Equilibrium

Movie Info

Genre(s): Suspense/Thriller

Written by: Kurt Wimmer

Directed by: Kurt Wimmer

Release Date:
Theatrical: December 6, 2002
DVD: May 13, 2003

Running Time: minutes, Color

Origin: USA

Summary

RATING: R for violence

Starring Christian Bale, Emily Watson, Taye Diggs, Angus MacFadyen, Sean Bean, William Fichtner, and Dominic Purcell

In a future society, citizens are prevented from expressing emotions and are controlled by militaristic police with the enforced use of a dehumanizing drug.

Also On Metacritic

FILM: Ultraviolet

Also On The Web: Internet Movie Database

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this movie is 8.5 (out of 10) based on 139 User Votes

Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Bob B gave it a1:
Wow, Roger EBERT gave it a good review? Roger Ebert is also the premier elevator of pop garbage movies to pseudo-intellectual status. This movie is a steaming pile of cultural backwash re-digested by the hackneyed screenplay writer whose only major accomplishment was to insert every distopian cliche ever written since the 19th century. This movie pretends to think while not having a single original thought. It also insults the audience with its excruciatingly obvious flogging of the already overtread plot points. This society destroys art? Well, how can stupid moviegoer me possibly understand how awful it is to burn paintings? OH NOEZ the Mona Lisa, now I KNOW this is a big deal, because anything less than the Mona Lisa being destroyed and my phillistine brain will just want to smear dung and shout at the screen, but since you showed me the MOST famous painting IN THE WORLD, NOW I am able to understand it. Wouldn't they have found the Mona Lisa a long time ago? Wouldn't the only art left be a bit more obscure so they'd miss it? Does Sean Bean HAVE to be reading Yates? Nuff said.

Sandun d gave it a10:
Whats up with most of these critics. If they didn't see the depth and the message in this movie, well they are a bunch of retards who were probably dropped as infants. This in one of the most iconic movies I've seen for a long time. A definite cult fav. Hats off.

joe gave it an8:
Seriously, these critics are retards. Notice that that Roger Ebert gave it the HIGHEST score of all the critics, and he tends to be one of the tougher ones (he wrote the book "your movie sucks" if that says anything). I would say Ebert is right on this, 75 to 80 is probably a fair score for this movie. How anyone can call this movie stupid and then go give higher ratings to other films like "Shoot em' up" I will never know, but I really can't help but think someone was paid to hate this film. Yeah the plot is a litte extreme and uses other authors and movies themes, but by that logic 99% of ALL action and romance films should have never been made (just try and name a few love stories or martial arts films that are REALLY original; now think of the ones that aren't and critics seem to love). So let's say the film had no plot, but retained it's amazing action (that was creative AND inventive) that right there earns it a decent score. Now throw in a message that was at least important if not a little corny as well as some good acting and that makes for a pretty good movie. I just don't see how, because the movie happens to not have the most ORIGINAL plot, that people can hate it for have GOOD things thrown on top of that unoriginal plot. Ever seen DARK CITY or films like that? Horrid action and a plot that you might find on some kids Live Journal, yet are still enjoyable and somehow critics love it. Well this movie had a more sensible plot and better action and somehow that makes it worse? At least the oldest and wisest of movie critics isn't affected by bribes, and if anyones ever seen the original Fahrenheit 451 it has an even corneir plot and NO action and people somehow say it's SO much better. Honesty, these critics really pissed me off and anyone who just says this movie was bad because of unoriginality or because "it takes itself to seriously" is just being asinine; how do you think the characters are going to act, like monkeys in a cage? The movie deserved to be made and to that extent it was made well, so lay off.

Markus W gave it a10:
Once of my alltime favourite movies. Drama and Action could go together before the new BSG. But it´s hardly surprising that a movie warning of "soft totalitarianism" isn´t well recieved the media. Make a movie about a clicheed fascist gouvernement seizing power using anti-terror as an excuse and they love you. But a movie talking about how the concept of hate-crimes will lead to policing of thought and you are a heretic.

Jen G. gave it a10:
This is an excellent rendition of the potential of totalitarianism today. I have to agree with some other users, that the "critics" are truly in denial about society. Take a hard look at the world today, know anyone on anti-depressants or Ritalin? Do you feel world news is uncensored? If you feel that world leaders and nations aren't manipulating emotions for political/financial gain or profit, you are truly in denial as well.

[Anonymous] gave it a3:
I'm surprised that there haven't been more comparisons with Logan's run because it is a direct extraction of the theme of enforcer who joins an underground movement in a dystopia. I wanted to enjoy this movie. It has a few redeeming qualities, it is watchable, but overall it fails to obey its own rules and I cannot recommend it.

Philip F. gave it a10:
Excellent movie, great fight scenes, and they actually managed to make gun fights amazingly interesting. Gun-kata is actually something i'd enjoy seeing in future movies, even if it is fictional. plot only really became cheesy for about a 10 minute period towards the end, but other than that, great flick.

Read more user comments >