Escape to the Movies: Book of Eli

[mechanixis]

Errr...what good is a review with spoilers in it? If I'm considering seeing the movie want to know how it is, I can't actually watch the review.

 

[Tiss]

I loved that movie. Yeah if he has god behind him hes gonna win, but I thought that maybe he was just insane, and it made the movie a bit more suspensful for me

 

[Leodiensian]

To everyone who is griping about Bob's focus on the premise, I'm disappointed in you. Do you honestly not remember Yahtzee's discussion on how if something isn't mentioned in a critic's review, it's probably because it's not bad but not great? (If you don't watch Yahtzee, what the hell are you doing on the Escapist anyway?) Admittedly MB is a bit (well, a LOT) less vitriloic and centred on the negative than Yahtzee, but the central point remains true. He spent time attacking the main problem he had with it, spent some time addressing other issues and what he doesn't mention you can assume was either good but not great or inoffensively bland and functional.

Besides which, he's got a limited amount of time to work with; of course he's going to focus in on certain aspects of a movie, and he has to target those points well. He can't talk about everything, and most moviegoers wont actually notice everything. Why would he spend a lot of time discussing what's only interesting to a bunch of cinematography geeks when he could spend time discussing what's interesting to people who actually watch movies to be entertained?

 

[duckfi8]

I had no intention of seeing this film.
And now that Moviebob has explained the plot, I really want to.

The idea sounds good to me!
I'll be takin' the wife next week!

To me it wasn't as bad as he made it seem. I actually did like the movie, he made such a big deal about the book being the bible but you can assume it was something like that from the trailer. I thought it was a good film.

 

[solidstatemind]

To everyone who is griping about Bob's focus on the premise, I'm disappointed in you. Do you honestly not remember Yahtzee's discussion on how if something isn't mentioned in a critic's review, it's probably because it's not bad but not great? (If you don't watch Yahtzee, what the hell are you doing on the Escapist anyway?) Admittedly MB is a bit (well, a LOT) less vitriloic and centred on the negative than Yahtzee, but the central point remains true. He spent time attacking the main problem he had with it, spent some time addressing other issues and what he doesn't mention you can assume was either good but not great or inoffensively bland and functional.

Besides which, he's got a limited amount of time to work with; of course he's going to focus in on certain aspects of a movie, and he has to target those points well. He can't talk about everything, and most moviegoers wont actually notice everything. Why would he spend a lot of time discussing what's only interesting to a bunch of cinematography geeks when he could spend time discussing what's interesting to people who actually watch movies to be entertained?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, although your point is valid to a degree-- it actually is the same problem I have with Yahtzee and why I don't consider his reviews to be reviews really; they're more just entertainment: MB focused on the negative aspect and beat it to death, and didn't bother to give anything beyond a moment's discussion to anything else.

To put it simply, that is not adequate information. It would be like a Michelin guide reviewer going to a restaurant and then only stating that the main course he/she had was hideous and gave him/her food poisoning. Everyone is going to take that to mean that the entire experience was awful, even though maybe the service was excellent, the appetizer and the desert were exceptional, and the ambiance was beyond compare. People will write the restaurant off based upon ONE particular aspect being bad, and who knows? Maybe if the reviewer had chosen the lasagna instead of the clams with linguine, the review would be different. Or, more apropos to this, if the reviewer had mentioned how good the other elements of the the total experience were, as well as mentioning the negative aspects, a lot of people would give the establishment a chance.

I'm gonna see this tomorrow, come Hell or high-water. (yes, it was intentional) I will post my thoughts afterwards. Of course, I'm not a professional, so I guess, to some, my opinion may not 'count'.

 

[MortisLegio]

the film still looks alright to me

 

[solidstatemind]

Hyena, Moviebob's complaint wasn't that the Book of Eil was a Bible; he mentioned how it could be awesome and still have a Bible. His problem was that it was handled in an unimaginative, predictable way. As in, "if you've seen a trailer for this movie, or even just know the title, and haven't figured out that it was a Bible, you might want to remove yourself from the gene pool".

Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with including religious messages in movies, but as long as it's done well and not just pointless moralising - which you could get from any nutjob with a cardboard sign boycotting funerals - that uses the rest of the movie as an excuse to exist. Including God, as Bob says, as an active participant rather than just an abstract concept occasionally referred to, kind of removes the tension.

I'm probably not going to see this film; I think I'm apocalypsed-out for now. After Fallout and so on, it seems almost everything takes place in the ruins of a deceased civilisation. There's probably some really interesting sociological points to be made about our modern fixation with the end of the world, like that maybe on some level we're all anticipating the fall of the Western Empire or something, but I'm not in the mood for that right now. I want some entertainment that's actually entertaining.

