in the flesh, in some way canceled out or, now that he came to look again, balanced by the boy’s high color; yet in the drawing, robbed of coloring, the face that looked back at him was primitive, and the youthful yet mocking glance emerged as mere slyness. He was, Lindsay realized without surprise, the kind of person who cannot stand near to anyone without touching him; he put an arm round Lindsay’s shoulder. Yes, Lindsay thought, an animal. Most interesting, and far from unlikable.

    Then there’s the archeofuturism; not just the presence of the past in the present, but the liberating — and very Gnostic — idea that our present imagination enables us to literally change the future:

    “You don’t know, you see; you don’t know what is, so how can you know what will be?”

    It was as if her passionate conviction could, in some way, stamp itself upon the future—bend the future to conform with what she so desperately believed.

    “No one,” [Odile the witch] replied, “can have too much imagination. . . . There is no such thing as either reality or imagination; they are the same thing.”

    Lindsay’s lengthy interrogation of Philippe’s father reverses — and therefore emphatically recalls — the Tooth Fairy’s Revelation of the Method to the wheelchair bound (literally) reporter in Manhunter.[13] In both cases, disjointed images of the past are invoked, accompanies by the repeated interrogative — but really, injunctive — “Do you see?”[14]

    Lindsay began to comprehend the ineluctable, deeply atavistic force—where the tonsured priest and the witch walked hand in hand—that was driving Philippe de Montfaucon to an accepted death.

    At the ideological climax, as Philippe defends his choice of dying to save the vineyards, and Lindsay, the rejected Savior, begins to see, Loraine even recalls Ananda Coomaraswamy’s defiant Tu quoque response to the hypocrites of British imperialism who affected a horrified reaction to the “barbaric” practice of sati, while smugly sending tens of thousands of young men to “die for their country” on pain of imprisonment and social stigma:

    “But don’t you see—you’re dying for nothing. I shall die for my faith, and for my people—is that nothing? Did the millions who died in the last war, will the millions who are going to die in the next, die for more?” He shook his head. “When your turn comes, James, ask yourself, ‘Am I dying for what I passionately believe?’ The answer will be ‘No.’”

    It was not true—it could not be true—that Philippe de Montfaucon, a more than ordinarily civilized man, intended to die on the cloudy August day that was soon to dawn. And yet thousands of men had died for their religion. It was no longer very fashionable, but it was certainly less stupid than dying for what was euphemistically called ‘one’s country,’ which usually meant an egotistical and probably bone-headed group of third-rate politicians.

    Of course, this is a novel, after all, and it needs to be said that Loraine is a fine writer, capable of many sharp and memorable lines.

    [Philippe had] that catlike self-assurance which he envied so much in Frenchmen; it came, he always imagined, from a youth spent in a world where the family was still the pivotal point, the center of the universe, a fortress of love, all protecting—instead of the kind of incompetently run youth hostel it had become in America and England.

    “Never envy those people, James. Living the way we did: a month here, three months there—Rome, New York, Lisbon, London, Rio—it’s like . . . like a chain of caves; one progresses ever deeper into absolute nothingness, absolute darkness, a kind of living extinction. You can see it in their faces.”

    Her eyes really did look quite crazy, but then, as he knew only too well, most people’s eyes looked crazy in absolute proximity.

    “Nothing,” she added, “would surprise me about him—he has such ugly hands. And then his father’s a saint. That must be extremely difficult.”

    The Countess and the Prince were dressed for riding; Natasha was dressed for luncheon at the Ritz.

    She finished by calling her son her little cuckoo, which, even in French, sounded idiotic.

    Yes, we have the meal together every day; their conversation is better suited to mine—we are all surrealists.

    “Live and let live,” said Lindsay vacuously, wondering who else would take time off to offer him oblique warnings.

    Lindsay could see, in his mind, the little cold body of the goldfish secreted in her brown hand; each golden scale was clear to him, and the magical sheen of the belly, as if it had been painted with a rainbow. And the wonderful golden eye, ringed with a circle of black. And in the golden eye of the golden fish could be seen reflected the Chateau of Bellac and the lake, and the round, surprised faces of the children—children watching a miracle in the golden eye of a goldfish. . . . Suddenly he felt violently sick.

    “Loraine” writes a very effective “chased by hounds and irate peasants” scene around midpoint,[15] and near the end a “desperately driving to summon authorities while summarizing the plot” scene, showing why he found a parallel career in film writing. A combination of evocative writing and a rather subtle and sophisticated approach to paganism and Gnosticism makes this book highly recommended to alt-Right readers, especially those interested in the themes of archeofuturism and hauntology.

    “Is our century so robust—is our way of life so secure—are we so contented, James, that we have no need of . . . reassurance—reassurance about the things of the spirit?”

    “It’s not what it seems,” she added. “The silence, I mean. There’s always a great deal going on. Perhaps these extremely thick walls have something to do with it.”

    Who could argue that places, that inanimate stones and wood did not dictate methods of behavior?

    Speaking of films, Estridge turned to the other string on his bow and wrote (at least part of) the script for a movie adaptation, Eye of the Devil,[16] which for various reasons seems to have not attracted as much attention as one might have expected. Since it differs a bit, here‘s the IMDB summary:

    The family of the Marquis, Philippe de Montfaucon, has long been the major landowner in Bellenac, a wine growing region in France. Philippe heads back to the family vineyard from his home in Paris when he learns that there are problems in the fields threatening the crops. Against Philippe’s wishes, his wife, the Marquise, Catherine de Montfaucon, with their two adolescent children, Jacques and Antoinette, decides to follow Philippe back to Bellenac. There, Catherine sees what she believes is disturbing behavior. Young adult siblings, Christian and Odile de Caray, whose family has also lived in the region for generations, have been hanging around the estate. While Catherine witnesses Christian killing a dove with a bow and arrow, which he seems always to be brandishing, Odile seems to have this hypnotic power over anyone in her sights. What’s worse is that Philippe seems to be in a transfixed state while in Bellenac. Although Catherine and the children’s lives are threatened while in Bellenac by the actions of Christian and Odile, she decides to stay just to figure out what is happening and to save Philippe, who too seems like he is under some threat. When Catherine eventually learns what is going on and why Philippe didn’t want her to come to Bellenac, it may be too late to save Philippe and perhaps Jacques from their evil destiny, as was the fate of seemingly many of the men of the de Montfaucon family in Bellenac over the generations.

    The production, like most “British folk horror” films, seems to have been a bit cursed from the start.[17] Roman Polanski, just off Repulsion, was supposed to direct, but found the screenplay antipatico. They tried others, including Michael Anderson (Logan’s Run). Ultimately, W. Lee Thompson, who had worked with Estridge before, was brought in; he’s a director with a solid track record (the original Cape Fear) but no history with horror or the occult.

    And I don’t know what to make of the idea of asking Dr. Strangelove’s Terry Southern to “tighten and brighten” the script,[18] along with numerous “consultants” such as Wiccan High Priest Alex Sanders (also known as the “King of the Witches”), who was brought in so that Thompson could “experience the atmosphere of ritual magic in order to convey it on film.”[19]

    As for the leads, IMDB says:

    Originally Kim Novak was cast in the role of Catherine de Montfaucon. Filming began in the fall of 1965 in France. Near every scene had been filmed when Kim Novak fell from a horse and wasn’t able to complete her scenes. Deborah Kerr was hired to take over and every scene that featured Miss Novak had to be re-shot with her replacement.

    All for the better, as David Niven had taken a dislike to Novak (“that horrid woman” he called her in letters from the shoot). Although Niven was delighted to work with Kerr again, as were fans of classic film, they’re really, alas, both too old for the roles.[20]

    The movie, and the viewer, is better served by the supporting cast, which is a Who’s Who of cult cinema. There’s Donald Pleasance, providing another baldheaded baddie, leading one to imagine the French abbé will be revealed as Blofeld in disguise;[21] Edward Mulhare (The Ghost and Mrs. Muir!); ambisexually beautiful London icon David Hemmings; and “introducing” (though she’d already been “introduced” in a couple previous films) . . . Miss Sharon Tate herself!

    The presence of Miss Kerr and the b&w photography heighten the parallels to The Innocents, Jack Clayton’s 1961 take on Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw. It’s rather as if the master of the house had returned, heard the governess’ story, and believed it, with Odile and Christian as the evil servants and Philippe’s children endangered.[22]

    But what really come out are the parallels with — or perhaps the plagiarizing that would be made by — Robin Hardy and Anthony Shaffer’s The Wicker Man (1975; cue ominous yet hippie folk music).[23]

    They are, indeed, remarkably similar films. Sgt. Howie combines the roles of nosey outsider trying to “save” the victim and the victim himself;[24] while he dies a good Christian,[25] unlike the conflicted Lindsay, he also makes it clear that if (when?) the crops fail again, Lord Summerisle will indeed be the next sacrifice.

    As for Eye itself, as you can imagine, the delicious uncertainties of the book have been scrubbed clean, although, in yet another parallel to The Innocents, these have been replaced by the central ambiguity of whether Deborah Kerr’s Françoise/Catharine[26] is “in danger” or just nuts.[27]

    The young Pleasance has a very Putinesque stare.[28] The roles of Catharine, Christian, and Odile are expanded enormously, at the expense of Lindsay and the other wise women, which is a very good thing for fans of Sharon Tate. Christian is just pretty rather than disturbing, and the whole “more spiritual love” angle dropped, except for a moment when he’s caressed by Philippe — an early clue in the book, just an odd moment in the film.

    Modern audiences are apt to find the denouement to be intolerably drawn out, since we’ve seen the King/Kill motif many times by now,[29] while, on the other hand, only such a modern viewer could accept the idea of the ret-conned Deborah Kerr character as an action hero who might just save the day.[30]

    The real problem is that film is not really suitable for exploring the complex issues we’ve highlighted in the novel; or at least these film makers haven’t managed to do it, and likely didn’t try. Mithraism and heathenism are collapsed into each other, and then subsumed under the usual “black mass” and “satanic sadists” motifs. Only Philippe shows any inner conflict, and Catharine dismisses it all as “your heathen nonsense” and “insanity.” For cinematic purposes, on assumes, the twelve dancers of the village festival become faceless, black robed monks who hold secret meetings and stalk people in the forest, looking rather like a cross between the Peter Jackson’s Nazgul and Monty Python’s Knights who say “Ni.”

