We all know he is da gawd and his body of work collectively is greatness, but what's the worst thing he has done? And I am not necessarily talking about the worst movie he has been in, but a movie where he just shouldn't have been in for whatever reason.

I have to say I don't love broken down Denzel performances. I feel like the first time he did it was Courage Under Fire but the older he gets the more often he gets casts in those roles. So in the vein of Broken Down Denzel, I don't love him in Flight, Bone Collector or John Q or the Little Things. However, I do believe he was excellent in Fences despite playing a broken down character.

What you got?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You named John Q. and The Bone Collector and those are the ones that immediately comes to mind, though it's really kind of hard to fault him for stuff like that since he's got a really good track record of helping movies that could very well be replaceable thrillers into genuinely excellent movies. Apparently "Fallen" didn't get great reviews, but I loved that film and he's a huge part of why it was so enjoyable for me. So if Denzel Washington thinks "Fallen" was good and he had fun (and got paid well) to make it, then I can't think of a good reason why he would turn down things like John Q. - which has a really good cast and *should* have been better than it was.

I don't know. Maybe that's not a clear way of putting it. But I think your question identifies what's so cool about his career, which is that he's been kind of a legend for 2-3 decades now and even though he's slowing down a little bit now that he's 68, he hasn't spent most of that legendary time waiting around for CINEMA! but seems confident enough in his ability that he'll take jobs that seem fun, with directors that he likes, and turn them into much, much better films than they had any right to be.

So if I'm gonna say "some of those thrillers were a bit of a waste of Denzel Washington" then I also need to acknowledge that for any time that happens, there are three movies like Pelican Brief or Unstoppable or the absolutely unassailable Devil in a Blue Dress that, while they didn't *need* Denzel Washington, thank god they got Denzel Washington because that's what made them awesome. I'll sit through the occasional Bone Collector to make that happen.

Though now that I said all that, I'll also throw out that even though it was a pretty good film, we didn't need a remake of the Manchurian Candidate.

I forgot I was a fan of Fallen but yeah that would have been more forgettable without him.

De Ja Vu and Out of Time, Denzel made those movies worth the price of admission. He brought swagger to roles that probably weren't written with swagger.

He elevated Pelican Brief into top their Grisham when it didn't have to be. He brought swagger to a role that didn't call for it.

It's funny you mention Manchurian Candidate because I think that one, as I remember it, didn't allow Denzel to be Denzel and it suffered for it. It might not have been a role capable of allowing Denzel to be Denzel.

This discussion allows me to identify my least favorite Denzol role which is Roman J. Israel. I did not like that part for him and I even think another actor may have been better suited for it. Think of Jeffrey Wright in that role? Now that movie with Jeffrey Wright might not be a movie I am interested in seeing, but he still might have fit the role better.

I didn't realize he was 68 so yeah he can't be the coolest cat in the room anymore. But I don't think he found his stride for older roles.



>You named John Q. and The Bone Collector and those are the
>ones that immediately comes to mind, though it's really kind
>of hard to fault him for stuff like that since he's got a
>really good track record of helping movies that could very
>well be replaceable thrillers into genuinely excellent movies.
>Apparently "Fallen" didn't get great reviews, but I loved that
>film and he's a huge part of why it was so enjoyable for me.
>So if Denzel Washington thinks "Fallen" was good and he had
>fun (and got paid well) to make it, then I can't think of a
>good reason why he would turn down things like John Q. - which
>has a really good cast and *should* have been better than it
>was.
>
>I don't know. Maybe that's not a clear way of putting it. But
>I think your question identifies what's so cool about his
>career, which is that he's been kind of a legend for 2-3
>decades now and even though he's slowing down a little bit now
>that he's 68, he hasn't spent most of that legendary time
>waiting around for CINEMA! but seems confident enough in his
>ability that he'll take jobs that seem fun, with directors
>that he likes, and turn them into much, much better films than
>they had any right to be.
>
>So if I'm gonna say "some of those thrillers were a bit of a
>waste of Denzel Washington" then I also need to acknowledge
>that for any time that happens, there are three movies like
>Pelican Brief or Unstoppable or the absolutely unassailable
>Devil in a Blue Dress that, while they didn't *need* Denzel
>Washington, thank god they got Denzel Washington because
>that's what made them awesome. I'll sit through the occasional
>Bone Collector to make that happen.
>
>Though now that I said all that, I'll also throw out that even
>though it was a pretty good film, we didn't need a remake of
>the Manchurian Candidate.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He loves crowd-pleasing thrillers where he's a detective or cop or man on the run-- the sorts of star vehicles that they rarely make anymore, movies that feel designed to run on mid-budgets aiming for mid-profits that largely exist to help young stars cut their teeth and build star power with an audience. Even the less successful Denzel movies like this-- your Ricochets, your Virtuositys, your Sieges-- you can see Denzel figuring out how to carry movies exactly like those.

