Equilibrium

My review is one on Christian Bale rather than the movie per se. His going from stone-cold to an emotional man is simply flawless. He gets to transmit everything the story needs at the right time. Bale is the greatest actor of his generation and never afraid to get his hands REALLY dirty. He's played a highly controversial psycho (in an admittedly light version of a really crude and insightful novel... But you realise after you watch him, every time you read the novel again HE IS Patrick Bateman), a LITERALLY starving and tormented loner (please see The Machinist if only for his PERFECT, ground-breaking work of art, which includes both his acting skills and his beyond-emaciated body), a hopeful gay teenager turned hopeless adult (Velvet Goldmine, where he's amazingly accurate in a minor -as length goes- role and you really believe he's a shy and lively teenager and minutes later you believe he's a weary, melancholy adult), a conflicted superhero (the best Batman by far, followed by Michael Keaton of course) and all sorts of middle-of-the-road characters. He's not your average mainstream star and he'll never be, I hope... He's too much in love with his work to become that. Good for him.

Equilibrium is a very fine movie. Highly entertaining, the score was more than okay, the casting does a really good job (I liked The Matrix -although I prefer Equilibrium's sobriety and rhythm, which many may find boring-, but come on... The actors were inferior and I'm sorry but Keanu Reeves just can't make it. Where Bale is all complex, nuanced and charismatic, Reeves is just handsome wood) and the fight scenes are beautiful to look at. Cons are the Father, who seemed too weak to me, and the ending which doesn't do justice to what comes before. In any case, this is an above-average sci-fi flick. Take a look.

Set in a future, post-World War III society where emotions have been outlawed, Equilibrium tells the story of John Preston (Christian Bale), a government agent who begins to have doubts about the policy he is enforcing.

Equilibrium is the perfect example why I do not rate lower for derivativeness or unoriginality. The film is basically high-concept combination of Fahrenheit 451 (1966), George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (original published in 1949, film versions appeared in 1954, 1956 and 1984), The Matrix (1999) and a bit of The Wizard of Oz (1939) thrown in for good measure. What matters is not how original the ideas are (assuming it's not a case of plagiarism), as whether something is original or not is an epistemological problem that tells us more about our own familiarity with other material rather than the precedent status of the artwork we're questioning, but how well the material is handled. The high-concept material in Equilibrium is handled brilliantly.

On its surface, after a brief action-oriented beginning, Equilibrium is basically a progression from a fairly complex sci-fi film (meaning simply that it takes a lot of exposition to get up to speed) to a thriller to a "gun fu"-styled actioner. The progression is carried out deftly by writer/director Kurt Wimmer (who unfortunately hasn't shown the same level of elegant panache in other films I've seen from him, including Sphere (1998) and The Recruit (2003)), with all of the genres somewhat present throughout the film. Wimmer is so austerely slick here that Equilibrium sometimes resembles a postmodernist automobile commercial. The transition from genre to genre is incredibly smooth.

The most impressive material on this surface level is the gun fu action stuff, which almost "out-Matrixes" The Matrix in style, if not volume. Preston is so skilled to be an almost invincible opponent. His solitary misstep as a fighter occurs once he gives himself over to emotion. This is nicely related to the common advice from kung fu senseis that emotion lessens one's effectiveness in combat.

Of course a big part of Equilibrium is the set of philosophical points it has to make about emotion. There are sections of the film that are appropriately dialogue-heavy, and Wimmer is more than conspicuous with this (one of two) primary theme(s). Just as important as dialogue for Wimmer's commentary on man's emotions are body language and behavior. Some viewers might see it as a flaw that characters frequently show what they consider to be signs of emotions in their comments or behavior, but that's part of Wimmer's agenda. Because it's difficult to even say just what counts as an emotion, and emotions are so wrapped-up with being sentient beings, it would be difficult if not impossible to fully eliminate them, and it's certainly not recommendable. The cast does an excellent job of portraying characters who are supposed to be mostly emotionless but with cracks in the stoic armor continually poking through.

Wimmer has a harsh view of our society's self-medication epidemic--even the title of the film seems to be a stab at the common claim that drugs like Prozac and Xanax are taken to help one "smooth out", or "equalize", extremes of mood, or extreme dispositions. The Equilibrium government extends this agenda into the tangible material realm as they also attempt to "smooth out" mood swings by eliminating any cultural artifacts that might promote varied moods/emotions. Wimmer seems to see it as a not-too-exaggerated extension of the modus operandi behind Prozac-like drugs.

The other primary theme is one of institutional control. Wimmer has a lot to say about unquestioningly following authorities, and he's careful to show that it's not just governmental authorities that can be a problem. He does this by tightly wrapping religious allegory with his depiction of Equilibrium's government. The leader is known as "Father", and the government secret service members are "clerics". Those outside of this control are shown as authentic, free, individualistic and happy despite the hardships involved with their embrace of forbidden thought/items.

More subtly, Wimmer employs the now overused washed out blue-gray cinematography of late 1990s/early 2000s genre films towards an unusual end. It's not just a stylistic device here, but represents a particular kind of reality. Under the purview of the fascistic government, blue-gray predominates. When glimpses of freedom/authenticity enter the film, the blue-gray look is gone, replaced with strongly saturated warm colors, and occasionally a more nostalgic subdued tone. This is one of the film's similarities to The Wizard of Oz, although maybe not the most significant one.

If you're someone who cherishes originality for its own sake, you might not like Equilibrium as much, but you have much more serious epistemological problems to sort out. Otherwise, this is a film worth watching and thinking about.

First of all, a extremly tought provoking film!

Definitely a great film that really captures the essence of what makes us human. And how we need to protect freedom, democracy and culture forever.

I really think it manages to capture the human mind and the human experience of life and society.

Christian Bale fits perfectly for this role capturing his classic performances and abilitys as a actor during these "cold" roles he usually does.

Soundtrack is amazing!

Amazing script and filming aswell!

What makes my rating abit lower, from being a stable 8 or 9 is the exaggerated actionscenes that takes too much space.

Otherwise then that, its a movie that everyone should watch to understand how dangerous power could be and that we need to fight for freedom every day.

I've seen this movie 5 times (it's the nature of satellite TV) within the past week and it's true...you catch something you've missed or see something new with every successive viewing. This movie is way ahead of its time, and much better than the over-rated Matrix. Bale is always exceptional, and so is his "Metroland" co-star, Emily Watson. Maybe it's the Anglophile or Brit-flick fan in me, but I must say that the added presence of Sean Bean and Angus MacFadyen all but confirms the pre-eminence of UK acting in quality films. Accompanied by very appropriate techno-musik, the action sequences are fast and Euro-flashy, heavily influenced by Jan De Bont--different from the weird, drawn-out, "suspended/string puppet" thing that apparently passes for martial arts these days. (I miss Bruce Lee)

Anyway, if you haven't seen it, give this a shot. If you already have & weren't impressed, take a look at it again. It will grow on you. See if you're inclined to show up to work the next day looking and acting very much a "Cleric" who missed a Prozium dose.

I think this movie was a good movie, and I also think that most critics were unjustified in their reasoning for panning it. Almost seems like a conspiracy. Anyway, the story was interesting, it set up some kind of a reality where we have this "gun kata", and stuck with it. The "gun kata" never became a deus ex machina, it just drove the action sequences, while staying clear of the actual plot, which had some interesting twists, certainly more than the matrix. I think Christian Bale's character was a kind of clone of keanu reeves in the Matrix, but he is clearly a better actor, and his range was really challenged. The other characters were much less "wooden" and comic book like than the evil characters in the matrix, which ironically made them more human, almost too human for an action movie, and that is probably why the critics were so hard on it. The matrix (at least the first one) didn't take itself too seriously, but this one did...and I think it lived up to the challenge as much as any action movie set in the distant future with some reality bending. I really enjoyed it, and would have liked to see it in the theatre, none the less a great rent if you liked the first matrix, kill bill, or any other film that blends action with choreography and weaves an interesting tale of reality. My suggestion might have been more extreme antagonists, but then, perhaps this movie will help me accept more human-like villains in action movies. Anyway give it a try!