Wednesday, October 13, 2010

equilibrium

what's the point of your existence?


after being ravaged by a third world war, the majority of human life lives in a big city, drugged up to the eyeballs on prozium: a drug which suppresses emotions and allows people to lead a drone-like peaceful existence. life is quiet, apart from the incessant drone of father's (sean pertwee) video broadcasts which seem to permeate every corner of the city with their annoying crap. luckily people are so drugged up, that their lives are not ruined by this, although some people don't take the drugs!!!

these people commit "sense crimes" and do wild things like sit around listening to music, looking at paintings and reading poetry. luckily there are a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed grammaton clerics who seek out and slaughter these wrong doers. one such cleric is preston (christian bale), a textbook automaton and, as such, highly respected. if you haven't already guessed, one day something happens which makes preston question this world in which he lives: maybe it's time he had a feel?

now, for some reason i'd always given this film a pretty wide berth; i now have the knowledge that my brain must've known more than it was letting on and it was protecting me from watching such a turd. really, i'm just not sure where to start...

for a film about feeling and art (you know, stuff which inspires feeling) being suppressed, there's an awful lot of feeling and art on show, people seem to be wearing heavily stylised clothing, there's an awful lot of aesthetically minded architecture and there's even art and sculpture knocking around in the office of father's number two. oh, and most of it looks rather cheap. i could go on...

then, there's the totally unbelievable transformation of preston from goonish robot to feeling freedom fighter, performed by christian bale with all the acting prowess of joey tribbiani. he sucks.

then, there's the 'gun katas', which have an interesting concept behind them but just look a little silly and are executed in a way that seems to suck out all the fun of two-gun action - surely the most damning indictment of the film? or, maybe it's just that fact that it uses every double-bluffing, triple-bluffing, cheap plot device and every trite visual cue possible in its running time?

i'm quite confident that this film will come to be classed as a 'golden turkey' in the future, but for now, unless you want to laugh at something for being so bad, that it's funny, then give this a miss.

bad, really bad.

the dvd is £2.99 from play.com

No comments: