I've seen several threads where people say they say this movie for the first time and they thought it was just downright amazing. Why? The acting is relatively decent. The fights were very cleverly thought out and very well done, but that's it. The movie looked like it had absolutely no production values. The costume design was terrible. The guy's black coat looked like it had been sewn together by a fashion student at my school (read: it didn't look well made). The movie looked like it had been shot on 16mm film in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, but sure enough, it was 35mm panavision and full anamorphic widescreen. I was shocked by how badly the dialogue scenes were framed.... And for that matter... how nearly all of the scenes were framed. The cinematography was just horrible.

Like I said, all of this is with exception to the fight scenes. They were very well done, but the rest of the movie counts too, and they totally hosed the rest of the movie. Ok, so the movie was made with a meer 20 million dollars, which is commendable, and explains alot of the low cost look that is seen throughout most of the movie, but come on, I expect better than this from a movie that is hailed to be so great.

As I dig up more information, it becomes so clear to me why this movie is so disappointing. Ok, so it was only Kurt Wimmer's second movie. Good job to him. This is an achievement for only being his second movie. But it still isn't that great. I even hear people comparing this movie to the matrix. There is no comparison.

The movie just has that "I am a low budget action movie" look to it. As I was watching it, I kept getting this irking feeling that I was watching a movie from the 80's. It's got alot of the same cinematography cues and shortcuts in the non-featured action sequences. This movie really could have been great. It was made in 2002. That is 3 years post-Matrix. The Matrix could have turned out this way, but instead the Wachowski brothers made Bound in order to secure a good name in the film community, and that caused Joel Silver to cough up 63 million dollars for them to make the Matrix good! Which is why the matrix doesn't have that "I'm a low cost action movie" look to it. Kurt Wimmer should have done the same thing, the movie would have been released this summer or something, and it would have been alot better.

This is simply the ramblings of a man that watched this movie wanting to like it so badly because I had heard that it was unlike anything I had ever seen before. Well, the action scenes were nicely done, but the costume design, and every other aspect of the movie were poorly done.

Also... it felt like I could see Kurt Wimmer offscreen mouthing the words "act like Neo" to Christian Bale.

General conclusion. It was meh. I was thinking about just buying it. Man I am glad that I didn't.

It's cool.

I thought it was good, but not certainly the best. However, the action scenes are awesome on their own. I love gun kata.

i thought it was already being made when the matrix was being released/made? i didnt think it was matrix influenced.

youknow people who know a lot about something, when someone else does it, they can find many faults in it and not enjoy it. its called sukcing out the fun. maybe you didnt find it film-worthy with that huge analysis and all, but i can tell you i dont really notice. i notice bad dialogue when its cheese, and i didnt find anything too cheesey in that movie that other movies under this genre dont have. its like people who've read lotr trilogy, know that so much was left out/edited that they would have really wanted in there, and they think the movie was not as great as it could have been, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a good movie unto itself. so for the type of us who cant speak in elfish off the top of our head, i think its easier to judge a movie. A it sucked, B it didnt. and it takes less than a paragraph to say why.

Ok. That's simple enough.

It sucked. Here's why. It looked like a made for tv movie. Taye Diggs is a horrible actor. The costume design was terrible. The cinematography was terrible. Using medium full shots of people during dialogue scenes is something that they only do in soap operas... and there's a reason why it's only done in soap operas. It looked like a made for tv movie. End of story. A full length feature film looked like a made for tv movie. This is bad. If you can only get 20 million dollars to make this movie then you should immediately know two things:

1. My script is not very good.
2. I cannot afford to make this movie.

That is all.

Oh yeah, and it was released 3 years after the Matrix was released. Movies don't take 3 years to shoot, unless Stanley Kubrik comes back from the dead to direct it.

There is absolutely no way that this movie did not derive any influence from the Matrix.

Equilibrium was amazing. Acting, story, style.

Then refute my reasons.

I enjoyed it, it could benefit from some updates special effects and Taye Diggs death was HORRIBLE and so fake looking.

I didn't find it to be an amazing film, but I enjoyed Bale's performance, and Sean Bean is always good to see. There's only two scenes I really like; when Preston is listening to Ode to Joy and when the dogs are being shot. Two scenes that I actually found moving . I own it, and I enjoy the movie. I won't call it a stunning achievement, because it isn't. But it isn't a terrible film by any means.

I didn't really look at it as an action film though, I mostly look at a movie for dialogue; and for characters who can't emote, I thought the dialogue was fine.

YOUR OPINION HAS BEEN DISQUALIFIED.

It looked like a low budget action film because it was a low budget action film. That considered, it's a lot better than the cheesy 80s action filmes that were a dime a dozen 15-20 years ago.

