Equilibrium (2002 Christian Bale Movie)

I thught that the only real problem with Ultraviolet was the incomprehensible storyline, and the rumor is that Kurt Wimmer turned in a two hour cut and the studio wanted a 90 minute cut for distribution. So they hacked it up and that's why the story doesn't make sense.

The villain is also pretty ridiculous but I'm not sure I consider that a bad thing.

The special effects were also pretty laughable. It was a bit too ambitious for the budget it had. Some of the scenes looked straight up Asylum quality. Coming off of how great Equilibrium looked, and how well all of the scenes were pulled off, it was shocking at just how awful everything was handled in Ultraviolet.
 
Holy shit

3 of my favorite actors

Bale, Hardy, Gosling.

The trifecta

vGvGUKZugIanC.gif

 
I watched it about a month or so ago on Netflix for the first time. It was good.
 
The special effects were also pretty laughable. It was a bit too ambitious for the budget it had. Some of the scenes looked straight up Asylum quality. Coming off of how great Equilibrium looked, and how well all of the scenes were pulled off, it was shocking at just how awful everything was handled in Ultraviolet.

Well the look in Ultraviolet was stylized. I guess you could love it or hate it, but the effects weren't due to the budget, they were due to wanting to achieve a specific look. Kurt Wimmer talked about it in an interview I read. He said he wanted to make the film look like the panels of a comic book come to life.

I thought it was an interesting creative decision.
 
I thought the Gun-Kata was cool. You say style over substance, but if you remember, it was supposed to be a scientific way of fighting that was efficient in its use of movement and angles.



There's no substance to the story, the way it's told and just the overall writing. That's what I meant. It's a very generic film using a run of the mill dystopian/totalitarian future as the back drop. It's also a very predictable film too, I'll add.


If you dig it cool. Overall, I don't, and these are some of my reasons.
 
There's no substance to the story, the way it's told and just the overall writing. That's what I meant. It's a very generic film using a run of the mill dystopian/totalitarian future as the back drop. It's also a very predictable film too, I'll add.

If you dig it cool. Overall, I don't, and these are some of my reasons.

I just view it as a loose adaptation of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
 
1 of the many many movies where Sean Bean gets murdered.
 
Well the look in Ultraviolet was stylized. I guess you could love it or hate it, but the effects weren't due to the budget, they were due to wanting to achieve a specific look. Kurt Wimmer talked about it in an interview I read. He said he wanted to make the film look like the panels of a comic book come to life.

I thought it was an interesting creative decision.

Perhaps. "Speed Racer" tried that shit, and I thought it looked cheesy as hell too. And that movie had like 10x the budget as Ultraviolet. Maybe it was a creative decision, but I still think it looked pretty lame.
 
Wasn't this movie regarded as using hand guns in the same way a samurai uses their katana? I liked it a lot even on the first watch
 
Fucking amazing movie. Loved it.

And I think people need to keep in mind it was from 2002. A lot of movies from that long ago suck pretty bad when you watch them now. This one is still good IMHO.
 
And I think people need to keep in mind it was from 2002. A lot of movies from that long ago suck pretty bad when you watch them now. This one is still good IMHO.

LOL. C'mon, man. 2002 wasn't that long ago and movies don't even really look very different now from how they looked then. Filmmaking has evolved far less in the last 20 years than the art did in any previous 20 year period. FAR less.

You must be very young.
 
LOL. C'mon, man. 2002 wasn't that long ago and movies don't even really look very different now from how they looked then. Filmmaking has evolved far less in the last 20 years than the art did in any previous 20 year period. FAR less.

You must be very young.

I haven't seen The Matrix for a long time, so not sure how that holds still.

But I just did a quick search of 2002 movies . . . Okay, most of those hold up pretty well still. Not sure about Blade 2. So I take it back. And I'm not too young either lol :)

But I have to admit, it feels like a long time ago because The Ring is from 2002, it's one of my favorite films, and it seems like it was ages ago I saw it in the theatre.

But seriously, I'm surprised at all the solid flicks that came out that year.

Yeah I guess most films from then still show well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top