- The Book Of Eli
- OPENING: 01/15/2010
- STUDIO: Warner Bros.
- RUN TIME: 118 min
- ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site
The Charge
Some will kill to have it. He will kill to protect it.
Opening Statement
The Book of Eli delivers an excellent entry into the post-apocalyptic genre, with amazing action and great performances.
Facts of the Case
In a post-apocalyptic America, Eli (Denzel Washington, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is following a divine calling to deliver a sacred book to an unknown destination. During his 30 year journey, he has protected the book against thieves, murderers, and gangs, knowing it has the power to save civilization from itself.
The Evidence
In the span of a year, at least three apocalyptic films have been released to theaters. 2012 gave us the mindless summer blockbuster we sometimes need for a laugh. The Road presented a bleak, post-apocalyptic America, leaving us depressed. But The Book Of Eli offers us hope in a world of emptiness.
Set 30 years after a war termed the "Big Flash," America is a wasteland of rubble, much the crumbling America we see in The Road. That film was presented in mostly grays and blues, while The Book Of Eli was processed using a palette of sepia tones. This could be related to the season presented in each film, but probably more so with the feeling their directors were trying to convey. The father and son in The Road were trying to reach a place the father knew might not bring a better future. Eli, on the other hand, is following a path bigger than himself, providing an internal peace throughout the journey, and a tone for the picture. Although the world is rampant with crime, Eli is dead set on getting the book where it needs to be, by following direction from a higher power.
Depending on the film, I find Denzel Washington’s acting to be hit or miss. He severely overacted in Training Day, but gave a great performance in American Gangster. Quiet and subdued, Washington does an excellent job with Eli, playing the part of a peaceful, yet dangerous man with perfect reservation, only showing intense emotion when the scene calls for it.
One of the better actors of his generation, Gary Oldman plays the antagonist, Carnegie, in his usual superb fashion. He nails the role of ruthless man with sympathy for no one who will stop at nothing to find the book. Knowing it contains much power, Carnegie’s goal is to use the book as a tool for getting the masses to follow him. Oldman gives us a man who is not as confident as his followers might think, but is powerful because he’s smarter than those who follow him. When Carnegie meets our hero (a man who cannot be persuaded), he is weakened by realizing that only through force can he obtain what he needs from Eli.
Based on a graphic novel, The Book of Eli was directed by the Hughes Brothers (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents). I was glad to see they chose to present fight sequences in real time and not with a constant barrage of slow motion shots. Fights are quick, intense and to the point. Slow motion shots can be very effective, but when the majority of a scene is built using those shots, the effect wears off quickly. Limbs are removed so quickly by Eli’s two foot knife it will take a second viewing to catch all the lightning fast strikes (including several decapitations).
The Hughes Brothers present a character in Eli whose life has a mission. It doesn’t take long until we figure out what the book is, and see Eli as something more than human. There is a clear peace to him and others see it as well. Any time Eli comes into contact with a male, they immediately sense something different about him and are angered that he obtains something they do not. Females, on the other hand, feel safe with him, as if for the first time in their lives. One scene depicts the rescue of Solara (Mila Kunis, Family Guy) from a gang whose only intent was rape. Afterwards, walking alongside Eli, she breaks down in tears because she feels unworthy being in the presence of such goodness. This was one of the most powerful scenes in the film, and no, I didn’t tear up. I just had something in my eye. The relationship between Solara and Eli is a stark contrast to the relationship depicted in The Road. Solara, cared for by Eli, is now living in freedom, whereas the boy lives in total fear, even while under the protection of his father.
The Book Of Eli‘s most questionable aspect is the ending, which I definitely did not see coming. Without giving anything away, it will make you think through everything you just saw. Honestly, I’m not sure the ending worked because it made me wonder how plausible most of the previous scenes were. In the same way, my biggest grievance with The Road was the ending, which seemed inconsistent with the rest of the picture. In that film, director John Hillcoat presents a completely hopeless and fearful world, only to have kind people appear out of nowhere in the end. However, I sensed throughout The Book of Eli that we would receive some important revelation and my mind was trying to piece together what that might be. Unfortunately, the reveal wasn’t as grand or profound as I had imagined. Still, the twist did have a wow factor, and I guess that counts for something.
