Equilibrium

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.

If there is one complaint about the Hollywood system that rings true, it is that Hollywood seems quite bereft of ideas. Then films like Equilibrium come out and remind us that it's not that we're out of ideas so much as we're just not trying hard enough. Not that Equilibrium is inherently new - it borrows a fair few plot concepts from Farenheit 451 and Nineteen Eighty-Four, to name the most prominent examples. It is the way in which the old ideas are combined with the new that makes Equilibrium a fun and underrated experience.

The premise is simple enough. In a kneejerk reaction to the horrors of World War Three, the survivors outlaw what they blame the chaos upon. Their own emotions, in other words. As the lead character has a series of revelations, we begin to understand that in so doing, they have also outlawed much of what gives our existence a point. In the bland, lifeless world that the law-abiding citizens inhabit, everything that the audience takes for granted to make their lives worthwhile is being systematically destroyed. Shades of the America of today, the whole principle of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, are shown in a stark horror show.

I've read people comparing this film to The Matrix or its sequels. Where The Matrix series' fights were overlong, and often with no payoff, Equilibrium's fights are short and to the point. The difference this makes is, needless to say, as uplifting as Preston's fight to regain the humanity he stripped so many others of. Instead of having fights with no emotional connection to the characters, the story is given sufficient development to make the audience care what happens.

The film is not entirely without flaws. The Prozium element seems to have been written with no regard for the facts about psychiatric medicines. Their purpose is not to suppress emotion at all, but to balance the chemical system of the brain in order to give the patient better control of them. Sure, they're not without problems of their own, but exaggerating them like this does not do the portion of the community that needs them any favours. That aside, however, the on-camera struggle is one of the most intriguing I've viewed for some time. Ergo, this minor plot problem is made up for. The only other real complaint I have is that the film could have done with a little more footage to give some characters more of a chance to develop.

I gave Equilibrium an eight out of ten. It's not the best negative science fiction you'll ever see, but it is enough of a breath of fresh air that this won't entirely matter. If the MPAA made more films like this, it wouldn't be suffering the constant financial dire straits that it so loves to blame everyone else for.

A strong film with plenty to recommend it, EQUILIBRIUM was released to the noise of "not another MATRIX rip-off" and similar sentiments. This instant decision is a little unfair, because – although obviously inspired by the Keanu Reeves blockbuster in places – EQUILIBRIUM is a decent and intelligent science fiction thriller with a pleasing change of pace. Once again we're in an Orwellian style future of grab greys and mundane apartment-block buildings, where emotion is suppressed and evil henchmen in motorbike helmets go around shooting little dogs. In this world we meet Christian Bale, a martial arts superhero who goes around murdering all those emotional and artistic folks.

Sure, it's an old story, but it works well here. CGI cityscapes aside, there are no fancy special effects robots or monsters; instead the basis is on good old-fashioned characters, and with a supporting cast that includes Sean Pertwee, Sean Bean, Taye Diggs, William Fichtner, and Emily Watson; you can't go wrong. Much of the story is predictable and there are a couple of sappy moments, but for the most part this is suspenseful, exciting stuff. A handful of violent, ultra-stylish action sequences (displaying originality, even in this day and age) add to the impact and help make the underlying dreariness rather enjoyable. Very entertaining viewing that deserves to be given a chance. A lot of this works thanks to Bale; once again, he's excellent in the part. I'd go so far as to say that this is actually better than THE MATRIX; whereas that film was all action, this one makes you think in a moral sense, and the action supports the story – rather than the action being the story.

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 bought Equilibrium just because Christian Bale is in it. To tell you the truth I was certain that it was going to be a goofy, direct-to-video sci-fi fiasco that most involved would just as soon forget. The cover box reminded me of Universal Soldier. As it turns out however, it's not a movie that those involved want to forget, it's an overlooked gem, no doubt because it came at the height of the Matrix craze, which it may resemble in too many ways. Unfortunately, too many people will callously write it off as a Matrix rip-off, and it's a shame because this is one of the best science fiction films to have come along in quite some time.

It takes place in the far off 21st century, but it's not about the future (given that it exists in a future that can't ever exist), it's about the disturbing reality that war is a part of human nature, and in order to eradicate it from the modern world we would have to become a homogenized society of emotionless, drug-controlled zombies. No jokes about that already being a reality.

The movie's biggest assertion is that it assigns blame for man's inhumanity to man to his ability to feel (ignoring the real causes, such as religion, political power, and less dogmatic things like national pride and human rights). The current government is based on enforcing the mass removal of emotion from the masses using a drug called Prozium, and is the source of the movie's main irony, that in order to eradicate war, it has waged war on all of it's own citizens, who constantly live under close surveillance.

The government employs Grammaton Clerics to handle that surveillance. They are highly trained officers authorized to kill anyone they deem to be "sense offenders" on the spot ("I trust you'll be more vigilant in the future?"). There is, in fact, a staggering amount of irony in the film, given that all emotion or feeling is strictly forbidden under penalty of death, and yet anger, suspicion and fear are all alive and well, and even flaunted. It's also interesting to consider that in real life it is the dogmatic, Cleric-like believers who aspire for war, and the normal people who just want to live their lives.

For the most part the movie ignores the fact that it is governments that wage war, not citizens (even emotionally sensitive ones), but no matter. The important thing that you need to know about the movie is that it goes way, way too far, and because of that, it's fun. I cheered out loud several times during the film because the gun fights, which are so unrealistic it's almost funny, are genuinely well-choreographed and exciting. If I may say so, this is what gun fights in hard core science fiction movies should look like.

Many people criticize the movie for being unrealistic or too extreme, altogether forgetting what kind of movie they're watching in the first place. The movie is not about moral dilemmas, even though the main character suffers a tremendous one, it's a fast, gritty science fiction movie that makes no apologies, and owes none. The characterization may be just a little heavy (Bale's character going from not understanding a question about what he felt when his wife was incinerated to having a soft spot for puppies, etc.), but like another outstanding and equally over-the-top film, Shoot 'Em Up, nothing is out of place. All of the excesses look right at home.

It is interesting to consider the real-world implications of the content of the movie though, regardless of how unrealistic it is. The totalitarian regime, for example, resembles Mao Tse- tung's manner of oppression with startling closeness, even down to the children spying on and reporting their parents. Under Mao, children who reported their parents engaging in "counter'-revolutionary activities" were publicly hailed as national heroes while their parents were generally tortured and executed. Whether the crimes were real or not was unimportant, what mattered is that, as you can imagine, in a society where people were so easily made to desperately fear their own children, you can imagine the level of control the government (Mao) had over the people. Something similar happens in this movie.

The similarities to The Matrix films are obvious, but limited mostly to superficial things like the fight scenes and some costumes. Thematically, the movies are totally different, and even with all of the similarities, this movie is more than able to stand on its own, and any similarities are more just an unfortunate bit of timing, as this is probably what caused the movie to be so overlooked. If you can't handle a little excess in the movies, definitely stay away from this one. But if you can watch a movie just for a good time, you could do a lot worse than this.

Note: Keep your eye out for Dominic Purcell, Prison Break's Lincoln Burrows, in the opening scene. He should have had a bigger role in the movie...