The Book of Eli

[Causa Mortis]

I really tried to like this movie because I thought it celebrated high, personal-centered Christianity (as opposed to low, conversion-focused Christianity) and because I love apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic media. I also generally think Denzel is a great actor.

The movie had me sold for the first 90% of it, but the ending was (unequivocally) one of the worst I've ever seen. Come the hell on, he did all that over-the-top combat while BLIND Mila Kunis is a flatly terrible actress and threw me out of the movie at least a half a dozen times. The action ranged from absurd to preposterous, and there were several very ugly moments in the film that weren't really necessary. Also, Oldman's character was far too simplistic and one-sided.

I don't say this often but I want my money back. This was just good enough not to be lolbad, but nowhere near worth my 10 bucks and another 10 for concessions worth 2.

[boldbidder]

Where's your willing suspension of disbelief, Causa?

After all.....

everyone knows the 'blind' samurai is always the deadliest ;)
Seriously though, regarding the combat, the only scene that really throws a monkey in the wrench was the scene where he's gunning fools down all Steven Seagal circa '92 style. If you recall however, no one got a preemptive bullet, everyone he shot fired first at him so conceivable he used his 'blind samurai' hearing power as a pseudo sonar so he could return fire.

I thought the ending while stretching the realm of plausibility provided a certain degree of poignancy to the proceedings that weren't there for me before. Call me crazy, but I actually gave the movie an extra 1/2 star because I felt the ending was reasonably clever without outright cheating and pulling a deus ex machina.

[Malkavia]

I liked the movie and enjoyed it a lot. It was much better than I thought it would be. Im surprised someone didnt make a thread on it sooner.

However I found it odd that the girl was wearing very fashionable skinny jeans the whole time.

[Merle]

I read a really funny review on io9 comparing it (unfavourably) to Zardoz. Well, it lacks Sean Connery in a banana hammock, so I mean... obviously it's not as good. io9 article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[blueback]

I love apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic media.

I just want to take this opportunity to point out to everyone that Book of Eli is not a post apocalyptic movie, it is a movie set after an apocalypse. In a proper post apocalyptic movie the wandering loner is hale and hearty and abandons everything he helped protect to continue wandering the wasteland. So, you know, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that.

Come the hell on, he did all that over-the-top combat while BLIND

Actually, I'm right there with you, although I'm not convinced he was blind. I know they intentionally set it up to imply he was blind, but they didn't outright say he was and it seems like there's adequate evidence to support the theory that he wasn't. Specifically, and in no particular order
1) he said a voice guided him to the book, it wasn't something he owned beforehand. so the book being written in braille doesn't prove he was blind.
2) he regularly bullseyed cats and people. I've seen videos of blind people using echo location and apparently some can shoot pretty well To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. but only at short ranges. The idea that he could bullseye a silent cat and shoot around a hostage, even with God's grace, is absurd.
3) he never did anything that indicated he was blind. He never guided himself by touch, he never used a stick, he never made clicking noises, etc. Also, he always interacted with people like he could see. Blind people LOOK blind, they crane their heads around in a funny way because they are using their ears, not their eyes.
4) it seemed like he was able to do things that a blind person should have at least had problems doing. Specifically, he interacted with sighted people without them ever even thinking he might have a hard time seeing. I mean, how did you know to walk into the one building that functioned as a general store if he couldn't see it?
5) how did he know where to row the boat to? I suppose the real question is just how much of what he did was guided by God. he said he walked guided by faith, but did he also look people in the eye guided by faith too? did he navigate a room guided by faith? How Washington and Kunis climb a hill and spy on a house without her catching on that he couldn't actually see the house? I get that he could have relied on her for spotting things like houses, appropriate places on hills, and cooling towers, but since she was the one following him wouldn't she have realized he was suddenly following her?


Mila Kunis is a flatly terrible actress and threw me out of the movie at least a half a dozen times.

Well, yeah, she's not very good. But she is popular with the right demographic and she might (might) be able to carry a sequel. By "carry" I of course mean "be present for".

The action ranged from absurd to preposterous, and there were several very ugly moments in the film that weren't really necessary. Also, Oldman's character was far too simplistic and one-sided.

I think those were bones they threw out to the religious types to make them feel better about the Bible. Oldman's rants illustrated that the people had absolutely no idea what religion was, they didn't even hate it, they just had never heard of it. So, obviously they would brutally rape any girl they saw the second they got the chance.

All the characters were one-sided. Each character had their single motivation that carried them through the story. No one learned anything. There weren't any character arcs. Meh, that's just the way most stories are.

I don't say this often but I want my money back.

Yeah. I saw it as part of a two-fer at a drive in, so I only paid 3.50 for it :)

everyone knows the 'blind' samurai is always the deadliest ;)
Seriously though, regarding the combat, the only scene that really throws a monkey in the wrench was the scene where he's gunning fools down all Steven Seagal circa '92 style. If you recall however, no one got a preemptive bullet, everyone he shot fired first at him so conceivable he used his 'blind samurai' hearing power as a pseudo sonar so he could return fire.


I thought he was just a nice guy who didn't want to be the first one to shoot.
Maybe he did bullseye things based on sound alone, but how did he learn that? Unless he learned how to do that before the apocalypse I don't see how there would have been enough ammo available for him to do something as bullet-intensive as learn how to shoot blind. Everyone said that the guns were never loaded, because there weren't any bullets. Was God literally guiding his hand during those shots?
Also, how did he find food and water for 30 years in the desert? Could he smell it far enough away to navigate to it?


I thought the ending while stretching the realm of plausibility provided a certain degree of poignancy to the proceedings that weren't there for me before. Call me crazy, but I actually gave the movie an extra 1/2 star because I felt the ending was reasonably clever without outright cheating and pulling a deus ex machina.

I agree. I actually had a bigger problem with him surviving that belly wound than with him being blind. That might be because I'm still not convinced he actually was.