Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When I first heard about it I thought the idea of him having the last copy of the bible I thought it was pretty goofy, but having just seen the movie it turns out that was the most interesting thing going on. The explanation that every copy was deliberately destroyed in impotent rage after the book was blamed for the nuclear war is believable enough, and one man trying to keep the last copy safe is actually fairly cool. I was concerned that the movie might do a lot of proselytising, but the motive of Gary Oldman’s character to use the bible as a means of control provided a good flip side, it presented the book, and therefore faith, as a two sided coin.

The problem is that the film really didn’t really do anything to present the decent side of Christianity. The man who made it his life mission to escort the bible to safety doesn’t just fail to show Christian values, he fails to show any level of human decency what so ever. When Mila Kunis flees her life as a sex slave, he can’t be bothered to help her, even tricking her and trapping her for Gary Oldman to find, where she’ll be forced to return to that life.

Instead he basically walks around and intermittently slaughters loads of dudes. That he kills them all so easily just makes the whole exercise more ridiculous. He isn’t a character of any interest, he’s just another super badass wondering the wastelands, the protagonist you see in just about every post apocalyptic b-movie.

The last bible on Earth, and what that books means to different people could be an interesting way to approach themes of faith and religion. Instead it becomes a Macguffin in a generic and fairly boring post apocalyptic movie.

In the film’s favour it did look good and Mila Kunis is pretty, although particularly unconvincing – she sounded more like a whiny suburban teen than a survivor of the apocalypse.

I give a C-.

I think the C- rating is where the beauty lies. For a post-apocalyptic movie, it was pretty good, no?

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:I think the C- rating is where the beauty lies. For a post-apocalyptic movie, it was pretty good, no?

I don't think it was even much fun as a post apocalyptic setting. The world as presented is pretty unconvincing, even by post-apocalyptic standards - where are all those assault rifle rounds coming from 30 years after the bomb fell?

Perhaps if they'd attempted more realistic violence than making Washington a ludicrously effective super killer, it might have fit the tone better and produced more enjoyable action scenes. But the film was not interested in making interesting choices.

I really didn't find it that bad. Infact I quite liked it, it wasn't great but there is a lot worse.

Eli had to kill all those people or he would have died ages ago. Saving the last bible is quite an important thing to him, especialy as if he dies it is lost.

Trapping the girl (can't rember her name) was being nice. Sure she didn't have a great life but it was a lot better than many other people lives. Living outside the city is much more dangerous.

Book of Eli was a nice homage to Fallout in many ways. In fact, I am pretty sure a good deal of inspiration came from there, along with a bit of Mad Max and Dawn of the Dead. It tried to be all at once, with the style of modern movie magic coupled with the vision of Romero and actioning it up like Mad Max did amidst a backdrop reminiscent of the latest installment of Fallout 3.

In short, it was a decent movie, and until they come out with Fallout: The Movie, this is Fallout:The Movie.

I thought the plot was really weak (and had massive holes in it) the action was overblown, the acting was pretty much universally hammy, the characters were crappy and I found the overall message patronizing.

The Road came out about the same time, and it's a far far far better post apocalyptic film.

Yeah this film is terrible. Its more bible based fething dog gak.

Da Boss wrote:I thought the plot was really weak (and had massive holes in it) the action was overblown, the acting was pretty much universally hammy, the characters were crappy and I found the overall message patronizing.

The Road came out about the same time, and it's a far far far better post apocalyptic film.

Hmm...I have to go watch The Road sometime.

I once had a similar idea for a post apocalyptic role playing game. Except in my version it was the last copy of the Argos catalogue.

Da Boss, has it right, The Road is much better, and there are some big plot holes. The thing that bothered me most is the idea that there is only 1 bible left. I just cant wrap my mind around the fact that people went through every motel, hotel, home, church, and every other place there could be bibles and destroyed them. It also removes any other type of religion from the equation. There must be some surviving Korans or Tanakhs.

Corey85 wrote:Da Boss, has it right, The Road is much better, and there are some big plot holes. The thing that bothered me most is the idea that there is only 1 bible left. I just cant wrap my mind around the fact that people went through every motel, hotel, home, church, and every other place there could be bibles and destroyed them. It also removes any other type of religion from the equation. There must be some surviving Korans or Tanakhs.

That was hard to believe but I let it go because the writer was trying to make a point about how belief could be abused and how people might react if they blame religion. But yeah there's no way they could get them all.

Also, I don't know if it was the writing or Mila's acting but she didn't seem that miserable in her life. at least there she was under the protection of Oldman's character.

One point that bothered me was that right after the gang that jumped him said that ammo was rare you see some bikers shoot the post-apocalyptic equivalent of a street urchin. Seems like a bit of a waste...

But I really enjoyed this movie despite its flaws. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a movie that doesn't bash religion because it's trendy to do so.


