Producer Todd Black Talks ‘The Equalizer’ Story, Casting and Its ‘Very Hard R’ Rating

Published 10 months ago by

Last summer we visited the set of The Equalizer and producer Todd Black, who spearheaded the project’s development, began the day by playing for us two scenes from the film and chatting with us for an hour about how late it came to be. As its title would indicate, The Equalizer is based on the concept behind the ’80s TV show of the same name where an ex-CIA operative helps those in need by “equalizing” the odds so to speak.

After we watched the intense footage we spoke in depth about how he helped get the rights to The Equalizer and brought it to Sony after they expired at The Weinstein Company and why the lead role went to Denzel Washington instead of Russell Crowe. We also talk about how The Equalizer script easily won over Washington (and Sony boss Amy Pascal) and how it could be the star’s first franchise, a “hard R” franchise.

Our interview with Todd Black – who worked with Washington on Antwone Fisher, The Great Debaters, and The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 previously – covers everything from the mysterious background of the film’s vigilante antihero Robert McCall (Washington) and how the concept of an Equalizer is relevant now more than ever to how the film could be cut in two different ways depending on whether or not they choose to make a sequel. We also talk about how this film represents the re-teaming of Denzel Washington with director Antoine Fuqua, after Nicolas Winding Refn and Rupert Wyatt almost were set to direct, and how Chloë Grace Moretz and Marton Csokas were cast as supporting leads.


The Equalizer header Producer Todd Black Talks The Equalizer Story, Casting and Its Very Hard R Rating

I’m definitely curious about the rating on this one.

Todd Black: G.

[Laughs] Exactly. Well, Antoine [Fuqua] is known for doing some violent movies and showing excessive violence, which I’m a fan of. I’m just curious what you’re going for in terms of what we’re going to see on screen?

Todd Black: You’re going to see a very hard R movie. It’s called The Equalizer and it’s about a guy who takes care of people who either can’t or don’t know how to take care of themselves because they’ve been done wrong by really bad people. And he takes care of those people that have such a wrong doings it done to them. And he gives the bad people a chance to rectify it at every turn, as you saw on here. And when they don’t take him up on his chance he violently, violently takes care of them in a way that they will never breathe again.

We see Chloe [Grace Moretz]– we see him dealing with Chloe’s situation. Is this the only situation that he deals with in the film or is there other – are we going to see other things? You know what I mean.

Todd Black: Can I talk about the whole story Sid?

Sid (another representative in the room): Yeah.

Todd Black: Okay. So basically there is an organization that is run by a very powerful man and he has people that work for him in Boston. He’s all on the East Coast and he has a lot of people that work for him. And his organization has girls, gas money, laundered money, oil, shipping stuff; he has his fingers in lots of stuff that take place in American cities and he has a lot of people that are on his payroll. And these people recruit or force innocent people into helping them make the money for our powerful guy. And so ultimately the story is Denzel [Washington] has to weed out who the people are who work for this uber villain and then ultimately get to the head of that organization to ultimately get to the uber villain. Does that answer your question?

The Equalizer Official Photo Denzel Washington Chloe Moretz 620x370 Producer Todd Black Talks The Equalizer Story, Casting and Its Very Hard R Rating

It does. Can you talk a little bit about Denzel’s backstory?

Todd Black: Yeah. That’s a good question. We – it’s funny, we struggled with not revealing that much in the first tale because we’re hoping that if the movie works some of it’s answered as you’re watching it and some of it isn’t answered. I think we all agreed, Denzel agreed with us and the writer that so often times in these movies as you guys know everything’s spelled out so there’s kind of nothing for you guys to figure out when you’re watching the movie because it’s all laid out there. And we thought a little bit of a mystery, that’s why he talks about his wife but doesn’t really answer it and just little things along the way.