    It does add a very good line, though: speaking of his father, Philippe sneers:

    “He’s not one of the men of the family.”

    Spoilers aside, it might be a good way to get someone thinking about their heathen heritage, and asking questions the novel could then expand upon. On its own terms, it’s an pretty effective thriller, and its location shooting, moody, deep focus b&w photograph,y and very busy editing [31] make it an excellent film to watch on a cloudy Winter afternoon; perhaps, as I did, on Christmas — Joyeux Noël!


    [1] Katherine Beem and Andy Paciorek, eds., Wyrd Harvest Press, 2015.

    [2] I’ve reviews several of their weird fiction and modern classics here on Counter-Currents (see here [5]); my review of Michael Nelson’s A Room in Chelsea Square appears in my new collection, Green Nazis in Space! (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2015). Readers here will also appreciate Valancourt for their republications of the fiction of Colin Wilson.

    [3] “Coming of a purely bourgeois family myself, I have to confess that the aristocracy fascinates me — the continuity of it!” No one seems able to take Lindsay as a “artist,” from his and Philippe’s schooldays — “Youth being the most conservative of institutions, it was impossible for this chunky, pink-faced, fair-haired refugee from a football field to be a creative artist” — to the rural French coroner’s jury who doubt his Dan Brown-like story — “This odd character, it was pointed out, was not only an Englishman but also an artist. (Everybody thought this a highly amusing conjunction.)”

    [4] “‘I hate him for this,’ she said. ‘I’m horrified to find how much I hate him.’ Lindsay nodded. ‘I understand that; and yet somehow I feel that he . . . he doesn’t deserve hatred.’”

    [5] Lindsay: “When I asked you in Paris whether he was in love with another woman, you said ‘No, I’m sure he isn’t.’ You could have added that you were just as sure that he was in love with a young man. Good God, there’s nothing unusual about that.” And Françoise: ‘I sometimes think that violent physical love—and that’s what ours was, violent—comes at one moment to a point where it . . . it has to change into something else. Our love, Philippe’s and mine, had just reached that point—it needed the booster; it needed the new dimension. And instead . . . there was this. Nothing.”

    [6] See Valancourt’s reprint of Lord Dunsany’s Curse of the Wise Woman, and my review here [6].

    [7] “It’s curious,” said Lindsay, looking closer. “The figure of Christ isn’t actually nailed to the Cross at all.” “He rules from the Cross,” said the priest, his blue, quick eyes on the young man’s face. “Is the Cross itself so important?”

    [8] I’m a bit foggy on the theology, or rather, theurgy, here. Philippe’s death clearly involves dripping his blood through the fields; now, his father (spoiler alert!) evaded his fate by faking his death by drowning, leaving no corpse, yet no one suspects anything went amiss with the ritual or that he’s alive and hiding out in the nabe. Symbolically, of course, he’s as good as dead, so that part works, but what about the blood? It also allows him to be found and debriefed by Lindsay in the penultimate chapter, so as to get all the Gnostic/pagan background out.

    [9] “There was nothing simple about Philippe de Montfaucon, or about Bellac.”

    [10] Even secular Françoise is a wise woman: “She shook her head wisely over the idiocies of science.”

    [11] See my reviews of Robert M. Price’s The Human Bible: New Testament (here [7]) and Kenneth Humphreys’ Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy (here [8]).

    [12] See my essays on “Odd John” in in Green Nazis in Space!

    [13] See my meditations on the film in “Thanks for Watching: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 1 [9]“ and “Phil & Will: Awakening Through Repetition in Groundhog Day, Point of Terror, & Manhunter, Part 2 [10].”

    [14] Cf. the elderly socialite/alien in John Carpenter’s They Live! – “I’ve got one that can see!” See my essay “He Writes! You Read! They Live!” here [11] and reprinted in my collection The Homo and the Negro (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

    [15] “The impossible fact was true (eruptions of physical violence into everyday life always struck him as faintly impossible): he was being hunted—hunted across country that was absolutely strange to him, by men who very probably knew every inch of it.”

    [16] Now, you may note the change in title. Day of the Arrow does, perhaps, sound a bit more appropriate for some 1950s Hollywood frontier epic, and while Eye of the Devil is perhaps a bit too Hammer-ish, it is more suggestive of the goings on. The connection between arrow and eye is driven home by the movie poster, and watching the film I felt a bit like the Seinfeld gang when they couldn’t get in to see a Claude-Damme-ish movie called Deathblow and spent the next few days speculating whose deathblow was best, and who would get the next deathblow and when. In my case I kept waiting for arrow to be forcibly inserted into eye, and was not disappointed.

    [17] See Wikipedia, here [12]. For a fine appreciation of the film along with its production and subsequent reputation, see “Looking into the Eye of the Devil” by Kimberly Lindbergs, posted on Movie Morlocks October 28, 2010, here. [13]

    [18] See “From Odd John to Strange Love” in Green Nazis in Space!

    [19] Quoted in Lindbergs, loc. cit.

    [20] Niven had been Ian Fleming’s model for James Bond; again, he was too old for the role when the movies began to be made, as proven when he essayed the role of the retired Sir James in the abominable Casino Royale spoof the very next year (1967).

