Quote :

"I don't think I've EVER seen a movie where EVERY thing is believable and they all could really happen in real life. No, not even the Titanic."

It's not about being realistic. It's about playing within it's own rules. You have movies that are entirely fantasy (dune). Movies that take place in our reality with a twist (zombie movies). Movies that are in our reality but based around a series of unlikely events (forrest gump) and movies which intended to take place entirely in our reality (something like In The Bedroom).

Now let's take a talking, red polk-a-doted elephant and put it in each. In fantasy.. fine no problem. In reality with a twist - everyone acts like that creature has always been there or should be there, fine. But in a movie based in reality, it either has to be a painted elephant, dream, some guy tripping, etc. for it to work. It can still work just fine in each, but it has to play by the rules or it doesn't make sense.

In a movie based on our reality, and this is, divine intervention as the "how" is questionable imo. They went out of the way to show this story taking place in the world we know. The gave us a kmart name tag, a first gen ipod, sunglass styles which are popular at the moment, the golden gate bridge, they referenced mozart, they had alcatraz, the quran, and so on. They didn't try to suggest it was any sort of "alternate" united states. They could have, but they didn't.


At the end of the day, that really doesn't even bother me that much when I think about it. I don't care for it too much, but I can go along with it for the sake of the movie.

This is what I really don't like about this movie (i don't think i said hate at any point): I thought a lot of the shots were bad, the score really annoyed me, and there really wasn't much story. All of that was a problem to the extent that it distracted me. I found myself saying "c'mon, let's move on already" during a lot of it.

A shot should either go unnoticed (be purely functional), or somehow add to the entertainment/aesthetics. Like the really long shot in Atonement. Or the shot for the car scene in Children of Men. - 2 shots that stand out because of the technical aspect and because they look good. Or maybe a scene that just looks "cool." Like the first time you saw trinity do the freeze/slow mo shit and then kick the guy at full speed in the original matrix. That had never been done in a big movie before. It had a "wow" factor to it.

They tried, at times, to make this movie stylish... and I just don't think it fit very well. I think they used certain things too often. And they stretched things out too long. There were some things I liked. But the bad almost made me forget about them.

When I'm already annoyed with a movie, little things like using gas that shouldn't work bothers me. Mainly because I'm not pulled into the movie or story (or lack there of) and have a lot of time to think about how retarded that is. If it weren't for me not being interested in watching the movie anymore, that probably wouldn't have bothered me too much. Although, i think it's lazy writing because there are plenty of ways around it.


Other little dumb things:
These are both things they didn't show. And i'm fine with not showing something, as long as it's not counter-intuitive to begin with.

How did she get out of the spring? The guard, who seemed to be bound, freed himself and let her out... fine. Although, they did just knock him out and tie him up. So i'm not so sure letting her go is likely. Maybe she blew him... OK, fine.

How did he get out of the cell? At first I thought she helped him. But when they went down there, there was a guard who was supposedly there the entire time. And the bars inside appeared to be intact. Maybe I missed something there. -- again, seems like lazy writing,

This was not a good film imo. The fight scenes were entertaining. But that's about it. The acting was OK. The story was mediocre at best.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 4:17:33 PM

holy lots of words batman!

Quote :

"In a movie based on our reality, and this is, divine intervention as the "how" is questionable imo."

This is where you lost me..because you don't believe in divine intervention, you can't believe it for a movie sake?

I don't believe in super heroes but I have no problem watching superman that takes place in our realistic world...call him the poca dotted elephant if you will.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/19/2010 4:28:01 PM

right, and superman works fine in our reality with a twist. He's explained rather simply, he's an alien. And while we don't know of any aliens. We know there are other planets. And there is life on our planet, so it's reasonable to think there's life on some other planets. Transformers works the same way. What doesn't quite work out in Transformers is Shia LeBouf being thrown 20yrds into the side of car, and then getting up and walking away. I mean, I let it go because it's a movie. But Tranformers existing is more logical in that story than what happens to him.