So you do find out a little bit about his background. There is a scene in the script that he goes and he goes to somebody that he used to work with, Melissa Leo and her husband Bill Pullman and he asked them for help in his quest to find the uber villain and his group. And you come to discover that Denzel was a very, very high up in some kind of organization. You don’t really know what up to the very end, but you know he is highly skilled, probably more highly skilled than anybody in any movie you’ve ever seen, we hope, and knows how to kill people in a way that nobody else does. And you kind of find out that he’s at the top of his game and he’s trying to escape it, but it’s just his natural thing that he can never escape it. So you kind of find that out progressively, and God willing if the movie works, God willing, and you guys support it, the second movie you’ll find out even more. But even if there isn’t a second movie you find out enough that I think it works.

So, Denzel is committed to the idea of a second movie at this point?

Todd Black: You know, we’re all committed to do a second movie until there isn’t a second movie. I mean if it works and the audiences like it and it works critically and financially, I’m sure Sony and Denzel and all of us will want to do a second movie, but you never go into these thinking that because you never know. So you do have to satisfy certain questions that are necessary to answer in case there isn’t a second one, but you hope for a second one.

In that case does that change how Denzel deals with this organization? Like is this entire story going to deal with this organization or is this an organization that we can see pop up again?

Todd Black: Very smart of questions here. No, this story will end if we cut it – it’s funny, we can cut it two ways; I’m really letting you guys in right now. Is this okay that I’m really going there? Okay. It really depends – we can tell the tale in different ways. We can tell the tale with it being a standalone or we can tell the tale just the way it’s been constructed with it maybe coming back again.

Is that’s something that you determined based on test screening?

Todd Black: You know, honestly two things: yes for sure test screenings, but also ourselves. We have to put the movie together; we have to look at it in November and feel it. Just as the filmmakers you sit in a room and you put it on it’s feet when it’s all done and you can feel if you went too far with a storyline, you can feel if the endings not satisfying, you can feel if the ending is too much information. So it isn’t just the test screening, for sure that’s a part of it and you for sure want to see if the audience is engaged and you ask them, you know, you can feel it even before you ask them any questions if there’s a want to see. So if there is then maybe you re-cut the ending a little different to leave it a little bit more open. But we’ve constructed it, I think, I hope we’ve constructed it in a way that we can have our cake and eat it too I hope, but you don’t really know until you’re done. I mean there’s no science in this. You do the best you can and then you have to see it on his feet before you can really answer those questions.

What are some of the other marked traits of our hero? Like he obviously has some OCD tendencies and he’s very quiet and retired, what kind of differentiate him from other…?

Todd Black: Well, he has OCD, which is really fascinating because in his job it worked beautifully for him, but in his life he struggles with it. And it’s interesting because our prop master she – I don’t know if I should be telling – she has OCD. She readily admitted it. And so when Denzel met her, she’s a local here in Boston, he got a lot from her in kind of working out his props that he was going to use because so much of the movie he uses – he never use a gun in the movie so he has to use whatever is around him, the skulls that you saw on the desk, whatever is around him he will use as weapons because he is, for the moment, anti-gun, which you’ll find about that also. So his OCD serves him really well in that regard. You don’t understand the OCD completely until you kind of go through the story with him. You know that he’s widowed. You know that he is highly, highly skilled and educated. And you know that he is a master of disguise; you find out he works at Home Depot in the daytime and he comes home and he lives alone in a very ordered apartment. He’s very skilled; he’s a skilled laborer. He knows how to put on – he can be whoever he needs to be in the situation that he’s in. It’s not that he’s a master of disguise but he is very good at being able to move from city to city and become who he needs to become to do what he needs to do.

denzel washington the equalizer image 682x1024 Producer Todd Black Talks The Equalizer Story, Casting and Its Very Hard R Rating

Is he like a martial artist or anything like that? Denzel is obviously very varied in his physical background.

Todd Black: His abilities to take care of people are varied with different weaponry and different fighting methods. So yes he is.

So, the fact that he doesn’t use a gun that breaks quite directly from the show. Are there any other big changes that you guys -

Todd Black: Yeah, so the show – here’s what happened. We found out that the rights were available because the rights holder Michael Sloan, who created the show, had had them set up in The Weinstein Company. And they reverted back to him at a certain point if he wanted them back and he did want them back. He had the right to do that, even though Harvey wanted to keep them. And once we found that out we jumped on them because my partner and I loved the title of what that is, even if you didn’t know the show. And then there’s a lot of people – I mean your guys age never knew that show. I mean I kind of knew that show pretty well and then when you get in your late 50s and 60s everyone knew that show. But the title, in my mind, was a great title – is a great, great title, particularly when you say Denzel Washington is The Equalizer.

That kind of matches to me as peanut butter and jelly. So we went after the title and the concept of it was great. We weren’t really so hung up on what the show was and all the machinations of what Robert McCall did or didn’t do and what his backstory was. We knew that that didn’t really matter because it was a whole new audience, so we just took the concept and we took the title and then we made it our own.


NEXT PAGE:  Villains, Casting & Comparing To Original ‘Equalizer’ >


« 1 2»

Follow Rob Keyes on Twitter @rob_keyes
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I liked the original Edward Woodward concept of the Equalizer. This does not feel like the Equalizer. However, it does look like a good action movie, so i will give it a watch and see where they go with it. Could be fun.

  2. So, basically, they liked the name and they bought the rights to use the name and nothing else. I understand most of what they said, but to make him “anti-gun” doesn’t make any sense. The firearm is a tool like any other tool. Why would a craftsman of an art where that tool could be a benefit not want to use it? It’s like a movie about a carpenter that is strictly anti-hammer, so he uses other things to hammer in the nails… I mean, come on. I’m hoping it’s not going to be some silly political mumbo jumbo, because that would ruin a perfectly good revenge movie…

    And his examples of why this is relevant to society today were SOOO stupid. I mean, really? He basically listed a bunch of people who were irresponsible with their money and then said we need a guy like The Equalizer to go kill all of the evil banks and people who work in wall-street. Is his secret background going to be that he was the head organizer of the occupy movement? Give me a break. The things that happen in society that makes this kind of character relevant are all of the murderers and rapists that get away with their crimes because of legal loop-holes, creative defense lawyers, or people who get away with crimes due to their influences like organized crime leaders and what-not. Those are the examples he should have given. Not “Oh, you didn’t pay your water bill now they want to turn off your water.” Really???

    • Get help.

      Oh, I know; get The Equalizer!

      He’ll help you deal with the demon in your head called “The Dovche”.

    • “but to make him “anti-gun” doesn’t make any sense”

      Why not? So a person that loves animals and doesn’t want to eat them should just eat them because it doesn’t make sense to you….. or just not eat at all.

      Do you have an issue with Batman not using gun?

      Always use the proper tool for a job. If a knife can do the job why use a gun? If you can walk around unnoticed and are able to use anything as a weapon why carry something that could get you noticed?

      However we are speaking about him being anti gun so there may be something that happened in his past that makes him realize he doesn’t need a gun as it is a liability. You know it getting knocked out of his hand and an innocent being shot. It is kind of hard to stop a bullet. However if you knock a bat out of my hand and pick it up you need to close ground before using it on an innocent.

      • How does the animal lover analogy even make any sense to you??? LMAO!

        He was pretty much an assassin for the CIA, when killing is your job, a gun is just another tool. You can kill with just about anything, including a gun. It’s not because it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s because it doesn’t make sense to the job. Look at my analogy, that one is definitely more relevant. It’s like a carpenter that refuses to use a hammer. Or an electrician that refuses to use wire strippers. A mechanic who refuses to use a wrench. Any of those would work. An animal lover not eating animals… isn’t even in the same ballpark… smh

      • Oh, and Aknot, to continue with your completely irrelevant examples, Batman doesn’t kill people. So again, not at all relevant to the discussion at hand. And just FYI, when Batman first appeared in Detective comics, he did use a gun, and he did kill people. LMAO!! So irrelevant, AND wrong. Good job…

        • hahahahaha I was just reading where it says “And he gives the bad people a chance to rectify it at every turn, as you saw on here”

          Meaning he doesn’t want/need to kill them. They just leave him no choice. So LIKE BATMAN he uses the least amount of force needed. Could Batman WOUND with a gun not killing? Sure he could however he chooses not to use a gun PERIOD.