    [21] On the metaphorphoses of Blofeld, see Jef Costello’s “The Cat is Back! The Spectre Behind S.P.E.C.T.R.E.,” here [14].

    [22] There are some traces of this in the novel; Françoise calls Lindsay “an innocent.” As for Philippe’s son, “Oh yes, he knows, the wicked child.” Does Gilles (renamed Jacques in the movie) escape his father’s fate? Lindsay and Françoise attempt a kind of anti-hauntological approach: “They can think of nothing further removed from the baleful influence of Bellac than the money factories of Basel.”

    [23] This is not the first such accusation. David Pinner has long claimed that his 1967 novel Ritual was the original basis for the screen play of Anthony Schaffer, who admits to “considering” the novel before concluding it wasn’t “adaptable.” See “Inside The Wicker Man: An Interview with Allan Brown” in Headpresss #20 (ed. David Kerekes, May 2000) and Brown’s book Inside the Wicker Man: The Morbid Ingenuities (Sidgwick & Jackson, 2000). Come to think of it, doesn’t that just mean that Ritual is based on Day of the Arrow anyway? The “curse of The Wicker Man” seems to be that of involvement with the Semitic plagues of unending litigation and corporate film distribution outrages; see Phil Tonge’s really quite hilarious account of his quest to find a “complete” cut of the film (extant copies range from a 102 minute sort-of director’s cut to an 87 minute, Roger Corman-inspired cut for Midwest TV station distribution) in his “Cak-Watch Presents: The Wicker Bastard” (Headpress 20).

    [24] As Tonge, or the illustrator says, “Hey, look, it’s that twat from The Equalizer. Let’s burn ‘em!”

    [25] According to Tonge, op. cit., the longest, 102 minute version includes footage where “Mr. Woodward has more dialogue preaching to the islanders from the confines of the wicker man, to the effect that God is going to do ‘em.”

    [26] Is the name changed to suggest the Cathars?

    [27] Catharine seems uneasy if not terrified from her very first frame, but, in a Mad Men moment, seems quite carefree about tooling around in a Mercedes convertible, her two children bouncing around unrestrained in the front seat.

    [28] Compare: “Is Vladimir Putin immortal? Pictures from almost 100 years ago seem to show him looking fighting fit; Conspiracy theorists have decided that the Russian leader is immortal due to pictures from 100 years ago which show his lookalike.” The Guardian, Dec. 15, 2015, here. [15] Is it witchcraft?

    [29] Michael Hoffman II, author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, has been pursuing this aspect of the Kennedy assassination since the ’70s. His essay ‘King-Kill/33’ appeared in the first edition of Adam Parfrey’s conspiracy anthology, Apocalypse Culture. Subsequent editions (including the current Feral House edition), apparently do not carry it. Read an excerpt online here [16].

    [30] By contrast, Lois (Miss Moneypenny) was quite convincing in her cameo in the Italian Bond rip-off Operation Double 007 (aka Operation Kid Brother, aka OK Connery) even when firing a machine gun. And I swear that’s “Q” hmself, Desmond Llewellyn, right at the end, but I can’t find him only any cast list, nor the film on his credits.

    [31] Both display more originality than the direction or script as such. At one point shadows bring out the “demon” in the “de Montfaucon” carved on a tomb; a nice touch. And a long sequence of some Brit git playing the harp at a some swank gathering at Philippe’s Paris pad gets a Checkovian payoff near the end when a quick shot has the boy looking through a harp’s strings (?) as he gazes at his father for the last time; surely meant to evoke the Traditional symbol of the warp and woof of both Fate and the material universe.


    (Review Source)

Society Reviews1
Society Reviews

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Equalizer 2 Review
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    2014’s The Equalizer was a solid box office hit that was pleasantly enjoyed by the vast majority of audiences. Like any moderate box office success in today’s Hollywood, a sequel was announced that once again put Denzel Washington, screenwriter Richard Wenk, and director Antoine Fuqua together for a new project. Unfortunately unlike their last production, The Magnificent Seven, The Equalizer 2 is nothing more than a simple carbon copy of the first film and it shows.

