...but a shiny turd is still a turd.
The difference between a good bad movie and a piece of shit is fun. Poor cinematography, bad acting, ridiculous scripts, these can call be forgiven as long as you are too busy having fun. "The Rise of Skywalker", "The Phantom Menace", and "Attack of the Clones" are films that I still enjoy because of my "Star Wars" fandom.
"Rise" has an incoherent script, but, I cannot help but pop for the heavy-handed fan service. The second time I saw it in a theater, when I saw all the flash armada, tears were being help back at the beauty of the concept. "Menace" and "Clones" dialogue for Natalie Portman and Hayden Christianson is beyond awful, but the story it was explaining made sense to me. Who can be pissed at an abundance of Jedi anyhow?
If you go through my blog "Best 2019 Ninety-Minute (or 97 min) Films for Chilling", only two of the movies are undeniably good (I will argue that "Yoga Hosers" was exactly what it set out to be, but that may not make it good in the eyes of some.). Do I appreciate the excellent movies more? Yes. Do I frequently have more than an hour forty to devote to one. With two jobs and at least 20 video games to play, would you suspect that I did?
Well, if it is a monthly "Star Wars" flick, I will make the time for it.
The point is, if you want to get the most out your cinema time, you have to expand your horizons. Of course the downside is, 50 percent of what is out on the shelves is genuine crap.
Now, I have been able to make some films fun. Like "Ultraviolet". Surely by watching it enough, I can find a way to salvage and appreciate it. Timur Bekmambetov may have.
I am sorry, Timur did not. That is how bad the effects and direction were "Ultraviolet". They were so bad that I thought the film predated both "Night Watch" and "Day Watch". So, reopening a movie review (and ICC's Chinese 211) notebook and finding my review for "Equilibrium", a film by "Ultraviolet" writer/director Kurt Wimmer, spawned my justification for watching bad movies and brief reevaluation of having a website devoted to 90 minute films.
20 (give or take) new reviews posted last year, three to four were weak. This means I spent nine hours watching crap. If poop is not in my Pornhub search history, why do I let it be in my queues when I could catch up on my Scorsese? That is enough time to get three films in. Good thing one of them is "Taxi Driver" at two hours.
 |
I could not have been the only one who was skeptical about any movie with this a quote from WBAI's nameless critic:
FORGET "THE MATRIX"! This Movie Will Blow You Away!
I suppose I should be skeptical of any quote formatted like that. Shout or get off the pot.
Action wise, "Underworld" eventually gave us a new approach to the sleek style of the Wachowski Sisters. Sci-fi wise, how can you dream of trying to capture what that film had? Also, the English leads in "Existenze" and "Equilibrium" added some unwanted pretention to the genre that was already overly pretentious to begin with.
It was not until "Ultraviolet" attempted to presented a world "you may not understand" that I dared to venture into Kurt Wimmer's bleak not so distant future(s). I figured 10 years had passed since super Jovovich from the "Fifth Element", so it was time to give the machine overlord-free future action flicks another chance. Unfortunately, Wimmer's film was too much about making the lead out to be hotter than Beckingsale and lacked any real substance. That was quite an accomplishment since the film featured both vampires and futuristic gun play.
Recently, some friends recommended Equlibrium to me. It has been a decade since "The Matrix" (The draft for this review was written in 2009.), and it is not a Bale sequel ("The Dark Knight" was bloated and wasted too many DC characters.), so it should be worthwhile...right?
I looked at the DVD's box to discover that is was also directed by Wimmer, so as an aspiring film critic, this gave me an opportunity. It would be a film that could be bad or good that should be nice and easy to view with no bullshit middle ground to describe. The problem now is the film's title is literal, "Equilibrium" is all middle ground and a waste of 110 minutes.
In the 21st century, a father figure had determined that human emotion has nearly brought humanity to the brink of extinction. With no perceived wants, hate and jealousy cannot exist because there would no longer be reason to use them. Love causes irrational acts, so it only hurts mankind.
As long as members of this society keep on their dosage of a drug to subdue their emotions, the world will prosper through conformity. If any member of the Libria has an emotion, they will be incinerated to maintain equilibrium. The Father's clerics are trained to search and destroy threats to the society.
Cleric Preston is the best, but after having to kill his partner over contraband, he is second guessing his purpose to exist. When he captures his partner's lover, he starts to learn what can be gained by having feelings. Now he must determine what is more important, peace or humanity. Stand and destroy nonconformists or attack and introduce the world to what they have lost.
As a director, I do not see how Wimmer has fans to support him. (Since he has not directed a film since 2006, I think this observation indicated that he does not have the fans suggested). Perhaps it is because of Gun Kata, "his" kung-fu gun play hybrid. To me, this is his clever way to cover up his inability to direct or write action sequences.
In his directorial efforts, Wimmer has few great action sequences, but they are not based on his attempts to rip of chapter 29 of "The Matrix". His protagonist effortlessly lays waste to armies of adversaries, and in "Equilibrium", it is pathetic to watch. The hero is never threatened, so there is no reason to feel involved. The viewer eventually wants the hero to take a slug or two.
Since he does have the ability to catch an occasional action scene right, he should not rely on tricks like scenes in absolute darkness. These scenes may show his vision as a director. It seems that he is trying to capture storyboards shots, so actual motion is secondary. When one is directing a motion picture, to ignore the motion part makes it seem like the director has missed the point.
With "Equilibrium", Wimmer at least shows some ability as a writer. The world he created in this film is logical. Our hero has to overcome something that he is aware of, and the story tells his struggle well. Which is an accomplishment with all of the sudden twists that do not show up till the stories fourth act. It does seem to run long because the hero is trying to maintain his mental/emotional density. Again, you wish for something bad would happen to him for his own sake.
Bale is able to shine as the cleric. Like his performance in "Public Enemies", you can see his emotional struggle between what he should do and what he must do. With no Johnny Depp, to share the film with, it allows for a greater appreciation of his talents.
Of course, if he was going to do this in a flawed film, I would rather it have been in "Terminator Salvation", a film that only story problem is based to that series's continuity.
Seeing "Equilibrium" only encourages a subpar talent to remain subpar. Bale's performance is great, and the story is compelling, but the action will make the audience cringe. "Equlibrium" is "Two Girls, One Cup". It is fun to talk about, but not to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment