If you ever allow anyone who works for you to dismiss a classic like Big Trouble in Little China, then you have no right to class yourselves as a film authority. That film smacks of a self awareness your organisation couldn't dream of. It is more than tongue in cheek, it is a parody of the action genre. Before it's time in that respect, but fantastic in it's story and humour. It is almost as if you company write bad articles for the comments? I am aware I am part of that problem

The third film is weaker, in my opinion. Equaliser 2 offers insight into the past of Robert McCall, something that is heavily played on in the third film. It also shows a level of aggression building in him, both of these things are integral to the storyline of the third film. I reckon with retrospect, you would not have enjoyed the third installment as much if you didn't already understand these key character traits. Furthermore, 3 does not work as a stand alone film.

I love these films, but I firmly believe you have to watch them all. The second film was brilliant and, as Denzel Washington's first ever sequal, it had to be

These films are all based in character development, mainly from significant personal loss. The soundtracks are all full of nearly forgotten classics, and the humour is perfectly balanced though glib at times. The jokes made by the individual characters are designed to show their personalities, not designed to offend.

If this article was supposed to be anything other than fluff to fill a hole, then it would have been a good idea to find someone with the sense to understand these basic things.

Not everything has aged badly, but the idea to tear everything down for no reason definitely will....I hope