Closing Statement
The Book Of Eli may bother you if need the film to be totally believable, but like The Road, the performances and storyline are more than strong enough to warrant a positive ruling, even if the conclusion is clumsy or a little hard to swallow. In the end (pun intended), both are welcome additions to the post-apocalyptic genre.
The Verdict
8/10
3 comments ↓
Boy, I usually hold the judges here in high respect and this review triggered my interest in this movie which I went to see today… More than a “wow factor” for me this was a “crash factor”. I’d rather have seen this piece of film bollocks on DVD rental with a nice fast forward button at hand, to spare me the boredom.
Lame movie.
Yeah, I had a number of problems with the film. It’s starts off with the incomparable advantages of Denzel Washington in the lead and Gary Oldman supporting. The cinematography is outstanding and there are many touching interludes provided by the director.
But in the end–even strictly within the context of the world presented here–the thing is just not credible. Or rather, the suspension of my disbelief was severely challenged and then completely overcome.
One of these days, I will analyze the paralyzing lack of romance in Denzel Washington pictures. This one continues that unworthy and supremely racist trend. It’s 1956 all over again up in here and that didn’t help.
. . . and the contrarian p.o.v. . . .
I thought it was one of the best films I’ve ever seen.
I respect the art of storytelling, and can bring a willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of a good yarn–and this is indeed that. Like the dystopian `Reign of Fire’ and `Riddick’, there are points that could be quibbled, but this *is* fiction, after all. I go into it knowing that it is `once upon a time’, and as long as the production is worthy of my time, I’ll try to work with the premises. It’s easier to critique than to create.
There is also the deft hint of the divine in this story: Eli’s conviction that he is doing what he must, that he is protected in carrying out this mandate, gives us a tool with which to justify the improbable.
One noteworthy strength of this script is that of human adaptation to horrific conditions–and this does not require any suspension of disbelief whatsover. The shopkeeper/engineer’s role contributed to this far out of the proportion to its brevity, as did the twisted and bizarre hospitality offered by George and Martha; the hopeless love of Hoyt for Solara expressed first in his `buying’ her from Carnegie, then quietly pleading with Eli for her life. These were plausible expressions of human drives: survival, greed, and love in a world gone awry. Eli’s scene with the mouse and the music, the celebration of `something’ in all the nothingness, was riveting, and alone worth watching the movie for.
I love a good `gotcha’ film; highest example of that for me was Sixth Sense, wherein I noted some of the things that, in retrospect, were evidence that this could not be so. However, the story was so engaging that I kept doing the director’s job for him–I would question a point, then justify how those things could be so, because I was so caught up in the story–in effect, I’d kept handing him the rope and at the end found myself thoroughly trussed with it.
This film, OTOH, merely drops a few hints here and there–right at the beginning, when he goes from car to car and when he searches the house for boots, when he backs into the tunnel for the fight to be able to contol acoustics, later while he is held captive, another hint is dropped. The gotcha part of the story is seamless; on a second watching, there is nothing completely implausible. I find it easier than some because I am familiar with examples of people who are exceptional within that exceptionality (trying to avoid spoilers here), such as the French Resistance fighter, Jacques Lusseyran.
My take on why there was not a romantic twist to this plot was that, for the two female leads, their relationship to men were as that of property. To enter fully into a relationship, they first had to claim their personhood, and in the end, each so did.
I have a hard time picturing Denzel Washington fruitlessly begging his agent to get him a romantic lead; it appears to me that he carefully picks and chooses his roles. His performance in The Hurricane left no doubt that he could play a ladies’ man, even though that was a minor theme in the movie.
Rather than “analyze the paralyzing lack of romance” in his films, perhaps consider using your interest and abilities in taking a run at writing a script that Washington will find irresistible? It’s easier to critique than create, but the latter is much more satisfying.
Leave a Comment