    Read more →

    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff3
The Federalist

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 'The Magnificent Seven' Is Perfect For A Generation With Nothing To Say
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Editor’s note: Spoilers for 2016’s version of “The Magnificent Seven” follow. If you think you’ve never seen Akira Kurosawa’s “The Seven Samurai” (1954), you’re wrong. You’ve been watching it all your life, in countless remakes and borrowings. It’s in Hollywood’s DNA. Now you have a chance to see a distant glimpse of it again, in a new version of “The Magnificent Seven” by director Antoine Fuqua (“Training Day,” “Shooter,” “The Equalizer”). This is the second time Americans have attempted to remake “The Seven Samurai,” the first being “The Magnificent Seven” of 1960, starring Yul Brenner and Steve McQueen. Both American remakes are entertaining enough, with plenty of violence and fun repartees. The formula for introducing characters that Kurosawa developed—define the impossible mission, then assemble the crack team one at a time—is a winner every time, as is the basic narrative: underdog warriors defending the innocent from the tyranny of evil men. But “The Seven Samurai” has two things its imitators lack, quite apart from Kurosawa’s masterful command of the film form: majesty and humanness. Whereas “The Seven Samurai” is ultimately about a defeated people’s struggle for redemption, its imitators are about, well, nearly nothing. It’s perfectly understandable that MGM would have seized on the idea of remaking Kurosawa’s greatest film. He was the most “Western” of Japan’s prominent directors, and many of his movies were perfectly adaptable for American audiences. The spaghetti western that launched Clint Eastwood’s career, “A Fistful of Dollars” (1964), was copied almost scene-for-scene (plagiarized, actually) from another Kurosawa samurai film, “Yojimbo” (1961). Eastwood would go on to make that mysteriously quiet and deadly gunslinger the most iconic face of the American western. But what made that cowboy so unique is that he wasn’t a cowboy at all, but rather the American face of a feudal Japanese warrior condemned to a lonely and endless peregrination—in other words, a rōnin. The Plight and Redemption of the Rōnin A rōnin is a samurai warrior who has lost his privileged status, usually because his feudal lord has been killed or defeated in battle, and now roams a hostile world, struggling to survive and suffering endless humiliations. Japanese literature and film include lots of stories about rōnin. But in “The Seven Samurai,” all the samurari seem to be rōnin. The film is set in a time of civil wars, during which the countryside is overrun by bandits while the towns teem with idle, penniless rōnin reduced to wandering about in defeat, wondering what the point of survival is without dignity. Kurosawa knew his audience. When the movie was released, millions of former soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army had been reduced to wandering the rubble in defeat, similarly wondering where redemption might come from. For them, Kurosawa had a humane and humanizing answer: What makes you a samurai is not your position in a social hierarchy, but the goodness of your works; not the image your vanity demands, but the honor inside of you. This unmistakably Christian message is driven home in one of the movie’s vaguely biblical opening scenes. The lead character, a great (former) samurai, is introduced as he’s getting ready to rescue an infant that has been taken by a murderous and hysterical bandit inside a hut. To get close enough to get the baby and kill the bandit, he decides to trick the bandit into thinking he’s a Buddhist monk, by shaving off the samurai topknot at the back of his head. The villagers gasp at the unheard-of act of self-abnegation from a samurai. The baby is rescued and reunited with its mother; the bandit is killed. Seeing this, residents of a nearby village who live in terror of a periodic raids from a large group of bandits on horseback prevail on the samurai to help. The samurai, who spends the whole movie rubbing the part of his skull where the samurai topknot used to be, decides to assemble a team of other samurai, a treasury of archetypes Hollywood is still drawing on to this day: the archer with the brilliant sense of strategy; the portly warrior with the hearty laugh; the quiet and unshakably calm super-swordsman; the eager young upstart; and of course the clownish rustic who pretends to be rōnin, inspires his fellow peasants to defend themselves, and in the end proves himself worthy of the samurai. The seven prevail in the end. Yet they have lost half their number. And did it bring the redemption they sought? “In the end, we lost this battle too,” says their sullen leader. But the peasants won, and that’s what matters. Lost in Translation Now consider the problems of transposing this story for American audiences. First of all, it presupposes a social hierarchy with three separate castes: samurai, villagers, and outlaw bandits. How do you recreate a caste system in the classless American West? MGM’s answer in 1960 is a comic caricature of Yankee imperialism. Except for a passionate young Mexican, all the “samurai” parts are white. All the villagers and bandits are … Mexican. In other words, Yul Brenner and his “samurai” gunslingers are doing good by intervening in a conflict among Mexicans. They don’t do a particularly good job. After they successfully fend off an initial raid by the bandits, our magnificent seven are tricked into leaving their positions, and return to find that the bondoleros, led by Eli Wallach, have taken over the town and have them surrounded. They are forced to give up their weapons and beg for mercy. Incredibly, however, the villains agree to let the cowboys leave unhurt if they promise to not come back, and they can even keep their guns. This magnanimity would prove foolish. The seven ride away, easily forsaking the villagers to save themselves, but that night, something stops them. “Nobody throws me my own gun and says, ‘Run,’” intones James Coburn’s character, a faint imitation of the quiet super-samurai. “Nobody.” In the end, the magnificent seven decide to go back and kill the bandits, apparently for the principle that real men don’t back down in a schoolyard scrap. America was now primed for Vietnam. Re-Translated for 2016, and Little Gained In the latest iteration of “The Magnificent Seven,” director Antoine Fuqua sees no need to humanize the villains. He sees no need for diversity, either. Apart from a token Chinaman, a pair of Comanches, and of course Sam Chisolm (the lead role, played by Denzel Washington), everyone is white. Fuqua, who is also black, makes some interesting stylistic choices. Chisolm, leader of the seven, wears all black and a moustache, exactly like the lead role in the most iconic “blacksploitation western” of the 1970s. But what made “Boss Nigger” a blacksploitation film was the constant reference to black cultural stereotypes: a pair of jive talkin’ black cowboys give dumb racist white men their comeuppance to a funk music soundtrack. It was all about race. In that sense there is nothing blacksploitation about “The Magnificent Seven.” In fact, there is hardly a single reference to Chisolm’s race in the entire movie, with the arguable exception of the obligatory opening saloon scene, where all Hollywood gunslingers establish their bona fides by killing a bunch of vaguely ornery extras. He has more than enough range to make his characters all about race, or not at all about race. Here he delivers the latter. Perhaps Fuqua dresses Chisolm up as “Boss Nigger” not to revive blacksploitation, but to inter it once-and-for-all. If George Clooney is our generation’s Cary Grant, Denzel Washington is our Jimmy Stewart, great to watch in any role and breathing life into even the most lifeless characters. Standing in for Steve McQueen, Chris Pratt is thoroughly enjoyable as the alcoholic gambler Joshua Faraday. Unfortunately, despite a cast brimming with talent, none of the other seven is the least bit memorable, nor much less are any of the villagers. The leading “villager” who hires Chisolm to protect the village (and who is widowed by the villain at the start of the movie), tells us what she’s after: “I seek righteousness. But I’ll take revenge.” Sounds interesting, but that’s all we ever learn about her. As an action movie, “The Magnificent Seven” is brilliantly paced and choreographed, never a dull moment. The movie’s downfall is the script, which was co-written by Richard Wenk, a veteran of other Fuqua action movies, and the talented Nic Pizzolatto, creator of the HBO series “True Detective.” Here, the script is not quite as bad as Pizzolatto’s script for the awful second season of “True Detective,” but it is not nearly as good as his script for the show’s first season. It can’t even manage to be consistent about the seven’s most basic motives in defending the town. Some of them seem to be doing it because there will be one less bounty hunter after them, or because they have nothing more fun to do; and even the high-minded Chisolm turns out to be on a revenge mission against the villain, who tortured, raped, and then murdered his family. We only find that out at the end. (Talk about a pointless reveal). Toss In a One-Dimensional Modern ‘Villain’ The most interesting element in this “Magnificent Seven” is the villainous Bartholomew Bogue, a thoroughly evil capitalist entrepreneur played by Peter Sarsgaard. In both “The Seven Samurai” and the first remake, the villains were bandit outlaws. For a 2016 remake, that wouldn’t do at all. As any American university student or Black Lives Matter activist could tell you, the very idea of a bandit outlaw is just privilege justifying the oppression of yet another disempowered group. Only power can be truly evil, particularly corporate capitalist power. So the villains can’t be bandits. They have to be … capitalists! Only power can be truly evil, particularly corporate capitalist power. So the villains can’t be bandits. And why humanize them, when everyone knows capitalists are evil incarnate? At the start of the movie, Bogue interrupts a church service to announce he’s coming back in a few weeks to buy all the land in the town for his mining operation, for maybe a third of what it’s worth. And the townsfolk better sell, because he will kill them all if they don’t. To make sure they get the message, he burns down the church. Hollywood has produced many stories of robber barons intimidating defenseless frontiersmen into selling their land, including for example “Pale Rider” (1985) and Robert Altman’s tragic masterpiece “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” (1975), a movie that proves Hollywood can make westerns as great as “The Seven Samurai.” It might seem mundane and unproblematic for Fuqua to alight on this construct instead of the problematic “outlaw native.” But “Pale Rider” and “McCabe and Mrs. Miller” were truly wilderness frontier movies, in which the capitalist villain seeks to intimidate either a small group of people, or the partners who own the land, after a more-or-less legitimate offer to buy their share. The new “Magnificent Seven,” by contrast, is set in 1879, with industrial civilization and the rule of law rising rapidly all around. Land transfers obtained by massive force or fraud, to make no mention of mass murder, risk being unenforceable—not very smart for a capitalist entrepreneur. It’s hard to be a successful capitalist entrepreneur when everyone around can see that you belong under lock and key and heavy sedation in a psych ward. But this capitalist, in addition to being a psychopathic mass-murderer, is an idiot. After the seven ambush and kill several dozens of the evil gunmen, Bogue dispatches several hundred gunmen from Sacramento to kill every man, woman, and child in the town. He doesn’t stop to ponder how he’s going to buy up their land if they’re all dead and all the deeds are tied up in probate; or how he’s going to handle accusations that he came by his property by massacring God-fearing Christians in an area of the country firmly in federal control. He doesn’t stop to ponder much of anything, actually. In the final scene, he unveils a Gatling gun that it made no sense to keep for after he has sent his men against the heavily fortified town and lost virtually all of them. Had he opened the assault with the Gatling gun, and then sent the men in, he would have ended the day alive and in control of an empty town, however little that might be worth. After a quarter century of anti-capitalist indoctrination, American audiences can be expected to sit comfortably with the idea that one can be both a capitalist entrepreneur and a depraved mass-murdering lunatic. That blend comports nicely with the worldview of Bernie Sanders and his supporters, and more than a few Donald Trump supporters too. Of course, back on planet Earth, you can’t actually be a successful capitalist entrepreneur if everyone around can see that you belong under heavy sedation in a psych ward. Whether the new “Magnificent Seven” has a social agenda or is “socially conscious,” I’ll leave to experts in identity politics. It certainly doesn’t have a human agenda. It is popcorn: compulsively enjoyable, and totally forgettable. It has nothing important to say, a perfect part of its time. Audiences will love it. ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • In Defense Of A 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark' Reboot
