Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


February 15, 2010
The Book of Eli (2010)
Should I see it?
On DVD? Sure. Otherwise? No.



Short Review: You know how you'll trick your dog into getting into the car and he will pant and smile because of the anticipation of a fun ride and perhaps something exciting at the end of the trip? Then you pull into the vet and his eyes droop and his excitement wanes? Go see this movie and see what it feels like.



Denzel Washington plays Eli, a lone drifter who travels the violent open highways of a post-apocalyptic America. He carries the only Bible remaining in the whole world. From the looks of the cast, he is also the only remaining black man.

Carnegie (Gary Oldman) is a local despot controlling a small, isolated down. He has been sending his greasy-toothed biker minions on missions to collect books wherever they can be found. Carnegie is a budding fascist dictator and understands that if he can find a copy of the Bible, he has the Word of God at his fingertips. This will afford him the ability to control the populace within the sound of his voice.

Eli strolls into town. His sole Bible is found out and things get a tad violent.

This is a solid premise and a strong conflict. There is no reason why this film shouldn't be a fascinating, moving work of cinema. Remarkably, even with a sturdy plot, compelling story and a talented cast (mostly), this film ends up missing the mark.

There is an old adage for police that you don't pull out your gun unless you're going to use it. The same can be said for faith in film. If you broach the sensitive subject of religion in a film you had better be willing to a have a conclusion one way or the other. Any story that pulls in religious imagery or text and then balks at remaining firm through to the end will ring hollow - just like this film does.

Eli violently protects his Bible. He cuts men down with a blade and gun. In his defense, he always offers a mild attempt at peaceful resolution, but ultimately he kills more people than Matthew Broderick behind the wheel after a couple of double shots of SoCo. It is made abundantly clear that he reads his Bible every day. Apparently, he has an issue with the comprehension part of reading.

***The following paragraphs are spoilers***

At the end of the film Eli arrives at Alcatraz where he recites the Bible verse for verse to a librarian. The printed Bible is then shoved away into a library in between the Koran and the Torah. Even though Eli is clearly shown to be protected by miraculous intervention, his efforts are rewarded by being morally equated to other religions. The end is a statement that implies that all religions are the same.

The Hughes Brothers, the men who made the film, go out of their way to show that God is personally invested in Eli's journey. They then abort this relationship in favor of satisfying politically correct dogma that all paths to God are equal. This undermines their whole story, the whole reason for the film. It undermines any reason the audience may have to sit through the production in the first place. If the Bible is just another book that informs just another religion then it doesn't make sense that Carnegie would assume having it would change anything in his small town. If the Bible is so unspectacular, then Eli is a psycho for killing people he meets along the way on his fool's errand.

I'm not saying this had to be a preachy flick. It did however need to resolve the issues it brought up in the first place. It fails to do this therefore it fails overall.

***Spoilers done***

The other serious problem with the film is Mila Kunis of That 80's Show fame. She is woefully miscast. The first problem is that her character was born after the destruction of civilization. This means she has never known soap, shampoo, conditioner or makeup. Somehow she wears makeup, has thick, healthy hair and wonderfully white teeth. She is beautiful, but not naturally so, it is all make-up.

Mila is not a great actress. This is made abundantly clear in her scenes with Washington, Oldman and Jennifer Beals. Mila wilts in comparison. She is a dark-haired Barbie in a world of thespians.

Photobucket

Washington grumbles his lines. Oldman offers his usual delicious overacting. The real standout in the production is Jennifer Beals. It will not be surprising if she earns larger roles from her supporting role here. First of all, unlike Mila, Beals provides a striking natural beauty. She looks like the kind of woman who looks as good without make-up as she does all dolled up. Beyond the superficial, Beals also provides the real emotional hook in the production. Washington is a stodgy, unlikeable guy. It falls to Beals to provide the emotional connection for the audience and in this role she shines. If there is anything to take from this film, it comes from her performance.

Overall, this is a good pick for a DVD release. This is not a waste of time but it is also not time well spent. This is truly a lukewarm production.

It is a deep shame that we don't live in an culture open enough to speak about faith in an honest and open way. Perhaps this film could have resolved in a logical fashion. Instead it was forced to capitulate and stutter to an unsatisfying end that helps no one.



Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
American Gangster (2007)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Film Reel
Film Edge







Good News Film Reviews

Labels: , , , , , , , ,



Share






5 Comments:

Anonymous K said...

Thanks Scott. Several internet reviewers, who are not antagonistic to religion in movies, have basically said go see this movie if you're a Christian - for what turns out to be just another slap in the face from the relativists. I put this down to the starving dog syndrome - media interested Christians have to take the scraps and like it. Every once in a while, a piece of less rotten meat falls off the table and there is much rejoicing.

February 15, 2010 at 1:41 PM  
Anonymous rod61 said...

your an idiot who shouldn't be allowed to review movies. You expect to much from Hollywood. As far as Mila Kunis's character goes her and her mother (Beals) are kept women, so naturally they are going to recieve comforts that the rest dont. You'll notice that both beals and oldmans characters are clean and well fed with nice clothes. In responce to Mila's acting ability refer to my opening sentence.

February 15, 2010 at 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Scott Nehring said...

Thanks for your input Rod. A couple of corrections. It is "You're" not "Your". "Your" implies possession, as in "I can't believe your ignorant comment". "You're" combines "you" and "are". An example of it being used properly would be "You're an idiot too."

Speaking of "too", it isn't proper to say "You expect to much..." That simply makes no sense. What you mean to type is "You expect too much..." In response to that statement I will claim that it is you that does not expect enough.

Yes, the two women are "kept women". You will also note that when a tiny bottle of shampoo is brought to Carnegie he refers to it as "a real treat" and when he bestows it on Beals she mistakes it as a gift to her (it was more for him). Kunas' character is the bar girl. She's a waitress by trade and doesn't have a good relationship with Carnegie. He shows her no favoritism at all so your assumption on his treating her well has no basis. Even if he would like to treat her well it is made readily apparent the resources just aren't available after 30 years of a broken civilization.

February 16, 2010 at 3:14 AM  
Anonymous Krispy said...

Well, as one of the guys who sat in the back seat and waved Milkbones to get you in the car, ya gotta believe me, I didn't know the vet was gonna show up.

I was amazed when the end credits revealed that actress to be Jennifer Beals. She's matured into a good actress and a staggeringly beautiful woman. I'd have predicted neither back in the day based on her presence in Flashdance.

SPOILER PARAGRAPH:
I disagree about the ending... I thought that the juxtaposition of the book being placed on the shelf, tightly edited with the Kunis character leaving Alcatraz, literally setting out on her own spiritual journey, made a strong statement about reading the Word as a book vs. actually living it. Eli said toward the end that he basically realized that he'd been committing that sin, that he had read it but not lived it. You can read it, even study it obsessively ... but if you don't live it, you might as well put it on a shelf. I really thought that the movie's metaphoric picture of the Word as a book vs. the Word as a living truth was fundamentally sound Theology, even if the presentation was shabby. Granted, this is not the perspective of a regular church goer, my interest in that aspect of the film is purely academic. So take my opinion with a grain of salt ... and from wince shall it be salted?

February 16, 2010 at 9:08 AM  
Anonymous K said...

@Krispy: I like your interpretation of the book being read but not being lived. But it's still a big letdown in terms of the movie. It would be like the Ark of the Covenent in Indy 1 turning out to be nothing but a big heavy box that maybe falls on a Nazi's toe in retribution.

February 17, 2010 at 12:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home