P.S. I'm surprised to hear good things about "The Road" I heard that was terrible.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:


P.S. I'm surprised to hear good things about "The Road" I heard that was terrible.

I heard the same thing too.

Over the top (or would that be under the bottom) depressing is the summary I saw...

It is very depressing. But I think that's appropriate for a film about the apocalypse. But yeah, don't watch it if you're upset easily.

The book of eli was slowed. The bible was responsible for a nuclear war but it didn't kill everyone so god's got denzel to finish the job. The whole thing about him being blind the whole time was slowed twist worthy of the worst m night shiyamalan movies.

The road was better but it felt like a book on film. (I realize it's based on a book) The pacing was beyoned slow and the ending sucked dogs for quarters.

I thought the ending fit with the rest of it fairly well. I was not...happy with it, but I was satisfied. I liked the slow pace too, I have to say. At parts I had to literally cover my eyes because I was so disgusted or distressed though. But that's some powerful cinema.

I quite enjoyed the Book of Eli, despite all the plot holes and silliness.
The action was fairly well executed, and IMO the pace is fast enough that you don't notice most of the glaring issues till thinking about it afterwards.

The Road is a hands down better film, but its basically a different genre in a similar setting, I was also quite impressed with how true to the book it stayed.
I'm also firmly of the opinion that the majority of the bad reviews for the road come from people who were expecting an action film, with a generally feel good message about the nature of humanity, which is exactly what the film/book wasn't.

4M2A wrote:I really didn't find it that bad. Infact I quite liked it, it wasn't great but there is a lot worse.

The existance of worse movies does not make a film good. In fact, if we're making quality in terms of there being worse movies, that pretty much assumes a movie is mediocre. Which is exactly what the Book of Eli was - mediocre.

Eli had to kill all those people or he would have died ages ago.

Yes, he had to kill them all. But having to kill loads of people is not the same thing as having superhuman killing abilities.

Why did he have superhuman killing abilities? What did that have to do with anything going on in the setting or theme of the movie? Or was it a case of being another incoherent addition to a very mediocre movie?

Trapping the girl (can't rember her name) was being nice. Sure she didn't have a great life but it was a lot better than many other people lives. Living outside the city is much more dangerous.

Her life wasn't great? Dude, she was a sex slave owned by a homicidal loon. It was ludicrous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corey85 wrote:Da Boss, has it right, The Road is much better, and there are some big plot holes. The thing that bothered me most is the idea that there is only 1 bible left. I just cant wrap my mind around the fact that people went through every motel, hotel, home, church, and every other place there could be bibles and destroyed them. It also removes any other type of religion from the equation. There must be some surviving Korans or Tanakhs.

It was a stretch, but it was a stretch worth making to justify the theme. Compare that to Washington's character having superhuman killing abilities, which were necessary because... they wanted to have scenes of him slaughtering a bunch of idiot mooks with a machete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:Also, I don't know if it was the writing or Mila's acting but she didn't seem that miserable in her life. at least there she was under the protection of Oldman's character.

Oldman's character protected her because he was her pimp, and she was his sex slave. Her mother told her to leave with the random stranger who'd just killed a dozen men the day before, rather than stay in town. Her situation was certainly meant to be dire.

It didn't feel that way because she was quite poor in her role, and the writing across the movie was terribly under done.

One point that bothered me was that right after the gang that jumped him said that ammo was rare you see some bikers shoot the post-apocalyptic equivalent of a street urchin. Seems like a bit of a waste...

And then minutes later you have guys cracking out the assault rifles and mini guns. Incredibly incompetent world building.

But I really enjoyed this movie despite its flaws. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a movie that doesn't bash religion because it's trendy to do so.

It was the most interesting thing in the movie. It's a shame it was so poorly executed.




Oh, and The Road is a much better movie. I actually liked it a lot more than the book, which was quite monotonous (to the point where the gruesome nature of many events didn't feel gruesome, because I was enjoying the fact that something was finally happening).

Watching it I never thought Eli was blind. I just thought he could read braille.

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
But I really enjoyed this movie despite its flaws. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a movie that doesn't bash religion because it's trendy to do so.

Explain this to me.

Im an increasingly cantankerous 30 year old man.

I dont like teenagers, young people, designer clothes or fads, but i always point out the flaws of religion because i am 100% convinced it is doing its best to turn the world into a toilet. Now i can sit here and type out a few hundred ways this is occuring, but ill merely say that im sick and tired of the practitioners of them having an unfair slice of the pie, a thoroughly undeserved "respect" and an absurd idea that their view is the right one and so we all have to do what they say so.

So, why is it trendy? I really want to know, you know, it might make "cool" and "groovy" if you tell me why.

mattyrm wrote:So, why is it trendy? I really want to know, you know, it might make "cool" and "groovy" if you tell me why.

