I saw the movie... it was awesome. had just the right amount of action. I thought the story was fine.
Escape to the Movies: Book of Eli
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I honestly wasn't annoyed by the whole biblical part, because even with that it's still a good movie...
...until that final plot twist, which insulted my intelligence so bad I'm still smarting from it twenty-four hours later.
...until that final plot twist, which insulted my intelligence so bad I'm still smarting from it twenty-four hours later.
Any historians in particular? I can find no references to this at all. Any searches just seem to bounce back to this thread.SkullCap said:
I'm especially curious considering literacy rates in 1550's England were less than 10% for the "general" population, and printed bibles (in English! an amazing new development!) were so new and valuable that they were actually chained to the pulpit...
This story could of been about any book and no one would of cared saying "Great Review Bob."
But since it has the bible in it which also equals God, people call him stupid and that automatically makes him an atheist elitist pig. Aren't we an accepting bunch, now I haven't watch the movie yet so I don't know anything about it but it sounds like he was upset in how his religion was portrayed in this movie(im guessing from his response.) It's his reason for not liking the movie, it's not your reason not to like it. Everyone is bias, that is how opinions are made, but please stop foaming at the mouth in rage over something somebody said over the internet.
again, don't take my post too seriously.
But since it has the bible in it which also equals God, people call him stupid and that automatically makes him an atheist elitist pig. Aren't we an accepting bunch, now I haven't watch the movie yet so I don't know anything about it but it sounds like he was upset in how his religion was portrayed in this movie(im guessing from his response.) It's his reason for not liking the movie, it's not your reason not to like it. Everyone is bias, that is how opinions are made, but please stop foaming at the mouth in rage over something somebody said over the internet.
again, don't take my post too seriously.
This conversation piqued my curiosity, so I did some digging. I couldn't find any evidence of this throat cutting practice anywhere on the internet. So I consulted my Encyclopedia Britannica (complete set!) and found nothing there either. But I persevered and eventually came across "John Foxes Book of Martyrs" published in 1563. (http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/index.html)jabrwock said:
Book 11 of this work deals with the Mary's martyrs and on page 1726 begins the story of Rawlings White. He was a fisherman. He couldn't read so he saved up money and sent his son to school to learn. When his son knew how to read English he would read scripture to his father. He was eventually caught, tried in court, and then burned. He was a peasant but his throat was not immediately cut.
Does this completely discredit what Skullcap said? Not really. But it was the only actual, documented evidence that I could find one way or the other. Now my source is biased but it is biased on the protestant side. Cutting someone's throat over a Bible would have made a great protestant martyr. But searching the text for throat, then throate, and then throte (damn old english) came up with no such story.
So I'm gonna vote no on the throat cutting thing. And I'm going to accept the possibility (only the possibility) that Skullcap is laughing as he/she reads this because he/she sent me on this wild goose chase.
I don't know. Avatar, also a religious movie, got a clean bill of health.
Accepting one thing and criticizing another for the same reason based on the same quality and using nothing more but the presence of a quality you personally dislike, that's called bigotry, not simple bias.
Certainly we all have our own thoughts about things, but consider also by your argument that people have no right to call people on bias, then reviewing is an exercise in futility. How can you be objective if people are not capable of being so?
Reviewers are supposed to make a concentrated effort to be impartial, considering the film on the basis of how good a movie it is, not caring about its message of content because that shouldn't be the only factor in considering a movie.
For instance, Avatar is a bad movie not because of its heavy handed message, but because of bad writing.
So yeah, wer'e calling Bob out for being a bigot, not just biased.
Thought I'd clear that up.
Accepting one thing and criticizing another for the same reason based on the same quality and using nothing more but the presence of a quality you personally dislike, that's called bigotry, not simple bias.
Certainly we all have our own thoughts about things, but consider also by your argument that people have no right to call people on bias, then reviewing is an exercise in futility. How can you be objective if people are not capable of being so?
Reviewers are supposed to make a concentrated effort to be impartial, considering the film on the basis of how good a movie it is, not caring about its message of content because that shouldn't be the only factor in considering a movie.
For instance, Avatar is a bad movie not because of its heavy handed message, but because of bad writing.
So yeah, wer'e calling Bob out for being a bigot, not just biased.
Thought I'd clear that up.
I'm reasonably certain I never called Avatar "transcendant." It was pretty good (I might've even put a "damn" in the middle there) was my basic estimation.Dan Oles said:
Why is it that "Avatar" keeps coming up as the reference point here? The two movies have nothing to do with one another. Is there some sort of "meme" out there wherein "Eli" is an "anti-Avatar" or somesuch?
Not exactly...