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.) reports that Disney has begun the process of reviving the Indiana Jones franchise and it’s considering casting Chris Pratt to play the role Harrison Ford made famous in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark”—one of the few flawless movies ever made. If you’re not sure who Pratt is, you’ll soon see him in the “Jurassic Park” reboot and then in a remake of “The Magnificent Seven” (the original was a reimagining of Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai”) where he’ll costar with Denzel Washington, who’s coming off a remake of “The Equalizer.” Because why waste a good story. My impulse, whenever I hear one of my cinematic heroes is being “reimagined,” is to reimagine the producers as Nazis engulfed in excruciating face-melting biblical fire. My social media feeds was in visceral harmony with this position. Some things simply can’t be rebooted. But then I remembered that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was not actually a sacred item passed to humankind on Mount Sinai and Steven Spielberg was not a god. River Phoenix did a fine job playing Indy—why couldn’t someone else do it? I also recalled that Indiana Jones was basically a reboot of 1930 serials that George Lucas loved as a child. And then I realized being annoyed by reboots was just perfunctory. I love reboots. The first, and most obvious, reason is that it doesn’t really matter if the reboot stinks. I’m not sure there was a more exhilarating moment in my preteen life than the day I first saw the trailer for “The Empire Strikes Back.” Not even “The Phantom Menace” could stain that memory. I recently watched the first three Indiana Jones movies with my kids and, for me, it was as if “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” never happened. When we finally got around to the fourth movie, they didn’t perceive much of a difference in quality or entertainment value. And maybe there isn’t much. Actually, there’s probably a strong argument to be made that “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” was a more entertaining film than the “Temple of Doom.” Anyway, for a generation of young people, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is “Star Wars” (or as close as they’re going to get to it in the days of multiple blockbusters), which means Chris Pratt is Harrison Ford. Second: reboots, remakes, sequels, and reimagined franchises are not only often technically superior to the originals, but they tend to bring a level of storytelling sophistication that outdoes them. It can be overdone, no doubt. Watching the impenetrable “Prometheus,” a quasi-prequel reboot that exists in the same mess of a universe as the Alien films, felt like auditing a class on quantum physics. But Daniel Craig’s James Bond saved the franchise from the too comedic or too formulaic or too infantile and replaced it with a hard-edge that contemporary audiences can enjoy. “Skyfall” (featuring a glimpse into the origin story, no less) does not make “Goldfinger” any less enjoyable to watch. Then again, always remember that losing sense of humor sometimes mean missing the point, entirely. I’m looking at you, “Robocop” and “Total Recall.” The best balance was probably offered by J.J. Abrams, whose recent Star Trek films restarted familiar storylines in fresh ways without losing the essence of the original. Abrams has promised that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” will not only honor the characters of the original but avoid relying too heavily on CGI in favor of locations to create aesthetic continuity, as well. I’ve been waiting since 1984 to know what happens to these people. And Star Wars will also produce one-offs about Boba Fett and a young Han Solo…. so, please, reboot at will. And they are. The slate of forthcoming remakes and reboots is pretty amazing. Here are some just a few from a quick scan of the Internet: “The Fantastic Four” (the first trailer looks tedious) “Mad Max: Fury Road” “Blade Runner” sequel (rumored with Harrison Ford) “The Crow” “Point Break” “Highlander” “Naked Gun” “Ghostbusters” “Independence Day” “Westworld” Another “Terminator” film A “Goonies” remake Many of these will not work. A good story gives a franchise the malleability and possibilities to be interesting and worthwhile. “Terminator” seems like one such franchise, though it often fails, as does “Highlander” and “Westworld” (an HBO series coming soon) because the central premises offers so many promising roads to go down. On the other hand, “Ghostbusters,” which will be rebooted with all female leads, was idiotic. Funny, because of the pitch-perfect performances from Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, and the rest of the impressive cast. This matters. It’s the difference between “Caddyshack” and “Caddyshack II.” So it’s not a sexist, I hope, to point out that Melissa McCarthy is not Bill Murray. Because Matthew Perry is not Jack Klugman and he’s certainly not Walter Matthau. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the “Odd Couple” reboot (the new TV show based on the old TV Show that was based on the movie*) is likely to be nearly as catastrophic as remakes of the “The In-Laws,” “The Out-of-Towners” or “Arthur”—all superfluous because they were great solely because of the actors involved. It’s hopeless to reclaim a role invented by someone like Peter Falk or Alan Arkin, as Arkin could probably tell you when he tried to play Peter Sellers in a Pink Panther reboot in 1968. Unfortunately, no one had the decency to inform Steve Martin. Twice. On the other hand, Dirk Benedict isn’t exactly integral in propelling the “Battlestar Galactica” storyline. And the primary plot of that 1978 series, as it turned out, was ripe for development, and the reboot became one of the most intriguing television shows ever. Perhaps one day the same will be said about TV reboots like “12 Monkeys” or “Fargo,” which is already on its way  (and it’s coming back this year). It’s true that viewers are often turned off by reboots because we tend to romanticize and overrate the movies and actors of our youth. Every generation believes that their music and films and books are the most powerful and important ever. But I have little problem arguing that Tom Hardy is as talented an actor as Mel Gibson ever was. And hell yes, I want to rebooted Superman to square off against sullen Batman. Because Christopher Reeve was unconvincing and Tim Burton’s Batman was sort of silly. I want to know what happened to Rick Deckard. And I want to see where Indiana Jones goes next. Because it’s better than the alternative. *Which is a remake of the play. ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Hollywood Learns To Stop Worrying And Love The Gun