I didnt take that away from the review the way you did. I heard someone rant on for about 3 and a half minutes about how the fact that GOD was involved in the plot and not in some sort of metaphorical sense completely ruined the film for him. I'm going to have to see it myself to really make a determination, but honestly, just because GOD tells him to go do something and it's ACTUALLY GOD TELLING HIM to go do it, so he goes to DO it isn't going to ruin the movie for me.

It's like they say, it's not the destination it's the journey, and the movie seems to serve up enough emotional images of a torn asunder world, a desolate, violent and brutal existence for the survivors, and genuinely exciting action sequences, and frankly, that alone would be enjoyable. I wouldn't care one bit if at the end of it all, he reaches a door in the middle of the desert, walks through and ends up at the pearly gates with Ernest Borgnine playing Saint Peter going "Ah, about time you arrived, let me welcome you to heaven!"..

I don't need some deep philosophical ending where the book turns out to be something OTHER than exactly what it's said to be, and a twist ending where it turns out that everything we learned about the main character is not what it seemed. Just like I'm not going to flock to see it just because it praises GOD, yippeee!

It just looked like a cool movie and lord knows, I've tossed away money on other movies with less substance (Transformers, Terminator Salvation..). I think I could still enjoy this.
Of course it's not the first time Movie Bob and I have been at odds on a film.. I thought the Road was great and Punisher War Zone was as terrible as Hitman.

Perhaps if he had concentrated on the film itself, and exercised his vast knowledge of cinema to point out flaws that brought the movie down, but the only thing I took away from this review about why it's a bad movie is because it involved a "REAL BIble" and "God".
He never really gets into WHY the characters don't work, NOTHING about the camera work, little description of the action sequences, the art style, the atmosphere, the dialogue, the on-screen chemistry of the actors, the set pieces.. you know, the stuff a movie SHOULD be based on. Instead we get "He carries a bible cause GOD told him too! This movie is crap! Who would do something so stupid as to have FAITH in an apocalypse?!"

Like someone else said earlier, it smacks of elitism and an obvious disdain for Religion and anyone "stupid enough" to believe in them.

I am speechless (which really is something for me)!

This; this; a thousand times this.

Kudos, HtP, you have stated what I was thinking much more succinctly than I could've. I salute you, sir!

 

[AvsJoe]

I appreciate the spoiler warning but I regret that it will be a long time before I get to watch this review since I'm not going to see this movie for another month and a half minimum (I frequent a cheapie theater that plays movies once they leave the good theaters in town). But I would like to add that I cannot wait to see this movie. Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman are cussing badasses and Mila Kunis is really cussing sexy!

 

[Itchinader]

Finally, a review that doesn't make me feel ashamed that I slept through this movie during the midnight showing. The only thing worthwhile in this movie was some great action, special effects, and cinematograhy. I sort of missed the suprise ending that makes the rest of the movie pointless(maybe it was because I didn't have any soda to drink, so I guess I didn't miss much.

 

[Donrad]

whoa whoa whoa i thought this was gonna be a good movie... DAMMIT!

 

[Deacon Cole]

I looked up the ending to End of the Affair. If Book of Eli has a twist that stupid, it should burn in hell.

 

[JusticarPhaeton]

I still liked this movie. The religious bits aren't being shoved down your throats, and really only serve as a plot device. I really don't think bob's review does the movie justice, since yes, on paper the plot sounds boring and overly religious, but in practice, it is much more entertaining. I'd say go see it.

I can't believe movie bob is giving this film this much stick for having a simple story. its ok for drag me to hell to have the most mindless plot it the world and be just about the ride but book of eli is just a action film in a plot box labeled action plot and he goes off on one.

the real reason bob is screwing is because its a religious theme- and the film doesn't look like it moralizes or preaches or rams anything down your throat from what i've seen or heard.

can't move bob please put aside his childish, ridiculous offense about the film being about a guy who believes in god and actually tell us something about the film- is the action which people will be going to see good? hows the acting by all those brilliant actors and actresses?

and finally- unless god literally shows up on screen and catches the bullet thats about to kill eli then where is the ending spoiler? people who believe in god loose every day, and win everyday just as people who don't believe in god do.

Exactly, MovieBob. It sounds like you've got a huge double-standard here and you're just lampooning the movie because the MacGuffin is a bible. It's a shame to know you've got such a prejudice against organised religion, but mindless plot with occult trappings via Drag Me To Hell is A-OK.
Even if I'm not a believer in the stuff, i can still enjoy a movie about it pitched the right way, no? Give us a review that actually evaluates the film on the merits of how well it does as a film, instead of 'Skip it because it has a pro-god/bible message in it.'

 

[AdamaGeist]

Honestly, Bob? When the premise of the movie is about a man trying to spread the word of god, vs a man who's trying to USE the bible to support his reign of power... No, the Twist doesn't invalidate ANYTHING. The point isn't what he can do with the bible, it's making sure that evil men can't ABUSE the bible for their own aims.

You don't think that's a valid thing? Well, go look at the middle east, where entire nations are raised to Terrorism because they're only allowed to see excerpts of the Koran, rather than the whole book. Or how some Christians use small sentences to justify great bigotry. Hell, all the villain needs is the COVER to the book, then he can make up his own contents to control the masses. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

I just saw the movie.

Sorry Bob-o but it was a lot better than you led on. Gary Oldman is enough to keep you interested and the plot is really not that bad at all. The ending was a bit...much, but all and all it's a decent film.

And what you said about the "Veggie Tales" motif is just your indie sense of cynacism(sp) overlooking a simple plot device. If it was the Quran and not the Bible I bet you'd be singing a different tune.

You kinda didn't really review the film though Bob-o, just complained. You're funny though.

 

[Badassassin]

i just saw it and i fucking loved it...
i don't even give a crap that it was a samey apocalypic movie... seeing the trailer what else was i expecting.
But i was surprised because i only saw the short trailers, so the fact that the book was a bible (not a dumbass, just saw the short trailers) was a great twist on what i thought would just be a same old apocalypic "at each others throats" movie.
and i thought bob did a bad job with this review... he just bashed that it was about religion and philosophy well if that's true why did u see it if you were going to just not stand the religious tone. and besides it wasn't preachy about it. it focused so much more on the social impact that religion has.

over all i was very disappointed by this review, i mean he only complained and didn't speak on denzel's good silent actions, cause he had very little lines for a while in the beginning and it was just phenominal acting


]

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

Hyena, Moviebob's complaint wasn't that the Book of Eil was a Bible; he mentioned how it could be awesome and still have a Bible. His problem was that it was handled in an unimaginative, predictable way. As in, "if you've seen a trailer for this movie, or even just know the title, and haven't figured out that it was a Bible, you might want to remove yourself from the gene pool".

Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with including religious messages in movies, but as long as it's done well and not just pointless moralising - which you could get from any nutjob with a cardboard sign boycotting funerals - that uses the rest of the movie as an excuse to exist. Including God, as Bob says, as an active participant rather than just an abstract concept occasionally referred to, kind of removes the tension.

I'm probably not going to see this film; I think I'm apocalypsed-out for now. After Fallout and so on, it seems almost everything takes place in the ruins of a deceased civilisation. There's probably some really interesting sociological points to be made about our modern fixation with the end of the world, like that maybe on some level we're all anticipating the fall of the Western Empire or something, but I'm not in the mood for that right now. I want some entertainment that's actually entertaining.

I didnt take that away from the review the way you did. I heard someone rant on for about 3 and a half minutes about how the fact that GOD was involved in the plot and not in some sort of metaphorical sense completely ruined the film for him. I'm going to have to see it myself to really make a determination, but honestly, just because GOD tells him to go do something and it's ACTUALLY GOD TELLING HIM to go do it, so he goes to DO it isn't going to ruin the movie for me.

It's like they say, it's not the destination it's the journey, and the movie seems to serve up enough emotional images of a torn asunder world, a desolate, violent and brutal existence for the survivors, and genuinely exciting action sequences, and frankly, that alone would be enjoyable. I wouldn't care one bit if at the end of it all, he reaches a door in the middle of the desert, walks through and ends up at the pearly gates with Ernest Borgnine playing Saint Peter going "Ah, about time you arrived, let me welcome you to heaven!"..

I don't need some deep philosophical ending where the book turns out to be something OTHER than exactly what it's said to be, and a twist ending where it turns out that everything we learned about the main character is not what it seemed. Just like I'm not going to flock to see it just because it praises GOD, yippeee!

It just looked like a cool movie and lord knows, I've tossed away money on other movies with less substance (Transformers, Terminator Salvation..). I think I could still enjoy this.
Of course it's not the first time Movie Bob and I have been at odds on a film.. I thought the Road was great and Punisher War Zone was as terrible as Hitman.