"Avatar" actually goes out of it's way to make it clear that NOTHING supernatural or spiritual is going on - a big plot-point at the start of Act 3 is devoted to explaining that the esoteric-sounding aspects of Na'vi culture that the humans had been interpreting as their religion was actually a matter of natural-science, a kind of biological-internet that only 'sounded' supernatural in the terms that Na'vi described it.
"Avatar" IS a bit trite, just not as much so as "Eli." 'Trite' just means "done to death," really.
Uh... wow?
Bob, here's the reason why I think Avatar is constantly brought up in relation to Book of Eli:MovieBob said:
Avatar and Book of Eli both have some pretty one-dimensional characters. You mentioned how Gary Oldman's Carnegie was way too one-dimensional to be interesting. On the other hand, Quaritch in Avatar is a very one-dimensional character as well. His only motivation and goal is to fight, to make war on the inhabitants of Pandora. How is it that Stephan Lang, who does solid work in Avatar, gets a pass, but Oldman's Carnegie does not? If both characters are guilty of the same thing, why does it count against Book of Eli and not against Avatar? On top of that, Avatar's story isn't the deepest plot out there. It lays everything out for you and just gives the audience some spectacle to take away from the fact that the story is one big cliche itself. Book of Eli also gives a rather simple story, but it tries to make it a more layered affair by introducing themes about faith, religion, goodness, etc. Whether or not one felt it succeeded in this regard is completely up to the viewer (as I found the story to be quite effective). So if Avatar's story is as simple's as Book of Eli's, why is it better film? Is it because of the visuals? The overused theme of destroying nature and the natives and how PMCs and corporations are all bad?
Why does Avatar get away with the same things Eli has done, yet you consider it a better film? I think that is why folks on here (myself included) want to know why you ding Eli worse than Avatar (which you coined as a borderline masterpiece, despite its tried and cliched themes, story, and resolution).
Oh, there's also your complaint about the Bible being the Macguffin for the film. You spend the majority review mentioning how "trite" the fact that the book is the Bible. The Bible isn't the point of the film. It's not about spreading Christianity to everyone. Eli is trying to preserve the last little remnants of humanity. He wants to save it so that it may one day be taught and shown to anyone who would listen. He doesn't want to spread Christianity for the sake of religion. He wants people to find the light in a dark world. Plus, he tries as best he can to save what little remnants of humanity he can find. Like the iPod. Not only does he hang on to it as a small piece of entertainment, but also to keep the best parts of the history of people alive as he walks. The film doesn't revolve around the Bible as if it's the only thing. What matters is Eli and his journey. What matters is how Eli is willing to preserve what he feels is (metaphorically) the last hope. It isn't literally "the last hope," but it certainly feels that way for him.
I dunno, I think I may have rambled a bit, but that's how I felt about it. However, it goes to show that there some interesting themes that are in the film some may find and that others may not, but we don't get enough of an idea about them since your review mentions nothing about them (depending on how one interpreted different parts of the film). Again, however, that just how I felt and others may feel different.
Still enjoy your reviews, though!
A lot of people disagree with you. Why is that such a bad thing? Why did you just talk about Avatar? Was that the biggest wrong you saw, the comparison? Or was everyone else too right to talk to? Questions are always worth asking.MovieBob said:
loved might be a bit fare but i went to see it after complaining about booby bob's silly review and i did realy like it. strong acting.hero21b said:
Signed up just to post this. While I don't think it was a masterpiece or one of the greatest of all time, I did enjoy the movie. I typically agree with Bob so I'm surprised that he felt differenly about the flick. I do think there were a few slow spots in the movie that really could have been tightened up or cut altogether, but it was quite enjoyable. It didn't come off as preachy, and yes some things were cliched but I liked what the movie had to say.
Too many folks are treating Bob's review as "gospel".(pun intended) Don't shy away from seeing something you were interested in just because it didn't get a favorable review. Go see it for yourself and form your own opinion.
Too many folks are treating Bob's review as "gospel".(pun intended) Don't shy away from seeing something you were interested in just because it didn't get a favorable review. Go see it for yourself and form your own opinion.
I prefer to be disagreed with, it makes things more interesting. The "wow" is over the fact that A.) this has turned psuedo-"personal" so rapidly and B.) that it's in reaction to THIS movie. I mean, passionate about movies - I get that. But this? Really? A sub-"Tank Girl" generic post-nuke actioner plopped into the January dead-zone is worth accusatory ranting and namecalling? Yeah, that's a little surprising to me.PlasticLion said:
Also, for what it's worth, "you are a bigot" isn't a question
I actually enjoyed the film more than I thought I would. Everything was well done to me. It was quite entertaining and worth the ticket price. I want to see it again. I think except for the shooting scene (gun, not bow) it all made sense.