          So like this rendition of the Equalizer he chooses not to use a gun. So that makes sense.

          As for the not eating animals……..

          Not eating animals is a CHOICE. Much like the characters CHOICE not to use a weapon. Just because you don’t think a choice makes sense does not make it a bad choice. It is just you don’t understand why that person is making that choice.

          I can try to type slower or use smaller words if you would like. However it is all about choice. The character CHOOSES this life. It does not have to make sense to you (yet) as I’m sure it will be explained why he CHOOSES not to use a gun.

          Now just because you cant make a conscious decision to quit something that may (or may not) make you a better person (inside) its is not my fault. However the character feels the need not to use a weapon and probably for good reason…. much like Batman.

          So what was wrong with what I wrote?

          • need not to use a weapon and probably for good reason

            Should read:
            need not to use a gun and probably for good reason

          • Um… Yah, just keep telling yourself that your analogies actually make any kind of sense… :-D

            And I think it’s kind of hilarious that you think the use or non-use of a tool somehow makes someone a “better person” despite his/her actions. Like killing someone with a pair of scissors makes for a better moral person than if he killed that same person with a gun, or duct tape, or a pencil, or a car… :-D

            You’re still killing the person, what tool you use makes absolutely NO difference in what kind of a person you are… smh

            • And I think it’s kind of hilarious that you think the use or non-use of a tool somehow makes someone a “better person” despite his/her actions

              Where do I say they are a better person? Yup I re read it didn’t say he was better…… Maybe you are reading a bunch of articles at the same time and or are easily confused?

              You know you can have a ‘code’ or a creed to live by and still be a killer…..

              Again we are speaking about his choice not to use a gun in your inability to understand why.

              • “Now just because you cant make a conscious decision to quit something that may (or may not) make you a better person (inside) its is not my fault.”

                I guess you meant to stop eating meat? ;-) lol

    • From the trailer he does use weapons he takes from the enemies. He just doesn’t carry.

      • I know, I can understand not wanting to use your own weapons, especially if you don’t want to be identified or tied to the killings. But it’s from the producer’s comments saying that he’s “anti-gun” that really confuses me… I’ve never met an “anti-hammer” carpenter or an “anti-wrench” mechanic, so an “anti-gun” covert operator doesn’t make any sense because it’s just another tool in the toolbox for that kind of profession. You use what is best for the situation. If a situation calls for a knife, use a knife. If a situation calls for taking someone down with your bare hands, you do that. If a situation calls for using a gun, you use a gun. It makes no sense to remove a tool from your toolbox…

        • He works at a hardware store. He is no longer this operative. He wants to put that in the past however he finds things need to be equalized.

          “If a situation calls for using a gun, you use a gun. It makes no sense to remove a tool from your toolbox…”

          If the tool is no longer needed. If it has been replaced by other tools. If you can do the job without the tool.

          There are three good reasons for removing a tool.

          • I’m not talking about while he’s at the hardware store, I’m talking about when he’s out, doing the things he promised he will no longer do, but has “made an exception” for this guy in the movie. So you think putting an inanimate object away but still killing people is putting things behind him? Come on man. What is with people’s obsession with inanimate objects. A killer is a killer, with or without a gun. Simply putting the gun away but continuing to kill people, nothing has changed! The only thing that has changed is now you’re one tool less in accomplishing your tasks in killing people!! Seriously, do you think the firearm has some kind of symbolic value???

            It’s like me saying “I’m done being a mechanic, I’ll never be that guy that fixes cars ever again!” So I hang up my wrench, but I continue to go out, diagnose cars, and fix them on a daily basis, just without my wrench… Did I actually put those days of being a mechanic behind me just because I’m no longer using a wrench???

            That’s exactly what you’re claiming, that he’s putting his days of being a professional killer behind him because he put away his gun, but he’s still going out and killing people…

            • And just FYI, I CAN fix a car without a wrench, I CAN replace the wrench with other tools that could also work. I don’t “need” the wrench to fix a car. Does that mean they are “good” reasons to not use one? Hell no. It doesn’t BENEFIT me in any way to remove that tool from my toolbox. Even if I CAN do without it, it makes it slightly harder. There are low-profile ratchets but a good old-fashioned wrench still would fit in those tight spaces better.

              Same with being an operator like the character in this movie. Sure if he’s skilled enough to kill without a gun, he CAN do it, and might not NEED to, but it doesn’t BENEFIT him in any way to do without it. So he’ll be doing without it for some symbolic reason, which when it comes down to accomplishing a mission you better leave your sentiments at the door because there’s no place for that when results are all that matters. Sure you can get away with it in movies since things like stamina and endurance doesn’t play a role in fiction, but in real life, if you can just shoot 5 mofo’s in a room rather than having to physically close the distance to each and every target, burning energy, and more importantly, time, you choose the faster, and less energy wasted method. Watch real life operators like the SAS. They waste no time, they clear room to room, practically RUNNING/SPRINTING from room to room. You need to hit your target fast so they have no time to react. Take your sweet time moving through the structure, enemies at the far end have time to fortify their positions until you get to them. By moving with speed, even the people at the far end, by the time they start to get ready, you’re already on them.

              Now, it makes more sense in the one scene they show in the trailer where most likely he’s scoped out the area and he knows those guys in that room is all he needs to worry about, you have more freedom to play it out as you wish. But from the sound of it, he’ll soon have to face a whole lot more people, and in much more unexpected and unprepared settings. Meaning he might not know if there are 5 more people to kill after the ones he sees in the room with him, or 10, or 20. In those circumstances, you want to conserve energy, and waste absolutely no time between targets. It’s not like in the video games where enemy reinforcements wait until you’re done with the group you’re dealing with before they show up. They show up as soon as they get to you, if you’re still lolligagging with the group you’re with when they show up, then guess what, you’re screwed… Even with a firearm, it doesn’t benefit you to get into any kind of extended firefight. You either take the fight to them and end it, you rethink your strategy and attack from a different angle, or you retreat. Never get caught in a stalemate, you just end up burning ammo and time.

              Anyway, I’m sure all of this is just “blah blah blah blah blah” to you, so I’ll just stop, lol.

            • Lets see you state “He was pretty much an assassin for the CIA, when killing is your job, a gun is just another tool.” WAS so I state he is now working at a HW store. Im letting you know because I guess you think he still works for the CIA.

              He is trying to leave the ‘life’ behind him. He even states as such in the voice overs. However he just let others be trod upon.

              That is why I mentioned the HW store.

              He has PROBABLY (im guessing just based on how it is presented) put that inanimate object away (shunned it) either based on his old life he is trying to leave or something happened.

              A killer is a Killer…. I don’t care we are not talking about that. Please stay on topic. We are talking about your off the cuff comment of you not knowing why he is ANTI GUN. I have told you why he COULD be anti gun. It just doesn’t seem to sink in.

              I have given you reasons why he could be anti gun. That does not make him any less a killer.

              You being a mechanic and fixing cars is a huge stretch from taking someone’s life. Taking a life is something you have to live with for the rest of your life. You repairing a car without the use of a wrench while amazing doesn’t even compare.

              I said he is TRYING to put that life behind him. Which in a sense he has up until the point the bad guys don’t see things his way as evidence by “And he gives the bad people a chance to rectify it at every turn, as you saw on here” he doesn’t want to be that guy but he doesn’t want to see people get stepped on.

              As for your wrench and car…. I cant think of a way for you to do something that you may need to pass on that tool however you are essentially saying if something cheaper, better came along you would still keep the wrench and do it the old way. I mean it worked for so long.

              As for your tirade below…. you still don’t get it…. HE CHOOSES not to use the gun. Im sure they will explain WHY he goes this way.

              Im not saying the gun cant kill. Im saying there is a reason he CHOOSES to not use a gun. Im thinking someone got hurt. Think of Sgt Powell in Die Hard. He shot a kid carrying a plastic pistol and after that found (but he did get over it) he didn’t think he could pull hi weapon again.

              Now lets say Denzel is this great CIA killer with all weapons. One of his last missions/jobs he either discharges the weapon and it goes through the bad and hits someone else or in a scuffle he loses his weapon it is retrieved and used on someone else. AN INNOCENT. Something he could have avoided since he is basically a walking weapon. Sorry that weighs a lot on someone. You start second guessing yourself, blaming yourself etc. So he decides Im good enough I don’t need guns. TADA!

              So yes I read what you say but it is blah blah blah because you don’t understand how someone can make a CHOICE based on something that has happened in their lives.

              Ive given you simple examples yet you still don’t understand that a choice that someone makes is just that and you don’t need to understand it as it is not yours to make.

              Wait so this is real life and not a movie? See that’s where you are having issue. Please separate the movies from reality. I don’t see Military movies anymore. While some are ‘true to life’ most times they are not. So stop thinking this is real life enjoy it as the action flick it is. Had you said you were going to be comparing this to real life I would have left it alone. I didn’t know you thought it was real…. sorry.

              • Holy hell, lol.

                When he is out there, to kill those people, he’s no longer “putting it behind him.” He gives them a CHOICE, which means, he knows there’s a chance they will CHOOSE not to redeem themselves. So the consequence of that, is that he will kill them. So… shouldn’t he be properly prepared for both choices?? Or do you think he is some overly optimistic person who thinks everyone will simply choose to not fight?? And when did I ever claim he needed a firearm for when he’s working in the hardware store? I’m talking about WHEN HE’S OUT WITH THE INTENTIONS OF KILLING PEOPLE!!!! He’s no longer a “Hardware store manager” when he’s out bashing people’s brains in for crying out loud… smh

                You’ve given me the dumbest examples that have absolutely no relevance to the situations given in the movie!!!

                “You being a mechanic and fixing cars is a huge stretch from taking someone’s life. Taking a life is something you have to live with for the rest of your life.”

                And not eating meat because you love animals is EVEN FARTHER! At least in my example I’m talking about giving up a tool to give up a profession, which is exactly what you’re claiming he’s doing in the movie by giving up a tool… WT actual F does eating or not eating meat have to do with that? Choice? Well, I’m CHOOSING not to use a wrench to fix cars right? So hey, my example fits right in!! :-D

                Oh geez, nevermind man, you’re right, not using a gun when you’re out to kill people makes absolute sense… :-D

                • Again you apparently cant read.

                  “Oh geez, nevermind man, you’re right, not using a gun when you’re out to kill people ”

                  He is not out to kill people. His sole purpose in this movie is (and you may not get the connection so I will help) to EQUALIZE things.

                  As was stated in the very second quote ” It’s called The Equalizer and it’s about a guy who takes care of people who either can’t or don’t know how to take care of themselves because they’ve been done wrong by really bad people. And he takes care of those people that have such a wrong doings it done to them. And he gives the bad people a chance to rectify it at every turn, as you saw on here.”

                  This is not The Expendables. He doesn’t go he there is a guy on the bad guy side I need/have/must kill him.

                  It does not matter what you think he is doing. He gives them a choice are you saying if in the movie a bad guy has a chance to turn and leave and or make another decision he wont? I think he will just to show that the Denzel character is not this crazy if it moves kill it character as you are wanting him to be.

                  He is not out KILLING people. If so why give the bad guys in the trailer the option of him buying her out? Why not walk in and just kill them?

                  Im not giving an opinion this is covered in the clips and the interview above.

                  You seem to be an Expendables type viewer. All action and killing no deep story or characters. This may not be a movie for you.

                  The examples I am giving are examples of CHOICE. You cant seem to correlate that Denzels character has made a choice. It doesn’t matter if the choice is giving up butter, drinking, guns. It is a choice he makes. So any choice that precipitates a life style change is a CHOICE.

                  All you seem to care about is killing and guns. Step back a bit and don’t look at what is being removed (guns) look at it as a choice. It was the characters choice to be antigun which is probably based on a traumatic event happening for him to do that.

                  That is all.

                  Really I don’t see how you cant grasp that. Im not saying its a good idea to go vigilante with no guns however it is HIS CHOICE. He apparently can do the job without the guns, without the chance of whatever made him anti gun in the first place to happen again.

                  Yes your example of not using a wrench is right. If you can do the same job w/o it why not? However im sure Denzels character has a deeper reason for it. However yes it is all about choice.

                  So do you still think that him being anti gun doesn’t make any sense?

                  • Aknot, really, are you some kind of idealist? When you go into a pimp’s lair, or meet with a group of organized crime members, and give them a “choice” to stop doing bad things or face the consequences, how many of them do you REALLY expect to pick to stop doing bad things??? You go out there to give people this “choice” you’re going out there to kill people. I’m sure the character in the movie isn’t an idi0t. He knows he’ll most likely be killing people, so please stop with this “he’s not going out to kill people” silliness. Of course he is… smh

                    • Ken J I finally came to the conclusion that you can not separate fact from fiction. the closest I ever got to a ‘pimps lair’ is arresting a young lady for solicitation and possession.

                      All I am going on is what the interview/clips states….. THE INTERVIEW STATES THIS NOT ME…. Go back and read it…

                      “And he gives the bad people a chance to rectify it at every turn, as you saw on here.”

                      ” And you kind of find out that he’s at the top of his game and he’s trying to escape it, but it’s just his natural thing that he can never escape it.”

                      “because he is, for the moment, anti-gun, which you’ll find about that also.”

                      So he is FOR THE MOMENT (moment being a short period of time) antigun. So again he probably had a traumatic experience and wont use them till he finds out he has to and the thing he is that he is trying to escape comes back to the top.

                      If it doesn’t make sense to you maybe you should watch movies like How to Train Your Dragon… wait that doesn’t make sense Dragons were not real. How bout The Avengers… wait that doesn’t make sense either, how bout Forrest Gump…. wait a minute… hardly any movies make sense!!!! You got me there Chuck you sly dog you.

                    • WOW

                      Really? How to Train Your Dragon? You judge a movie based on the reality it is set in. Meaning if it’s a sci-fi movie, you judge it on how well it sticks to the rules set by the mythos of that universe. If it’s a cartoon, you judge it by any previously stated standards or “realities” of that cartoon universe. As far as I can tell, this movie is supposed to take place in modern-time setting with no special rules or mythos outside of “regular” reality. So you judge it based on that. Is that really such a hard concept to understand? And he’s not THAT anti-gun because he uses guns he takes from the bad guys… So it must not have been THAT traumatic. The only reason I could think of is that he doesn’t want anything to tie himself to his actions so he doesn’t use his own firearms. But to call that “anti-gun” wouldn’t be accurate…

  3. Not carrying a gun in this type of story just sounds plain stupid and unrealistic.

  4. what an awful, awful film this sounds like.

    A gay black actor playing a role made famous by Edward Woodward, and turning the Equaliser from a post-Callan version of Callan- realistic at first, increasingly Americanised as the show went on- into THIS?

    Other than the name, this is not the same story or even idea. It’s just pus.

  5. Not sure were you all think he dose not use a fire arm to kill in this movie! The trailer shows him taking out 2 targets with a pistol. Where’s the debate? Think Entertainment not reality to its extremity!I look forward to seeing this film and the second one! Denzel at his best thus far!

    • Try actually reading the content of the article, such as the interview, and not just watching the trailer…

  6. what a load of crap. the Equalizer was a white British dude who drove around in a Jag. WILL NOT see this pathetic remake.