Perhaps if he had concentrated on the film itself, and exercised his vast knowledge of cinema to point out flaws that brought the movie down, but the only thing I took away from this review about why it's a bad movie is because it involved a "REAL BIble" and "God".
He never really gets into WHY the characters don't work, NOTHING about the camera work, little description of the action sequences, the art style, the atmosphere, the dialogue, the on-screen chemistry of the actors, the set pieces.. you know, the stuff a movie SHOULD be based on. Instead we get "He carries a bible cause GOD told him too! This movie is crap! Who would do something so stupid as to have FAITH in an apocalypse?!"

Like someone else said earlier, it smacks of elitism and an obvious disdain for Religion and anyone "stupid enough" to believe in them.

Eloquently put. My hat is off to you.

 

[Fearzone]

I wasn't particularly interested in the movie but hearing this review makes me want to see it. I mean, walking the last copy of the Bible across an apocalyptic wasteland... what's wrong with that? Now, if divine intervention gets involved as the review suggests, well yeah, that's just Deus Ex Machina.

 

[Badassassin]

Hyena, Moviebob's complaint wasn't that the Book of Eil was a Bible; he mentioned how it could be awesome and still have a Bible. His problem was that it was handled in an unimaginative, predictable way. As in, "if you've seen a trailer for this movie, or even just know the title, and haven't figured out that it was a Bible, you might want to remove yourself from the gene pool".

Speaking as an atheist, I have no problem with including religious messages in movies, but as long as it's done well and not just pointless moralising - which you could get from any nutjob with a cardboard sign boycotting funerals - that uses the rest of the movie as an excuse to exist. Including God, as Bob says, as an active participant rather than just an abstract concept occasionally referred to, kind of removes the tension.

I'm probably not going to see this film; I think I'm apocalypsed-out for now. After Fallout and so on, it seems almost everything takes place in the ruins of a deceased civilisation. There's probably some really interesting sociological points to be made about our modern fixation with the end of the world, like that maybe on some level we're all anticipating the fall of the Western Empire or something, but I'm not in the mood for that right now. I want some entertainment that's actually entertaining.

I didnt take that away from the review the way you did. I heard someone rant on for about 3 and a half minutes about how the fact that GOD was involved in the plot and not in some sort of metaphorical sense completely ruined the film for him. I'm going to have to see it myself to really make a determination, but honestly, just because GOD tells him to go do something and it's ACTUALLY GOD TELLING HIM to go do it, so he goes to DO it isn't going to ruin the movie for me.

It's like they say, it's not the destination it's the journey, and the movie seems to serve up enough emotional images of a torn asunder world, a desolate, violent and brutal existence for the survivors, and genuinely exciting action sequences, and frankly, that alone would be enjoyable. I wouldn't care one bit if at the end of it all, he reaches a door in the middle of the desert, walks through and ends up at the pearly gates with Ernest Borgnine playing Saint Peter going "Ah, about time you arrived, let me welcome you to heaven!"..

I don't need some deep philosophical ending where the book turns out to be something OTHER than exactly what it's said to be, and a twist ending where it turns out that everything we learned about the main character is not what it seemed. Just like I'm not going to flock to see it just because it praises GOD, yippeee!

It just looked like a cool movie and lord knows, I've tossed away money on other movies with less substance (Transformers, Terminator Salvation..). I think I could still enjoy this.
Of course it's not the first time Movie Bob and I have been at odds on a film.. I thought the Road was great and Punisher War Zone was as terrible as Hitman.

Perhaps if he had concentrated on the film itself, and exercised his vast knowledge of cinema to point out flaws that brought the movie down, but the only thing I took away from this review about why it's a bad movie is because it involved a "REAL BIble" and "God".
He never really gets into WHY the characters don't work, NOTHING about the camera work, little description of the action sequences, the art style, the atmosphere, the dialogue, the on-screen chemistry of the actors, the set pieces.. you know, the stuff a movie SHOULD be based on. Instead we get "He carries a bible cause GOD told him too! This movie is crap! Who would do something so stupid as to have FAITH in an apocalypse?!"

Like someone else said earlier, it smacks of elitism and an obvious disdain for Religion and anyone "stupid enough" to believe in them.

well put, i mean he acts like its so idiotic for people to have religion in an apocalypse and thats just dumb, in times of extreme distress people either give up hope or hope even more.

it seemed like he was just trying to put an atheist connotation into the review when he says "why would someone believe in god in the apocalypse???"
cause in reality thats exactly what a lot of people would do

 

[Tom13ombadil]

DARM, If only writers in hollywood had talent!