Moviebob, I have yet to see this film, so I can make no judgement on it yet. However, this article [http://io9.com/5451262/why-does-science-fiction-invent-new-religions] has some interesting ideas on the nature of religion and sci-fi which sound modestly interesting.
I was under the impression, reading this article, on the story being treated as an evolution of the Christian tradition over time, and this Book of Eli would eventually become a new canonical book of the Christian gospel after the film's events. It was presented as though this would be like watching The Ten Commandments, showing a new development in Ecumenical tradition since the fall of Western civilization. Shame that this doesn't seem to be the way it panned out, then.
Dammit, why can't there be a religious scifi movie that can come off as thoughtful instead of preachy!
I was under the impression, reading this article, on the story being treated as an evolution of the Christian tradition over time, and this Book of Eli would eventually become a new canonical book of the Christian gospel after the film's events. It was presented as though this would be like watching The Ten Commandments, showing a new development in Ecumenical tradition since the fall of Western civilization. Shame that this doesn't seem to be the way it panned out, then.
Dammit, why can't there be a religious scifi movie that can come off as thoughtful instead of preachy!
the point is that its not about this movie, its about you. this film was so average yet enjoyable but your reaction to it was so silly and ranty and needlessly negative. and also, when you blatantly throw your superior knowledge of atheism around and even go so far as to screw at a film for having a religious motif you're bound to annoy people.MovieBob said:I prefer to be disagreed with, it makes things more interesting. The "wow" is over the fact that A.) this has turned psuedo-"personal" so rapidly and B.) that it's in reaction to THIS movie. I mean, passionate about movies - I get that. But this? Really? A sub-"Tank Girl" generic post-nuke actioner plopped into the January dead-zone is worth accusatory ranting and namecalling? Yeah, that's a little surprising to me.PlasticLion said:
Also, for what it's worth, "you are a bigot" isn't a question
For some it may have turned personal, but many on here are simply trying to understand why you gave Avatar such a glowing review when technically it's just as cliched as Book of Eli.MovieBob said:I prefer to be disagreed with, it makes things more interesting. The "wow" is over the fact that A.) this has turned psuedo-"personal" so rapidly and B.) that it's in reaction to THIS movie. I mean, passionate about movies - I get that. But this? Really? A sub-"Tank Girl" generic post-nuke actioner plopped into the January dead-zone is worth accusatory ranting and namecalling? Yeah, that's a little surprising to me.PlasticLion said:
Also, for what it's worth, "you are a bigot" isn't a question
Plus...Tank-Girl? Really?
Man this crap is STILL going on. Seriously Bob, I would think you would know enough about flamewars not to participate. They always get personal and the only way they ever die is if you ignore them. Take a page from Yahtzee's playbook and ignore the sheep.
Is it? The religious aspect isn't the central driving theme in Avatar. The "communicates with nature" schtick is one of the reasons they can't leave, but it's not the central them. In Eli, the book IS the central theme. It's the only reason Eli is making this journey, and the only reason the bad guys care about him. And, when you read the spoilers, you find out thatfozzy360 said:
the whole premise was pretty pointless to begin with, that it wasn't needed at all? So it's a MacGuffin.
You could easily replace the bible with something like the water purification chip from the game Fallout. And the story would be just as stupid if you found out that the guy carrying the chip this whole time was an electrical engineer who could have just left the chip behind and fixed the chip by himself with the gear on-site, thus depriving the bad guys of any reason to try to steal the chip from him... IE all they needed was HIM and his KNOWLEDGE, not the chip itself. It's not the bible that's stupid. It's not the religion that's stupid. It's the idea that it was completely pointless to the story. It was a nonsensical plot device. HE was the thing that needed to be delivered, not the book.
Why not? Interesting concept (post-apocalyptic corporation controls "Golden Fleece" (water), protagonist fights to liberate it to save humanity). Bad execution.
What is so wrong about people asking questions and arguing about THIS movie? And Tank Girl...Really? WOW, Bob, WOW!!!MovieBob said:I prefer to be disagreed with, it makes things more interesting. The "wow" is over the fact that A.) this has turned psuedo-"personal" so rapidly and B.) that it's in reaction to THIS movie. I mean, passionate about movies - I get that. But this? Really? A sub-"Tank Girl" generic post-nuke actioner plopped into the January dead-zone is worth accusatory ranting and namecalling? Yeah, that's a little surprising to me.PlasticLion said:
Also, for what it's worth, "you are a bigot" isn't a question
Oh, and you are a bigot by the way.