Book of Eli

H

Harp247

Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
489
Went to see this movie this evening. I won't give anything away, but I will give this movie 5 stars. Best movie I have seen in many years! A must see. :thumbup::thumbup: up!!
 
I went to see it last night, good movie, worth the high theater price. I was hesitant due to the reviews- which were not good at all. But, as I have learned the reviewers and I dont have the same taste. Maybe I am just dumbed down!
 
I went and saw it last night. I thought it was good but it was not what I was expecting. I give it a 3 out of 5
 
I can't wait to see this. I like a lot of Denzel's movies. Training Day, Man On Fire. Fallen was a good oldie of his if you haven't seen it.
 
I'm not normally a Denzel fan but I want to see this. He's a good actor, but there is something about him that I just don't like.
 
jlamb said:
I went to see it last night, good movie, worth the high theater price. I was hesitant due to the reviews- which were not good at all. But, as I have learned the reviewers and I dont have the same taste. Maybe I am just dumbed down!
Click to expand...

Usually if the reviewers don't like it, I will.

SGTCap said:
I'm not normally a Denzel fan but I want to see this. He's a good actor, but there is something about him that I just don't like.
Click to expand...

I think he does best in the "dirty" roles like Man on Fire. I can't buy his acting when he's the squeaky clean guy. So, I might buy it in this one from what I've seen.

Honestly, after seeing his acting in I Am Legend, I was hoping Will Smith would do this one as well.
 
I read mixed reviews, but it was WAY better than I expected. Denzel kicking tail in a world where a couple RAT's would come in handy.
 
I'm heading out probably this afternoon to see it, wasn't sure but you all are pushing me over the edge.
 
Heard bad things from reviews and then terrible things from a friend....I guess I'll have to go find some more of my friends that have seen it. I wasn't going to see it, but now this thread is making me question that.
 
I haven't enjoyed a post-apocalyptic movie since both The Road Warrior and Max Max--Beyond Thunderdome. They set the standard for a uniform and believable dystopia. It probably helped immensely that Director George Miller also co-wrote both movies as well as the original Mad Max, which was set in time close before the nuclear war that is the backdrop of the sequels.

Most movies in the genre, such as I Am Legend, to take a recent example, simply feature too many anachronisms, like electrical power from nowhere, easy fuel, working automobiles that aren't cobbled together garbage, mountains of ammunition, and elaborate defensive systems that would have never been put together by just one guy.

Other horrible examples have even featured cigarettes--(I'm talking about you Waterworld,) or something else that totally ruins the illusion.

I doubt this one is different. It takes exceptional writers and a visionary director to pull the material out of the present and transport it to the imagined low-tech and barbaric future. The Mad Max movies aren't perfect, (who does Tina Turner's hair every day and with what? Why is S&M leather popular in the desert when it gets cold at night?), but they are the gold standard.

For The Book of Eli I saw non-smoking, mostly unmodified, cars and delivery vans, a chainsaw that fires up on the first go, a perfectly working RPG-7 warhead, and plenty of primer using, magazine spring dependent, recoil spring dependent, lubrication dependent, semi-auto pistols running around a very impoverished world set after a post apocalyptic war--30 years on--just in a trailer, so I am not too encouraged.

Oh yeah, and a slow motion arrow, the wooden shaft of which does not oscillate from point to tail while in flight, the very motion that the fletching has been compensating for going on centuries now.

It is way easier to suspend disbelief when the directors give a damn about the little details that otherwise poke holes in the viewer's efforts to join their world. It's this very reason why the most memorable science fiction has been done by visual detail fanatics who can succeed even in the face of crappy plots and dialogue, (George Lucas, James Cameron among others).
 
Last edited:
Boats said:
I haven't enjoyed a post-apocalyptic movie since both The Road Warrior and Max Max--Beyond Thunderdome. They set the standard for a uniform and believable dystopia. It probably helped immensely that Director George Miller also co-wrote both movies as well as the original Mad Max, which was set in time close before the nuclear war that is the backdrop of the sequels.

Most movies in the genre, such as I Am Legend, to take a recent example, simply feature too many anachronisms, like electrical power from nowhere, easy fuel, working automobiles that aren't cobbled together garbage, mountains of ammunition, and elaborate defensive systems that would have never been put together by just one guy.

Other horrible examples have even featured cigarettes--(I'm talking about you Waterworld,) or something else that totally ruins the illusion.