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Never mind all those celebrity-packed public service announcements about gun control, or the sight of mega-producers like Harvey Weinstein railing against the National Rifle Association. Hollywood has learned to stop worrying and love the gun. The industry’s affection for gunplay goes back generations. Big-screen heroes have been winning the day one bullet at a time for decades, from John Wayne to John McClane of “Die Hard” fame. Lately, waving a gun on screen is the best job insurance outside of a superhero gig or Kevin Hart movie. The recent success of “American Sniper” made it clear how audiences respond when they see heroes holding such a weapon and, more importantly, knowing how to use it. And plenty of Hollywood types are taking notice. Guns: The Savior of Aging Actors Blame Liam Neeson if you must. The Irish actor’s 2008 film, “Taken,” rebranded him as an action hero despite his 50-something age bracket. Now, we’re treated to at least one new Neeson film a year brimming with gunfire. When you’re an actor within a few years of a Social Security check, you’ll take all the career perks you can get. Should the box office gods smile on the film we may see Penn, again, co-starring with those ‘cowardly killing machines.’ That might be what’s on the mind of Neeson’s peers. Last year, Sean Penn embraced a gun-free stance after canoodling with anti-gun advocate Charlize Theron. The actress inspired him to have an artist melt down his personal gun collection into a statue Penn sold for charity. Next month, movie goers will see Penn in … “The Gunman.” The trailer promises plenty of action, with Penn looking deadly with cold steel in hand. Should the box office gods smile on the film we may see Penn, again, co-starring with those “cowardly killing machines.” The same holds true for Pierce Brosnan, an actor who seemed to leave action behind when he hung up his perfectly creased 007 tuxedo. Yet last year’s “The November Man” found him squatting on Neeson’s turf, firing away to save his skin. Talk of a sequel (“December Man?”) began weeks before the film reached theaters. Hollywood understands the lure of a gun-powered series. Sequel chatter also greeted “The Equalizer,” Denzel Washington’s own bid for an aging action hero membership card. His character doesn’t rely solely on guns. He’s a one-man army with the mental ability to decode a fight in super slow-motion. Still, guns play a role in his handiwork. When the film managed to creep past the $100 million mark, the possibility of another “Equalizer” film seemed a lock. Hollywood’s gun club isn’t an all-male affair. Salma Hayek’s bid for entry, “Everly,” hit VOD late last month. Hayek slings more lead than the Man with No Name in the trailer alone, all the while dressed in a series of provocative outfits. She could be the first actress with a gun-soaked franchise to call her own. This Doesn’t Mean Hollywood Loves the NRA None of those stars appeared in the 2013 “Demand a Plan” video for increased gun control measures. Beyonce, Jennifer Aniston, and Jamie Foxx, who personally questioned the role screen violence plays on society, put on their most serious faces to plead for more gun legislation. Mere days after “American Sniper” shattered a flurry of box office records, Weinstein announced his company will produce a miniseries based on a famed U.S. military sniper. The PSA may have backfired. A clever Web user quickly created a parody video that compared the stars in question with their ultra-violent screen appearances. Neeson himself invited similar critiques recently when he assailed the United States’s Second Amendment and the NRA while promoting “Taken 3.” “I am totally for gun control in the U.S.,” said Neeson, who now is an American citizen. “I’ll give Britain its dues. When they had the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, within 24 hours the gun laws were changed so you could not have a handgun.” Another NRA foe, Harvey Weinstein, once vowed to put his movies where his mouth is. Weinstein teased a new film early last year designed to slam the gun-rights group during a chat with Howard Stern on SiriusXM. “They are going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them,” he told the veteran radio host. Yet we haven’t heard much more about the project, purported to star Oscar-winner Meryl Streep, in the months that followed. Mere days after “American Sniper” shattered a flurry of box office records, Weinstein announced his company will produce a miniseries based on a famed U.S. military sniper. This although Weinstein once vowed to hold a summit to study the impact screen violence has on society following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. In its wake, the producer even suggested his days making ultra-violent movies had come and gone. “I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be,” he said. “I know for me personally … I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.” That was before Weinstein enthusiastically backed the sniper miniseries and reconnected with director Quentin Tarantino for the upcoming “The Hateful Eight.” That film isn’t in theaters yet, but those who sat through the film’s 2014 script reading found the usual Tarantino violence in the story. The upcoming presidential election might see gun control roar back into the spotlight. Celebrities could cut some new PSAs to share their position on the matter. Just don’t expect to see an end to gun violence on screens big and small, no matter who wins in November 2016. ]]>
    (Review Source)

John Nolte1
Daily Wire / Breitbart

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 'Equalizer 2' Review: Denzel Washington Tears Down the Deep State
    (”The Equalizer” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    In the very satisfying Equalizer 2, Denzel Washington comes out of the shadows to hand the Deep State an overdue reckoning.
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
Misandry Average rating:  
Affirmative action Average rating:  
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
Anti-God Average rating:  

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page: