Bad…and I'm a real fan of dystopias
-
pbento68 — 12 years ago(August 16, 2013 10:17 PM)
I do not think that word means what you think that it meansregardless how is the leader of a society in which you are executed for reading poetry or having a puppy NOT a tyrant?
Also, saying someone is stupid in no way strengthens your argument. It merely highlights your inability to effectively engage in thoughtful debate. -
evalina06 — 11 years ago(September 19, 2014 03:18 AM)
just a reply in general. equilibrium is definitely dystopian. setting is dystopian world in the aftermath of/post-apocalypse. along with dystopic it contains a small bit of cyberpunk elements.
dystopian fiction often shows an illusion of a utopia in which the protagonist or "hero" has a reality check when the illusion of or idea of the utopia is shattered (if they aren't already part of the rebellion against that society to begin with). dystopias feature oppressive governments or rulers with rebellion rising against from within totalitarian society, which is what john comes to do: rebel like the other rebels after withdrawing from prozium and having the illusion of that false utopia stripped away.
i thought equilibrium was a good dystopian tale wrapped by a beautifully stylized vision that essentially still holds up today. -
triplegrim — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 06:07 AM)
i thought equilibrium was a good dystopian tale wrapped by a beautifully stylized vision that essentially still holds up today.
This sums up the thread. No point in reading the arguments further down.
I must add that Equilibrium would work without the action too. The Matrix, which it is often compared to, would fall completely apart. -
nijabhaava — 13 years ago(November 04, 2012 10:37 AM)
its not a dystopian movie
dystopias are about tyranny.
It is about the idea of a utopia - and the fact that ideas cannot encapsulate reality. Reality needs to be felt directly.
what else would you name the kata? Gun kata is the only sensible name. lmfao
cleric. he is a cleric. what the hell else would he be
the costumes were great and spot on. what do you want from a movie thats supposed to be about dehumanization and the rehumanization later?
5) the movie is about dehumanization. you expect it to have a 'human touch'? your an idiot. get a brain
film 'critics'. always criticizing. The very fact that they accept the name knowing what it feels like to be a critic means they know nothing about feeling a movie. just judging it. get out of your judgemental mind. idiot
its not about good guys or bad guys. its about what is. and learning what is.
There are NO good guys or bad guys. The fact that you cannot see that they are meant to be idea or mental reality vs reality itself and are polarizing them despite the movies brilliant ability to make the characters feel dehumanized by their mentation and mental attempts to make reality an understanding and not an experience is evidence that you are totally off -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(November 06, 2012 11:05 PM)
It is a dystopian film. Inescapably so. It was written for the genre. And very poorly at that. You should at least have read a wiki page about it or the definition of 'tyranny'(hint: citizens getting burnt alive for not following petty rules fits in it) before weaving the laughable "ideas cannot encapsulate reality. Reality needs to be felt directly."
You then go on to prove the rest of your points with the intellectual equivalent of "Nuh-uh, you're wrong"
Equilibrium was a poorly constructed film cashing in on the futuristic action trend in the early 2000's. Riddled with plot holes and laughably superfluous action sequences, it really just threw together a lazy pastiche of its predecessors and added an idiotic new action gimmick called gun-kata (statistical bullet dodging?) in a desperate attempt to distinguish itself.
I would call you a sophist but your arguments are so transparently circular its about what is. and learning what is. and criticising critics. Really?
The only people who think this is an original watch are those who havent watched anything. Spend less time viciously defending obviously inferior films and more expanding your horizons (and using the word 'reality' less). -
nijabhaava — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 02:11 AM)
your an idiot with no horizons yourself. your already trying to look for a genre to fit it into, so obviously anything that closely fits the bill makes it feel like it is that. There is no definition of 'Tyranny' save what you make of it. What creates Tyranny is not the burning of citizens, but the intention behind the burning. A tyrant - ie- a man after power. It is an emotional thing. Here, it is about the stupidity of idealism. The 'father' is not an antagonist. He is simply the folly of the pursuit of idea rather than ones own body of inner sensitivity and feeling of what is true within ourselves instead of trying to understand or manipulate it with our very personal minds.
your already downplaying what i am saying with the words 'laughable' and your disgust of the word reality clearly shows that you have a bone to pick with something that doesn't fit into your own mental scenario. thats your problem, not mine. your clearly the one saying 'na ah' without any reply. there is no 'intellectual' equivalent to saying 'na ah' because 'na ah' is not an intellectualization. It is the denial of something that doesnt fit into your own emotional pattern. There is no intelligence in it. And certainly no intellect.