I doubt this one is different. It takes exceptional writers and a visionary director to pull the material out of the present and transport it to the imagined low-tech and barbaric future. The Mad Max movies aren't perfect, (who does Tina Turner's hair every day and with what? Why is S&M leather popular in the desert when it gets cold at night?), but they are the gold standard.

For The Book of Eli I saw non-smoking, mostly unmodified, cars and delivery vans, a chainsaw that fires up on the first go, a perfectly working RPG-7 warhead, and plenty of primer using, magazine spring dependent, recoil spring dependent, lubrication dependent, semi-auto pistols running around a very impoverished world set after a post apocalyptic war--30 years on--just in a trailer, so I am not too encouraged.

Oh yeah, and a slow motion arrow, the wooden shaft of which does not oscillate from point to tail while in flight, the very motion that the fletching has been compensating for going on centuries now.

It is way easier to suspend disbelief when the directors give a damn about the little details that otherwise poke holes in the viewer's efforts to join their world. It's this very reason why the most memorable science fiction has been done by visual detail fanatics who can succeed even in the face of crappy plots and dialogue, (George Lucas, James Cameron among others).
Click to expand...

Damn, haha. You're so easy to please :)

Hollywood is pretty fail when it comes to realism in movies. In Tears of the Sun, that both Bruce Willis and a police officer both have their aimpoints backwards.

Bruce_Willis_i_Tear_101959o.jpg


nycpd.jpg
 
Got to remember its a movie and its entertainment. I just got home from it and give it high marks. Violence,language,and spirituality-whats not to like ? Will buy it when its released to DVD.
 
Boats said:
I haven't enjoyed a post-apocalyptic movie since both The Road Warrior and Max Max--Beyond Thunderdome. They set the standard for a uniform and believable dystopia. It probably helped immensely that Director George Miller also co-wrote both movies as well as the original Mad Max, which was set in time close before the nuclear war that is the backdrop of the sequels.

Most movies in the genre, such as I Am Legend, to take a recent example, simply feature too many anachronisms, like electrical power from nowhere, easy fuel, working automobiles that aren't cobbled together garbage, mountains of ammunition, and elaborate defensive systems that would have never been put together by just one guy.

Other horrible examples have even featured cigarettes--(I'm talking about you Waterworld,) or something else that totally ruins the illusion.

I doubt this one is different. It takes exceptional writers and a visionary director to pull the material out of the present and transport it to the imagined low-tech and barbaric future. The Mad Max movies aren't perfect, (who does Tina Turner's hair every day and with what? Why is S&M leather popular in the desert when it gets cold at night?), but they are the gold standard.

For The Book of Eli I saw non-smoking, mostly unmodified, cars and delivery vans, a chainsaw that fires up on the first go, a perfectly working RPG-7 warhead, and plenty of primer using, magazine spring dependent, recoil spring dependent, lubrication dependent, semi-auto pistols running around a very impoverished world set after a post apocalyptic war--30 years on--just in a trailer, so I am not too encouraged.

Oh yeah, and a slow motion arrow, the wooden shaft of which does not oscillate from point to tail while in flight, the very motion that the fletching has been compensating for going on centuries now.

It is way easier to suspend disbelief when the directors give a damn about the little details that otherwise poke holes in the viewer's efforts to join their world. It's this very reason why the most memorable science fiction has been done by visual detail fanatics who can succeed even in the face of crappy plots and dialogue, (George Lucas, James Cameron among others).
Click to expand...

Damn Boats, when you aren't posting naked pictures, you are capable of some awesome posts :D That was great, I agree so much. The first mad max was the best IMO but society was in TEOTWAWKI mode yet. The second one had most of the details you talk about, of course the running them was resource limitation. While gas was the prime motivator, all resouces were limited. Max eating dogfood and the fizzle/magic eightball 12 gauge shells were great touches.

I have to completely agree with the thesis of your post. Hollywood can't seem to get past the idea of the 'rummage sale'/looting fest as a viable survival strategy under the apocalypse scenario. Folks will be pulling from old world technology for a while but pretty soon it will be mostly useless, and given todays craftsmanship with build in obsolescence being a primary design feature, the time frame is running shorter and shorter all the time.

I didn't go to see Book of Eli because the ratings on the Rotten Tomatoe site were less than 23% which usually means its a senseless piece of crap movie. I tend to agree with most of the critics. Maybe, I like having my head up my ass :D Based on reviews, this weekend I went to see Daybreakers instead. It received a 63% favorable rating score on the meta-movie review site. It wasn't a great movie, but it had its good moments and I didn't feel cheated out of my $8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top