So by the time he's been opening mainstream movies successfully for a few years, you can tell that, in your John Qs, your Out of Times, etc, he's figured out how to just *radiate* star power. Most young actors-- especially ones who got their start in TV like Denzel-- can never truly make that jump to Movie Icon because they just don't make these sorts of movies anymore. So studios will throw your Taylor Kitschs or Jai Courteneys or God knows who else into these giant roles in big expensive movies and expect them to just have IT from the jump... when you don't really become a movie star until you've made a *bunch* of lower-budget and indie movies and learned how to carry them on your own.

So maybe Denzel keeps making these B-grade thrillers and actioners-- Safe House, 2 Guns, the Equalizer trilogy, etc-- because he's the only one that can really get them made at this level anymore, lol. I don't know. But he's definitely the sort of star that is very reluctant to star in anything that isn't a Denzel Vehicle. (It'll be very interesting to see him in Gladiator 2, his first supporting role in a non-self-directed movie since... what, Crimson Tide??)

It had good bones but just didn't land right.

Definitely beneath Denzel at this stage.

and I've seen malignant.

I only watched this cause a podcast that covers bad movies did an episode on it. It’s as painful as it sounds:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Copy_(film)

Edit: this should be obvious, but Denzel is not what drags the movie down.

of everything I've seen, there's always this level of "I got this" confidence that Denzel exudes no matter who he's playing

even in Training Day all the times where he's like "You passed the test, Hoyt, there's a part of me theat believes him lol

>of everything I've seen, there's always this level of "I got
>this" confidence that Denzel exudes no matter who he's playing
>

Specifically his speech to his dad towards the end had me going “why was this movie a comedy? THIS is 1,000 times more compelling.”

I’d be curious to hear what he thought of the script at the time, what he thought of the finished product, and how he feels about it now. I could only find a tiny little blurb in an interview where he mostly addresses his ethos for picking roles after this one. Doesn’t actually talk much about this movie.

Might be recency bias but it’s terrible. Far worse than “The Little Things” which was at least interesting.

Just a poorly made film on so many levels. Equalizer 2 wasn’t much better but I didn’t find myself thinking about all the things wrong with it for several days like I did with Threequelizer.

I think some people complained that John Wick 4 was too long - so that seems to border on pacing issues/complaints/faults.


That's the only way I see a formula film being terrible.

...and...

The Equalizer 2 had a setup where the bad guys were his old partners who thought they could easily take him out and he compelled them to meet him on his their old stomping grounds....

...so...

...that was a formula that I saw worked well enough to make the audience want part 3.


Part 3 didn't have an enemy like part 2 but...it's hard for me to complain too much about formula.


John Wick 4 was where I could see they were trying to go a bit more epic than formula would allow - but it kinda worked.

At least in Equalizer 3, you get Robert Richardson Italy cinematography, some nice brutal violence, and some fun Denzel monologuing. Good August movie vibes.

The Little Things was okay for the first 30 minutes or so but ultimately bored me to tears.

can't even do it. I love this movie but I'm biased. I'm the child of Jamaican immigrants so any JA we get on screen we scrutinize and then hold close. Unless, its really bad like Shottas or some other BS.

As far as worst movies, i don't think he has one. He has the great movies, and then he has movies I don't need to see again, like Roman J Esquire as someone up top pointed out.

I'll never forget watching Training Day in the theater and believing Denzel was the good guy until the very last second. Then on the second watch I had the Weebay face the whole time lol.

Fences shook me too. Only because this wasn't heroic Denzel or bad ass Denzel, it was regular black man trying to do the right thing and had some tail on the side Denzel and then he died Denzel. WTF.

Saw it in Times Square when it was released.

Probably will buy the DVD if I can.

Definitely was a late-80's early 90's "ride"


Popcorn movies-formula movies just hit their notes.

My review from Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/russellhfilm/film/ricochet/

"tired: saying “they wouldn’t make this today!” about politically incorrect movies and shows

wired: saying “they wouldn’t make this today!” about sturdy, sleazy, violent, well-directed mid-budget thrillers that allow young leading actors to further cultivate actual star power

last third has at least three different “DON’T DO THAT!” moments that only happen to set up the finale— when he doesn’t grab the tape upon leaving the house, I hit pause and screamed into a pillow— but that’s part of the fun of movies like this. there’s style to spare, there’s genuine star wattage from both leads (giving Lithgow several dozen truly demented lines is a serious bonus), and some of the violence/nudity is delightfully eyebrow-raising. if Netflix made a dozen movies like this per year, they’d be profitable by second quarter of 2023."

It's got an over-the-top Russell Crowe, but other than that, it's an awful movie. Not Denzel's best work in any sense.

I think the concept is actually pretty interesting-- and would definitely hit different in 2023. They should probably consider remaking it, or at bare minimum repurposing some of these ideas for a new movie.

But yeah, it's silly, lol. And considering Jurassic Park was in 1993, its special effects looked dated before it even came out, lol.

But I think the plot was silly and used a lot of cheese horror tropes. It was like Shocker (a fave of mine) and Child's Play. You're spot on about the effects; terrible, but so many other films of that time were awful... It brings to mind the effects used in Johnny Mnemonic.