MSWallack

I first noticed Equilibrium while walking through Blockbuster one day. The cover of the DVD states, in big bold letters, "Forget About the Matrix". As a fan of The Matrix, this intrigued me. But not enough to make me rent a movie I'd never heard of. I'm usually pretty wary of straight to video movies. Then I saw a brief, positive mention of the movie in (I believe) Entertainment Weekly. So, on somewhat of a whim, I decided to rent Equilibrium. I'm glad -- thrilled even -- that I took the risk. I enjoyed the movie so much, that I promptly went out and purchased the DVD so that I can watch it again and listen to the director's commentary.

This is one of those movies where giving much of a description will give away too much of the  plot. Thus, I will only offer a few very basic plot notes. The story takes place several hundred years in the future, following a nuclear war. Humanity is now ruled by a semi-mysterious, Hitler-like figure who has decreed that to avoid the wars and other mistakes of humanity's past, the root cause of those mistakes must be eliminated: emotion. Thus, the characters inhabit a world in which the population takes drugs to prevent emotions (think Vulcans, without pointy ears) and "Grammaton Clerics" scour the world to eliminate those guilty of "sense crimes"; that is, those who would dare to experience emotions or the things that might trigger emotions. To that end, music, art, and even pets are forbidden.

The movie presents this future in a visually stunning way. The characters all dress in uniform colors, almost all blacks, blues, grays, and whites. Rooms are wholly unadorned (except those hidden quarters of "sense offenders"). In this world, we follow some of the Grammaton Clerics. These men are the elite police force and have honed their gunfighting skills to an extraordinary level. (How they do this is explained midway through the film.) One of these clerics, for reasons explained in the film, stops taking his daily drug ("prozium" -- could that be a plan on "Prozac" and "Valium"?) and begins to feel. The movie follows this cleric as he begins to explore something that he's never had: emotion. Christian Bale's facial expressions as his character begins the transition from non-emotional automaton to thinking, feeling, human are as fascinating (even stunning) as the sets his character occupies.

Equilibrium is a very interesting take on a dark and violent future. The choreographed fight scenes (predominantly later in the film) give rise to some of the comparisons to The Matrix. Equilibrium does not rely upon bullet time; however, it makes good use varying camera angles, different speeds of action, and other neat "tricks". One fight scene is very reminiscent of Neo's entrance to the building at the end of The Matrix. Note that the fight scenes are very violent. We see blood spilled. Frequently.

The film also offers a number of surprises. There were several times during the film when I thought the story would go a particular way or a particular result would occur, only to be surprised. I like when an intelligent movie can surprise me. Were there plot holes? Sure. But aren't there always?

Overall, however, Equilibrium was a very solid example of science fiction film-making. For anyone who enjoyed movies like The Matrix, Minority Report, Gattaca, or Dark City, I strongly recommend Equilibrium. I think it compares very favorably to any of these. For those who prefer movies/books like Brazil or 1984 I can also recommend this film. For anyone looking for a warm, cozy romantic comedy, look elsewhere. I would recommend that children not see this film; I'm afraid that both the themes and the vision of such a dark future would be too much for most children.

Cute and sweet. Probably the first film starring Will Farrell that I've enjoyed.

I have been a fan of the game Doom since it first came out, so I really wanted to like the movie. Alas, while it had some moments, it didn't have enough of them. Certainly not the worst movie of the year, but not worth a sequel unless they do a much better job.

While there were many enjoyable scenes, ultimately the movie was a bit of a letdown.

This is actually a difficult movie to review. As film goes, this one is certainly not a masterpiece; however, as disaster films go, this one is great. Leave real science (and your notions of whether global warming is real or not) at the door and just watch the movie for fun (and some cool special effects). Roland Emmerich is the best in the business at destroying major cities! Forgot about minor plot issues or sappy storytelling and just watch bad things happen. And tell me that you don't walk out of the theater feeling cold.

Jason Statham plays a character who is almost the diametric opposite of his character in the Transporter movies or, said differently, if the character in the Transporter movies was a drugged-out bad guy, he would be the protagonist of Crank. Ultimately, I enjoyed Crank, but I did not love it. The director made some odd camera choices (especially right at the beginning of the movie) that I didn't enjoy. Once the action got going (very over the top) the movie was a lot of fun. Plus, it had one of the most original sex scenes in recent memory. Recommended only for those who like quirky, off-beat humor mixed with violence.

I thought that this was going to be more of a horror movie (I haven't read any of the Hellblazer comics upon which it was based), so I was pleasantly surprised. The plot was much more involved than I expected. And I still think that Keanu Reeves is a good actor.

An "art film" about Ian Curtis, lead singer for the band Joy Division (that morphed into New Order, one of my three favorite bands). The film is done in stark black and white to highlight the dreariness of Manchester, England in the late '70s. The performances are outstanding (especially Sam Reilly as Curtis). I guess the biggest problem with the film is that it is limited by the source material and, given the real-life events, is not a particularly uplifting film. Not a movie for everyone.

A very good movie, but I couldn't get over the feeling that I was watching very good actors act. Somehow, I was never pulled into the story.

This film looked very good (for the most part), but suffers from several major problems. First, the story is slow. Second, the actors playing the children didn't strike me as terribly good actors (they all seemed a bit wooden). Third, and most problematic for me, the subject matter and its presentation trouble me. For those that may be unaware, The Chronicles of Narnia was written by a very well-respected Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, and is, essentially, a Christian allegory. That's fine. The problem for me [spoiler alert] is the treatment of the death of Aslan (the Christ-figure of the story). Not only is his death depicted in a very brutal manner (query the appropriateness of such in a film that will be seen by many children; then again, I bet that quite of few of them saw The Passion of the Christ ...), but Aslan's killers truly are monsters. As a Jew that has always had to deal with the accusation that it was the Jews who killed Christ, the portrayal of the murderers of the Christ-figure as actual monsters is, to say the least, troubling. I suspect (and hope) that many viewers will not make that connection or even recognize that Aslan represents Christ.

This was a very well done movie that succeeded just right in approaching the beloved original without forcing a viewer to constantly compare new to old. Yes, it is essentially the same story as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but the additional plot elements thrown in that really change the focus of the film so that, paradoxically, this movie is much more about Willy Wonka. Also, Johnny Depp's portrayal of Willa Wonka is very, very different from Gene Wilder's (incidentally, too many people forget the air of crazed malice that Wilder's Wonka evidenced several times in the original) and isn't nearly as creepy as it might appear from some of the trailers. Depp was absolutely fabulous. We took our 5 1/2 year olds and they loved it (there were a few brief "scary" moments for them, but not enough to detract from their enjoyment).

I'd like to give this film 10 stars, but Spout limits me to a mere 5. Casino Royale deserved as many stars as are available. It deserved Academy Award consideration (heck, it received the best cumulative reviews of the year for a wide-release film according to Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/rtawards/). This is a hard movie for me to review objectively. I have been a huge (no, I mean huge) James Bond fan since the mid-1970s and, while I am huge film of the movies, I am an even bigger fan of the books. So, to finally see the James Bond that Ian Fleming wrote about on the big screen was something that I've been waiting to see for thirty years (am I really that old?). And make no mistake, Daniel Craig's James Bond was absolutely (excepting only the blonde hair) the character that Ian Fleming created, simply advanced in time by 50+ years. In addition, the story was much closer to the novel Casino Royale than have been most of the movies (especially the more recent ones). In fact, the central part of the film was very, very closely based upon the novel with the beginning and end serving as excellent bookends around that central story. It was also great to see Vesper Lynd treated as a character rather than a cardboard "Bond girl". I could write about Casino Royale at length (and perhaps I will someday). For the time being, let me simply state that Casino Royale was a spectacularly good movie and Daniel Craig was a spectacularly good James Bond.

To see this movie is to know, instantly, why Disney was willing to spend lots and lots and lots of money to buy Pixar. Cars is another absolute winner in the in the Pixar stable (feather in the cap? trophy in the case? pick your cliché). Suffice it to say that adults will not be bored or disappointed and kids will love the film. I can't think of a single demographic that won't enjoy Cars. Oh, and for the tech geeks out there, most of the animation was about as good as animation has ever been.

Why does Disney insist on killing parents? And if that wasn't enough, in Brother Bear, Disney feels the need to kill a sibling as well. That said, there were some very funny bits and the animation was lovely to look at. The kids loved it, so I guess that's all that really matters.

A "serious" spy movie. Thankfully, I didn't know much more than the basis of the Robert Hanssen investigation, so the story was new and fresh. Chris Cooper deserves a nomination for his portrayal of Hanssen.

First the caveats: (a) I really enjoyed The Bourne Identity and (b) I really enjoyed the novels upon which these movies are (very loosely) based. That said, I also loved The Bourne Supremacy. Matt Damon may not play the same character that Robert Ludlum penned, but his Jason Bourne is just as interesting. The action is frenetic and the use of moving cameras gives the viewer a sense of being in the midst of the action. I love that, as in the first film, the car chase utilizes a beat-up "clunker" rather than a high-powered sports car. Similarly, many of Bourne's actions feel as if they were scripted by someone that has at least some clue as to espionage tradecraft (although a few errors, such as having a taxi take him directly to a particular address, were glaring). Without offering any spoilers, it is worth noting that one of the two surprises in the film was actually quite surprising. And I like being surprised in an espionage genre movie, because it is, frankly, quite rare. All, in all, this one is definitely worth watching, and definitely on the big screen. (In fact, I fear that the feeling of some of the action sequences -- in particular the foot pursuit in Berlin -- will not translate very well to television screens.) Finally, please note that this movie and the book upon which it is "based" share nothing more than a title and the names of a few characters; there is far less similarity between the book and movie than there was for the book and movie of The Bourne Identity. The novel The Bourne Supremacy is a very good book and, while I recommend it, I do so on the basis of that book and not this movie. In fact, I wish that the producers of the film had found another title to eliminate the confusion that this will inevitably cause.