So how did this compare to the original Equalizer?
The first movie is fairly straight forward in that they mess with the Equalizer and then he works up the chain of wrong doers until they are all finished. So this plot is very convoluted. I think its fine to have a bit of convolution, but there are multiple saves in the movie like mini movies and then the real plot about 1 hour in. I think I would have just skimmed all the non-plot important stories and have beefed up the mystery behind the major movie. As they say, if it doesn't add to the story, leave it on the cutting room floor.
So what did you think of the villains?
There are a series of seemingly unconnected murders that start to come together as the Equalizer starts to deduct why his close friend from the agency, presumably CIA, was murdered. There are a lot of unknowns before we get to the main villains behind the hit. An old partner that he originally trained, Dave York appears to be involved after a long read into the movie. There's no motive, simply a hit job gone wrong. At this point, do we really feel sorry for the Equalizer, since he trained this elite squad that has now gone awok?
How would you have changed the plot?
There are a lot of complex elements the director is digesting in the film: a youth being tempted by easy drug money vs. becoming an artist, a senior citizen trying to get a painting returned from the Nazi theft days and the Equalizer trying to make amends what happened to his wife, who was a baker apparently. I think this is the point to have been extended, like how she died, how involved was the Equalizer, which really could have made the personal connection deeper. As well as fleshing out his old colleagues backgrounds and maybe how they used to BBQ together, so we feel something when the tables turn later in the movie. As it is, we really don't feel the 7 year CIA training relationship or however long it was and why the betrayal is so bittersweet. In this case, the director overly focused on confusion vs the real elements needing visual explanation in the movie to shock us to care more. In a movie, always show, don't tell. You need to empathize with both the villain and the hero and in this case the director dropped the ball on that. Its ok to have confusion to create a mystery, but in this case maybe 20 minutes could have been chopped and another 15 minutes added.
Indirectly. I think my Architectural Abstraction style really captures the contrast of good vs. evil as these shapes strike and counter strike through the composition for domination. You aren't really sure which color is dominating or will win in this painting at war with itself. Additionally, there is a lot of spatter from conflict, pain and contact between the shapes in the work. In the painting below, I'm focusing on the false alarm nuclear theft to Hawaii. I personally think it was staged to trigger Kim Jong Un to come to the negotiating table, which did happen. Of course, getting much done beyond that is to be seen, since KJU can simply wait out the Trump regime, who has elections in 3 years and maximum time of 8 years in power. Guess who wins in a scenario like that?