The scenes were fluid and natural, nothing like 'The Matrix'. They were limited and sparsely scattered, and the ending sequence and its shortness clearly showed it was not meant to be an action film and was not trying to cash in on the futuristic beep going on. it was almost a statement of so.
Certainly. why wouldn't i criticize critics? they need to be criticized because they are false. movies are created by the human being and for the human being - not the mind. To criticize it in a developed manner - to criticize it for the sake of criticizing it, is simply a movie cynic. things you like you agree with and things you don't you disagree. all the while sitting on your chair getting higher and higher when you couldn't create a dirt of a film compared to what is on the screen in front of you. it is existential, INTELLECTUAL, emotional and spiritual dishonesty and is disgusting.
I can say, in return, that the only people who think this is anything - original or unoriginal - are those that have watched too many movies and have a 'movie mindset' and are comparing it ceaselessly. Like any piece of art, its needs to be felt for the artist and for what it is trying to be - independent of anything before and after it. You're full of the sense of this being an action flick because you cannot stop comparing. It is not. It is a lot more. and a hell of a lot less.
call me whatever you want, i dont care about your definitions. Although you are clearly addicted to them. Probably why you cant see what this movie is and try to understand it from your pathetic viewpoint of stupidity and dishonesty to truth and learning -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 05:43 AM)
You truly are one of the worlds most ridiculous people. Your delusions of self-actualisation probably pinched it. Its not even in principle. How you structure arguments and philosophies feed into themselves. From mental scenario (?) to your ridiculous attempt to obfuscate equilibriums childlike plot to asking people for tips on movies that are thematically related to it (hint: try google dystopian films), you truly are an amusing semi-pseudo-intellectual.
You try to attack things in a meta way without having any real understanding of what really is beyond those ideas. Im guessing youre in first year philosophy, or perhaps, given your prose, a teenager with a book of Nietzsche's maxims
Your ideas on definitions are also incredibly convenient given you dont evidently know any for any of the words or terms you use. But in the in the structured world of language and human communication 'tyranny' does have a definition, as does 'dystopia'. This is mainly because they were created as symbols for non-physical concepts so they necessitate stable meanings. And films themes fit within this context because they are born from them. All articulated art is. And if any dramatic story were to break that, 'Equilibrium' certainly wouldn't be the source.
Also, intellectual equivalent (as in: two ideas which are connected through practical result) is not any way connected to your intended meaning of intellectualization (which was remarkably fitting mistake for you to make, given its real meaning) The word you were looking for was articulation. Or perhaps it was schdsfifofsdf given your ridiculous notion on the meaning of words, or lack thereof.
And remember Jean-Soren Descartes: De omnibus dubitandum means keep your mind open, not act like an obtuse fool who uses unbiased-thought to mask a gross ignorance of pretty much everything related to their argument.
And yes I am addicted to definitions as they are the only true way people attempt to transcend their personal isolation and create a shared meaning of spirit and existence and an unyielding battle against the darkness of social duplicity. (see, its annoying when youre on the receiving end of that).
But heres the Coup de grce. Youre defending Equlibrium. Not Metropolis or Alphaville or THX-1138 or Beyond the Black Rainbow or Brazil or even damn Cosmopolis. Youre actually trying to bestow some insanely lofty sense of grandeur to a film that was just plain medicore. It wasnt even bad enough to be misunderstood or before its time. It was just nowhere. A glass of tepid water. Too forgettable to even properly hate.
(By the way, you seem to have missed but Im just going to give it to you. Criticising critics is wait for it ironic) -
drova360 — 13 years ago(November 15, 2012 01:26 AM)
Wow. I can tell by your horribly over dramatic and forcefully used vocabulary you take yourself far to seriously. Use big words and fancy sentances, your still a moron.
This idiot aside, its a great and emotion provoking film. VicBooth is an idiot. Watch it yourself then come back and let him know. -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(November 15, 2012 02:14 AM)
- overly
- sentences
- too
- you're
- it's
And 'emotion provoking' is redundant, as a provocation is by its very definition emotional.
A person with as obviously vast an intelligence as yours, accusing others of stupidity, should probably keep an eye on that.
I'll tell you what I do find odd though "drova360": the fact that you've only joined today, have a poor understanding of grammar and a natural hatred of any vaguely intelligent thought.
It's almost as if a user who was getting decidedly schooled in all things language and art related got a much needed ally who shares almost the same views and sentence structures as them. Useful, seeing as they didn't really have any more points to present and couldn't suddenly change their argument.
Weird, huh?
-
supamanz_04 — 13 years ago(February 16, 2013 08:29 PM)
VicBooth, you seem to be bitter about the film for some reason. I thought it was good for just what it was. Calling it's action scenes laughable is an arrogant statement. could you compile anything better? and if so I would enjoy seeing your efforts. The film represents someone's passion, and while it's execution is a bit off it still beats many action films I have ever watched.
I don't think the creators of this film were aiming for Rambo, Aliens, or even true lies when they made this. I think they wanted to create a film that could rival the matrix and it does a very good job of doing that. why not take a different look at the film. Imagine what it would be like to not have emotions at all from birth to age 30+ then suddenly having them. You would be nearly child like in many ways and Bale does an amazing job of representing this. The action scenes are fun and different compared to what we usually see. there is no over the top leaping and running along the walls.
The concept of mathematics being applied to real life situations (the gun kata) isn't far from reality, and with someone who is free from fear and anxiety executing such a form would be a formidable opponent. The story is driven excellently holding the viewers attention and even adding levity to escape the drab emotionless and cold blooded killings. while there are plot holes lurking about like the smiles the surprised looks and expressions on the faces of the storm troopers. It doesn't completely take away from what the movie is. an action movie with a decent story that is pretty well received by most people I've met. so cool your jets pal
WoW.. what a mansion - wesker -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(February 18, 2013 05:41 AM)
The ability, or inclination for that matter, to criticise something isn't predicated on one's ability to "compile" something better than it. It merely points out an professional's failure in his/her profession.
I agreed it was mediocre, something you would know if you read my reply thread apart from challenging me on the specific plot problems (something I avoid because it ferrets out a whole variety of pedantic and critically agnostic lukewarms. You know, the kind that don't see the trees for the leaves, let alone the forest? No, you probably don't know.)
I also don't enjoy having my original argument syntax obfuscated, which elaboration always results in. -
supamanz_04 — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 10:50 PM)
Your reply only shows that you are still a bitter and very arrogant person. While I enjoyed your thesaurus worthy vernacular, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the reader in that you are seemingly, (well lets face facts you are) being condescending. Am I saying big words are scary? That's laughable. I did have to look up obfuscated though (kudos).
To be frank, your objective opinion on the sequences indicates that you could fabricate something better. Be it on film or using your strong suits like your dictation.
Challenging you is also laughable; this is a message board thread where people come to discuss a film. One so learned as you ( or pretending to be) would know that a forum is a gathering of ideas where people challenge one another to think. If you think I was drawing a line in the sand demanding that you do better for the defensive sake of the film, you are missing the forest for the trees my friend.
Re-read your post and evaluate the emotion that is in it, you would have to admit it seems bitter, even in the replies (especially the one you sent me). The film is what it is. Yes my opinion contradicts yours, but I did not elicit an emotional response from you nor did I challenge your intelligence. Until now.
WoW.. what a mansion - wesker -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 06:14 AM)
Nice try Gandhi but calm people are prone to brevity.
You mistake general aggression for bitterness, just like you mistake your indignation for my arrogance.
I will admit though, that I admire your instinct to attack my credibility rather than my argument.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
It's just a bit too amateur for my purposes. -
RetroNewWave — 13 years ago(March 01, 2013 01:43 PM)
You're right in my opinion, but it is not a matter opinion in what fits the requirements of a dystopian film. And I personally believe there has to be some requirements so it can be classified as one. I feel like the movie failed in what it tried to bring to the table. I think Christian Bale could have just been Montag in a Fahrenheit 451 movie. I'm not really passionate to get into an argument and the film in weary in my memory, but I just wanted to say that you seem like the least pretentious of everyone here.
-
StrangeSwami — 12 years ago(September 28, 2013 10:50 AM)
The ability, or inclination for that matter, to criticise something isn't predicated on one's ability to "compile" something better than it. It merely points out an professional's failure in his/her profession.
I also don't enjoy having my original argument syntax obfuscated, which elaboration always results in.- a
- enjoying this?
Pretentious Moi?