The reason the divine intervention thing isn't working for me is because

1) God saw it fit to intervene to assure a text go to a certain point? If so, either God (whatever god that may be) really wants as full of a history kept as possible or the King James Bible is THE word that needs to be passed on.

- if it's the latter, well fuck, that guy just threw it on a bookshelf with other religious texts.
- or, while Eli got the book there, maybe that's all his role was. Maybe he just got it there so someone in the future will read it and spread the good word. Not bad, but they could have shown a child reading the bible and then shown a preacher 20 yrs later or something.

I mean, give us a reason as to why a divine entity would care enough about this bible reaching that location to intervene.

2) This is taking place in a reality based on ours, where divine intervention is suspect at best. I can accept faith and the power of faith (believing in something) all day. But a divine power allowing Eli to do everything he did, tough sell.

And i get what you're saying about why not just accept divine intervention here, like i do superman etc., regardless of whether or not i believe in it. The answer is that if it was some made up religion or god... i probably would. But, they chose real world religions and belief systems. Of course, other aspects of the story would have to change as well in that situation.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 5:21 PM. Reason : /]

1/19/2010 5:18:38 PM

Quote :

"right, and superman works fine in our reality with a twist. He's explained rather simply, he's an alien. And while we don't know of any aliens. We know there are other planets. And there is life on our planet, so it's reasonable to think there's life on some other planets. "

I don't believe in aliens for the sake of this discussion. Excusing the unexplainable in a movie/story because its 'alien' is questionable and a cop out.

Quote :

"And i get what you're saying about why not just accept divine intervention here, like i do superman etc., regardless of whether or not i believe in it. The answer is that if it was some made up religion or god... i probably would. But, they chose real world religions and belief systems."

So i guess what you are saying is that Christians will believe what happened in the movie to be real and non-believers won't because they can't wrap their head around divine intervention or something they can't see?

1/19/2010 5:25:38 PM

None of this matters, because its a movie first of all AND its not based on a true story. Was the movie bad? No. Was the movie great? No. Was is worth my time sitting and watching it? Yes.

1/19/2010 5:32:10 PM

It matters enough to the people reading and discussing it. you're welcome to not read this. It is a movie, you're right. But I'm talking about movie-making. And why whoever wrote or directed this movie didn't do a good job imo.

Quote :

"I don't believe in aliens for the sake of this discussion. Excusing the unexplainable in a movie/story because its 'alien' is questionable and a cop out."

It really doesn't matter if you or I believe in zombies, superman, aliens, or whatever. That falls into the category of "based on our reality, with a twist." As opposed to based on our reality. The characters acknowledge their existence. Those things happen to be part of reality in the story, but everything else is the same (gravity exists, getting punched hurts, some cars are made in america, some are imported, etc.). If the characters in the story except them, it works. I accept that just fine.

That model sorta works for Book of Eli. It's a movie based in our reality, with a twist that divine intervention definitely exists. But nobody really acknowledges it/it doesn't seem common place, and it's using something that is very real in our reality. So, i think it's a little questionable to say that's what the writers/director had in mind. Meaning, I don't think the writers intended divine intervention to be chalked up with zombies and simply accepted because "that's how things are" in this version of our reality.

Quote :

"So i guess what you are saying is that Christians will believe what happened in the movie to be real and non-believers won't because they can't wrap their head around divine intervention or something they can't see?"

lol, not at all. I have no idea where you're getting that. But, I'll go ahead and say this, people who believe in divine intervention (regardless of their particular religion) will probably be more likely to go along with that aspect of the story than someone who absolutely doesn't believe in it. I'm not saying all who do, will or that all who don't, won't. But that there is probably some correlation there.

My comment was more about their choice to choose a very REAL religion. I have no problem with whatever religion/god they chose for Avatar. It doesn't exist in our world, i have no emotional ties to it. I have no opinion of it. It's 100% fantasy. If you tell me divine intervention happens there, so be it. Real divine intervention is not something that is easily accepted in our society.