Do we really have to? We don't have to write 10 pages on how we liked a movie and what emotions it made us feel, movies prime reason is for enjoyment, not to be over analysed this isn't an english lesson! I for one enjoyed Equilibrium and I thought it did well for a near future Big Brother style film, in which the film showed a dull life for people who don't feel anything. Clearly you can't sit down and turn your mind off for an hour or so movie and just enjoy it, in which it was ment for. Anyway enough of my rant.
/ends rant

-A_C_1

I liked it. It was a good movie, not neccessarily a great one. I enjoyed watching it, and thats all that counts for me. Although later on I realized that the storyline does follow along pretty closely with a book titled "We," which is a precursor of sorts to "1984" and "Brave New World."

If technical aspects and the size of a movie's budget is the only factors involved in making good films then our entertainment industry reallyh as fallen into the ****hole.

Listen, friends. Technical aspects are not neccesary. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind was great, and it used every low tech low budget trick in the book. It's also not a flashy action film. Technical perfection is neccesary in a flashy action film.

Troy Duffy had never written or directed a movie before he made the Boondock Saints. It was technicly pleasing as well as naratively pleasing. He did not try to do things that his budget could not justify. The Boondock Saints is a good flashy action movie. Equilibrium is not.

Saying that a stylistic action movie does not need to be technicly impressive is like saying that a good painting does not need to be painted well. A huge portion of the "good" comes from the looks!

And let's get down to brass tacks about "turning your brain off" during a movie. There is no excuse for this in a movie that is hailed as being so deep and story driven.

Also, lets talk about drive to do things well. The director and editor of this movie apparantly had no drive to do things well. There is a list of glaring continuity errors in this movie. I'm not usually the type of person to complain about small continuity errors, but some of these are really bad, and there's no excuse for this level of incompetance. If you are making a small budget film, and you cannot be succesful in matters such as sfx and whatnot (which do not make the film good) then you should at least have the good sense to try your damnedest to make the movie correctly and edit it properly.

If a movie is a drama then it could be shot on a 200 dollar mini dv camcorder that your mom bought at Sam's Club, and if it's good, it'll still be good, because drama is not made good by technical aspects and special effects. If you're going to make a flasy action movie then you had better damn well mind your p's and q's and make it right, or don't make it so flashy.

Eh, it was a decent action flick, but beyond that it was pretty average. It just seemed like they ripped a bunch of characters from The Matrix and threw them into a the setting of '1984'. So, I guess if you're looking for a quick action fix, definately check it out, but don't expect much else.

So he was acing like Neo because he was wearing a dark coat basically? Equilibrium doesn't do any of the dull slow-mo that most other recent action films to do try and look interesting. The fights showed an interesting variation on use of guns in combat. I found the premise interesting, don't care if it was unoriginal, not everything sets out to be groundbreaking. I am completely indifferent about acting quality in any film unless the acting is really bad. I can tolerate the acting of: Keanu Reeves, Ben Affleck, need I say more? It had Sean Bean, which automatically gives a flim bonus points. I thought the use of colour was interesting, the pastel/desaturated look to everything reflected well the reality of the society.

In conclusion, I found it highly enjoyable and a little bit thought-provoking which is what I look for in a film. End of.

I miss the days when people could just watch movies.

I do watch movies. I just hate it when they suck.

I thought the movie was fun, Bill, but your posts are simply awesome.

The movie did have enjoyable action scenes. That is a fact. But like I said it simply does not deserve the praise that it gets from so many people.

And thank you, thrawn numbers.

Judging by your posts, it is apparent that you in fact did not watch this movie, but rather examined it and analyzed it to the point of forgetting the purpose of the movie in the first place, which is to entertain. Most of your complaints are very trivial and have little to do with the actual movie itself.

I'm all for you having your own opinion, and your freedom of speech and all that. It is, however, my opinion that people should just watch movies, sit back, and enjoy them, instead of making such a big deal over all the little details.

I found that I really started to dislike English classes in high school because the teachers seemed to enjoy finding every little literary device, inner meaning, etc. in any book that we read. They had an idea of what the book meant to them, and that was it. I like the idea that some art just don't have a specific meaning, but the brilliance lies in the fact that different people can draw different things from the same work that have an importance to the individual (Orson Scott Card wrote that he hopes Ender Game does just that).
As for Equilibrium, I enjoyed it. I can't say I know much about movie making, and I don't think I need to. So the movie wasn't big-budget, I found it somewhat refreshing. So the look of the film was rather bad? Color was used heavily to show the drearyness of Libria as opposed to the freedom of the sense offenders. After I first saw the movie, I described it to a friend as "Martix meets 1984." I really don't think thats a problem. There was a solid statement about humans and humanity, at least to me, and I thoroughally enjoyed the movie and the conversations that I had about it later.
Two Three more things:
The coat, did you notice his car? Things aren't too fancy in Libria.
Second, for some reason I want to say that the movie felt like a good short story to me. It made a good statement and it did so simply and concisely.
Third, I thought it was great that so many people, like the son , weren't taking their pills.
I'll shut up now since noone is gonna read this much anyways.

this thread again?

I found a ton of flaws in it throughout the many times I've watch it. Especially with the plot, theres quite a few large holes.

But I enjoy it, because it was something new. Instead of just someone being immediately invincible, it actually focused on a specific training that caused them to be so untouchable in a bullet fight. Even if the director made up Gun Kata in his backyard...

Actually I find it rather amusing on a different level as well. True, they're supposed to be some humanitarian sort of Rebellion leading for what's true and whatnot against an Empire of emotionless jerks. But the interesting thing is that it's up to you to decide which side is right.. Because even though the Resistance are supposed to be "freeing humanity" they're also killing on scales comparable to the Touch of Gramaton.

Especially near the end, where they just murder every single guard not even giving them a chance to go off the dose or anything. Just mass killings.

It may not be the most spectacular movie ever made, and yes Taye Diggs got on my nerves with his acting. However, I enjoy it for the way it makes you think...and Bale was very good at doing the gunfights, especially the six guard pistol-whip scene.

As for the comparisons to the Matrix: There is absolutely no way that it compares to the Matrix in a way that it could only be the Matrix it's taking from. Gun fights in black clothes? Punisher was doing that in comics long before the Matrix came out.

A single guy taking down a whole group that has become the rulers over the human race? That's been done long before the Matrix as well.

THANK YOU!

Also, Thrawn, you've read Cryptonomicon right? Am I the only one that is reminded of Lawrence Pritchard Waterson by Bill's analyzation of this movie?

No offense Bill, but seriously, there are a few movies in life I take very seriously. One, being Fight Club, because it's got a deeper satirical meaning as explained more thoroughly in the book. I'm not "OMG FIGHT CLUB" but I do recognize its meaning, what it stands for. Two being Garden State. Having only seen this recently, I must attest to its utter awesomeness. I've never enjoyed a movie on so many levels before. The last being The Boondock Saints. Other than those three, I can't really think of ones that I would look more deeply into.

Breaking down a movie into its core components is all and well...but we're not film students, we don't know half of what you're saying, or trying to convey, and neither do we care. We're the general populace, the, if you will, 'ignorant and uneducated' populace. We don't care if a movie looks low budget if it has a meaning and/or another enjoyable aspect. We don't care what aspect it was filmed in (usually). We don't care if they used cheap effects, if we can't tell, and trust me, for the most part people can't tell. The only thing we do care about is bad acting, cheesy dialog, and poor execution.

Long story short: I never noticed a bad quality in the filming, I never thought the cinematography was bad or horrendous. Not on par with Kill Bill, but passable, by far. I don't care, even, that there may be a plot hole or two in the movie.

I like the idea of the movie, I like the execution, and I like the action scenes. Therefore I enjoy the movie.

I really hope you get what I'm trying to say.

I don't like Fight Club, but I got it's message..to bad the fcat they made a movie (and a game!) out of it totally destroys its sincerity.

Well...the answer to both your questions is "yes." :p

The last track of the trailer.

Yeah, I found interest in the movie, but the book was about 100x better, and the movie became too...pop culture I guess.

Most people just liked it because it had brad pitt, or had violence.

*sigh*

I think Fight Club is a horrible movie. If the book is as good as some suggest and full of all this "deeper meaning" (which I have no reason to doubt) then I would think the film would either really piss off fans of the book or, somehow (and most likely), allude just enough to what is in the book to satisfy them. I'll probably read the book someday and then watch the movie again. Who knows, my opinion may change.

Equilibrium cracks me up. I've never seen it but it seems to be a love it or hate it type of film.

I love the Fight Club book just as much as the film.

I must be just plain wierd then. I dont love it, nor do I hate it.

Eh? Fight Club (the movie) was an astonishingly accurate adaptation of the book.

It was? I liked it because it reflects the values of Libya. Everything is plain black or white. The mandarin collar can be associated with the Chinese, which is a communist country (Father Mao and "Father"). Not only that, but I think it's cool how the coat can hide a gun in its sleeves. Although in all the previous Equilibrium threads, no one has been able to answer my question regarding how someone can activate the arm holsters to make the guns fall out of the sleeves.

"Ode to the Grammaton", an impressive music video containing all the action scenes of the movie.

By the way, someone is making an Equilibrium mod for Max Payne 2.


Gun kata clip
Hall of Mirrors video

Sweetness.

I hope they do some work on those textures.

I suppose it depends on what you think of the actual arguments Fight Club is making.

If you're familiar with the whole "rebel consumerism" critique that it's making, then the whole thing with seem quite cliché.
Before I saw Fight Club, I wasn't, so I was well impressed with it. But it's all been said before, and Fight Club doesn't really offer anything new intellectually, so you could quite justifiably be getting tired of it.

Still, it's a nice 'introduction' to those like me that hadn't heard it before.


Also that Equilibrium mod looks to be exactly like that Matrix level, the hotel lobby.. I was impressed with the destructable pillars on that.

AKPiggott: Except for the Fight Club movie's awful ending, which completely twists the story's point into something both generically anarchist and Hollywood.

Gun katas look awesome, but I doubt they'd be much fun ingame. The movie ran out of plausible ways to surround the hero with enemies without him getting shot from 100m away, so a game would probably be insufferable.

The final fight sequence with the 2 men shooting at each other at point blank range was one of the most original, and coolest, fight sequences I have ever seen.