The poor atheists think they're picked on. The poor Christians think they're picked on. Both sides should try being gay or transgendered or something, and get some perspective.

Do atheists think they are picked on? Ive never heard it said. How can you be picked on for not believing in something?

Christians shouldnt feel picked on either, i think more of Christianity (slightly) than the other two main monotheistic dogmas, but thats cos im C of E so im a tad biased. In fact, if all Chrstians were more like your average C of E practitioner i wouldnt have anything to complain about.

Gay and trangendered people most certainly do get picked on however, and i feel sorry for them, there is no need for it in any civilised society.

I liked it for the violence and the great twist at the end which suddenly made alot of what he had been doing earlier make sense.

However the road.... I so hated that kid... he was half idiot and half annoying kid. The settings were beutiful, the action realistic, even their actions realistic... but man that kid.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, why is it trendy? I really want to know, you know, it might make "cool" and "groovy" if you tell me why.

The poor atheists think they're picked on. The poor Christians think they're picked on. Both sides should try being gay or transgendered or something, and get some perspective.

Christians are killed in Northern Africa and their churches are burned. Necklacing still goes on. What was that about being picked on again?

I seen plenty of folks in Sierra Leone with crispy faces, to be fair Frazz i think they just do it people out there for kicks as well.

mattyrm wrote:

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:
But I really enjoyed this movie despite its flaws. Maybe I'm just a sucker for a movie that doesn't bash religion because it's trendy to do so.

Explain this to me.

Im an increasingly cantankerous 30 year old man.

I dont like teenagers, young people, designer clothes or fads, but i always point out the flaws of religion because i am 100% convinced it is doing its best to turn the world into a toilet. Now i can sit here and type out a few hundred ways this is occuring, but ill merely say that im sick and tired of the practitioners of them having an unfair slice of the pie, a thoroughly undeserved "respect" and an absurd idea that their view is the right one and so we all have to do what they say so.

So, why is it trendy? I really want to know, you know, it might make "cool" and "groovy" if you tell me why.

First of all you seem overly agitated. Relax.
Here's my point: with any view point there are those who believe it, those who choose to believe it, and those who like to be identified with that group. Call me a cynic but I think there are a lot of fake people in this world and being religious is rarely if ever the popular thing thing to do. Especially in holllywood where you need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and they have learned that some people really cheer when religion is bashed and those watching the film who have a religion either grin and bear it or say to themselves "good thing my church isn't like that".
And as for religion "doing its best to turn the world into a toilet"- please stop making religion a scape goat for every thing bad in the world. I guarantee that the church around the corner isn't responsible for what ever woes you are currently going through. It would be like if I said that a christian once rear ended me and so we should take drivers licenses away from all christians.

mattyrm wrote:Do atheists think they are picked on? Ive never heard it said. How can you be picked on for not believing in something?

Yeah, I've heard it a lot.

Frazzled wrote:Christians are killed in Northern Africa and their churches are burned. Necklacing still goes on. What was that about being picked on again?

Yeah, I have cousins who go on about this, a lot. No denying there aren't instances, but individual instances compared to a global population do not exactly make for a persecuted people. It's as much of a stretch as Han Chinese claiming they're oppressed for the violence suffered at the hands of Tibetans, because there are also individual instances of violence committed against the Han, and some really do complain it's evidence they're oppressed.

But everyone wants to be the victim, so my cousins don't listen. I doubt the Han would. I'm guessing you're not, either?

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Do atheists think they are picked on? Ive never heard it said. How can you be picked on for not believing in something?

Yeah, I've heard it a lot.

Frazzled wrote:Christians are killed in Northern Africa and their churches are burned. Necklacing still goes on. What was that about being picked on again?

Yeah, I have cousins who go on about this, a lot. No denying there aren't instances, but individual instances compared to a global population do not exactly make for a persecuted people. It's as much of a stretch as Han Chinese claiming they're oppressed for the violence suffered at the hands of Tibetans, because there are also individual instances of violence committed against the Han, and some really do complain it's evidence they're oppressed.

But everyone wants to be the victim, so my cousins don't listen. I doubt the Han would. I'm guessing you're not, either?

You mean other than the hundreds of thousands dead in Sudan right? RIGHT?

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, why is it trendy? I really want to know, you know, it might make "cool" and "groovy" if you tell me why.

The poor atheists think they're picked on. The poor Christians think they're picked on. Both sides should try being gay or transgendered or something, and get some perspective.

Christians are killed in Northern Africa and their churches are burned. Necklacing still goes on. What was that about being picked on again?

That isn't what Christians in the UK complain about though. They are concerned with things like the street preacher who got arrested under the Public Order Offences Act. It is seen as evidence of militant atheism.

The statement was that poor Christians think they're picked on. They are.

Frazzled wrote:The statement was that poor Christians think they're picked on. They are.

Not in Britain.