And like i said; the problem for me isn't even that they went with divine intervention. I'm willing to go along with it. But WHY? Considering everything that took place in the story, why would a divine being interfere? The bible ends up as a historical reference on a shelf in a museum. You had Eli, who had a very strong faith. And they even hit on some things about Eli which pretty much anyone can agree with (maybe to be pc, or to draw in non-christians idk)... he talks about how great companionship is during hard times. And he talks about doing more for others than yourself, etc. These are things that a lot of people, regardless of religion, would agree with or admire. They don't play on that at all during the story.

Why divine intervention? what is the end result of the book making it to the destination? what is Eli's hardship and death for?

1 - a historical reference? A) that's a retarded idea for a story. B) I don't like the idea of a divine being intervening for nothing more than that.

2 - Because it was the word of God? Fine, I can accept that. But don't just leave it on a damn shelf. Show me that it got used. Show me that it somehow contributed to a better civilization than what they had going on. Show me why it was worth all the trouble.


At the end of the day the plot is: dude carries a book (happens to be a bible) across the country. Is super badass and kills a lot of people on the way. This bad guy who is trying to start new cities and control them wants a copy of the book because he thinks the story in the book can be used to control people. dude won't give it to him and kills some people to prevent giving up the book. Bad guy seriously fucks some shit up, so dude gives him the book. Dude goes to aclatraz (where it turns out there are civilized people) and says he has the book. It's extremely apparent at this point that he has it memorized. He begins to dictate it for someone to write down as he bleeds out for several days from a gunshot wound in his gut. In the mean time, the bad guy opens the book to find it's actually in braille. (WTF?!?, Dude is blind?! how did he do all that bad assery and find alcatraz?). Dude's eyes are shown and he has cataracts or something, to confirm that he's blind. Blind dude dies. Alcatraz Press prints the book as he dictated it, leather bound and all. Book is placed on a shelf with similar category of books. The two books immediately adjacent are recognizable as big named books in the genre.

it could have just as easily been Lord of the Rings. But no, it was the bible and it was placed between the qur'an and the torah.


The story had potential, but the writers screwed it over.


Was this movie bad? not bad, fucking horrible. Was this movie great? n/a, see previous question and response. Was it worth my time sitting and watching it? In the sense that you can't know how you feel about something without experiencing it, yes. Would I like that time and money back to do something else? Yes.

1/19/2010 7:38:32 PM

It still doesn't matter. Its not real. Its a movie. The movie has been made, and exist. There is nothing you can do about it but not watch (again).

1/19/2010 7:46:31 PM

Quote :

"This is what I really don't like about this movie (i don't think i said hate at any point)"

Quote :

"Was this movie bad? not bad, fucking horrible"

so in summation, you didn't hate it, but it was fucking horrible

i know hate's a strong word and all, but "fucking horrible" isn't far behind

1/19/2010 8:04:04 PM

How was the Book of Eli not "based on our reality, with a twist" as compared to zombie movies, superman, any other movie about shit that hasn't actually happened?

1/20/2010 12:13:49 AM

Quote :

"Real divine intervention is not something that is easily accepted in our society."

except it is. lol

1/20/2010 12:24:20 AM

saw it tonight and liked it

1/20/2010 12:29:36 AM

Quote :

"How was the Book of Eli not "based on our reality, with a twist" as compared to zombie movies, superman, any other movie about shit that hasn't actually happened?"

It can be looked at like that. I said so already, maybe twice. I just think it's one thing to use, say zombies or superman, as opposed to taking an idea that already exists (something some people claim, though that has not been proven) and to throw it out there like that.

The idea of zombies or superman in our society is entirely fantasy. Nobody really believes that, or if they do, most people would look at them a little odd (when we see it in a movie, regardless of the tone of the story, we know it's completely made up). The problem I see with divine intervention is that some people do believe in it. And as a whole, we accept that some people believe in it. So there's a bit of a difference there. Really, imo, if you put it on the same level as zombies and superman, you're kinda mocking people who actually believe in divine intervention. So another option is to not present it as a fun/fantasy thing, but rather as something even more acceptable. But at the same time, if you you do that, you sorta insult the people who don't believe in divine intervention. I don't think the filmmakers had the balls to go one way or the other. They play this kinda middle of the road thing, and it's weak imo and somewhat insulting. They could have played up the divine intervention part through the entire thing. They didn't. They could have stayed away from it altogether, they didn't. They could have had him quoting some scripture or beliefs that non-religious people would balk at. They didn't. Instead they had him talk about companionship, and helping others. Ideas that non-religious people accept just fine. it's middle of the road, pussy stuff. And in the end, that weakens it imo.

-- once again, I can except divine intervention as a plot device and go along with it just fine. It doesn't bother me that much. It's where the story goes with it that I really don't like/i don't think makes good use of divine intervention. I've said it twice, but why was the book getting to the destination so important as to require divine intervention?

Quote :

"except it is. lol"

The short response is no, and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get a mass of semi-educated people to look at any modern, immediately unexplainable event as divine intervention. -- but this isn't really about the movie, and is not the problem I really have with the movie in regard to divine intervention. The problem I have is that it doesn't fit into the plot very well.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 1:17:57 AM

Quote :

"The short response is no, and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get a mass of semi-educated people to look at any modern, immediately unexplainable event as divine intervention."

you are joking right? You do realize you are a minority on this planet?

1/20/2010 1:36:57 AM

man this whole thing sounds like a dude cannot suspend disbelief for a minute. or even understand an alternative view of life and the supernatural.

1/20/2010 1:57:27 AM

^sounds like your reading comprehension skills are questionable.

that alternative view of life/the supernatural doesn't really bother me. I can go along with it just fine. It's the shitty way in which the writers used it that i don't like.


^^ again, this isn't relevant to the movie or what I don't like about it. But; no, not necessarily. All you have to do to prove me wrong is give me what i asked in the text you quoted from me - 1 example of a modern event (lets say the last 100 years) which a majority of decently educated people believed was divine intervention or a miracle. Just do it, and we can be done with this.

I acknowledge that there are a shit ton of people who claim to believe that some divine things happened thousands of years ago. But you take those same people, and A LOT of them would be skeptical of someone claiming divine intervention today.

I'm a minority because I think most people are skeptical of such things? -- I mean, that's all I've said. Don't put words in my mouth. You know nothing of my beliefs, and this thread isn't the place for them.

1/20/2010 2:40:37 AM

you just said that I would be hard pressed to find 'semi-educated people who believe in divine intervention today' and I just said you're wrong. Whats so hard to understand?

1/20/2010 2:41:45 AM

depends what you mean by that. At no point did I say "you would be hard pressed to find 'semi-educated people who believe in divine intervention today." -- I can find one right now. That is, a semi-educated person, who is alive and well today, who believes that divine intervention has occurred.

But show me a recent event, which a majority of semi-educated people believed to be divine intervention. Just point to one thing in recent history that made world-wide news as "Divine Intervention." I don't think you can.

Personally, I think most people would be skeptical. This opinion is based on my observations throughout life. On conversations with various people in different regions of the country - religious, not religious, "spiritual", probably some fanatics and people who check the box on the census but don't actually practice at all... all sorts of people. I don't think A LOT of people would easily accept divine intervention as an explanation. Feel free to prove me wrong... but you can't. No more than I can prove that I'm right. I'm not conducting a massive survey to find out. Maybe someone has, i don't know. Show me relevant data from a legit source, and I'll go along with it.

unless you want to pm, create a thread in soapbox or the lounge; i'm done with this. It's got nothing to do with the movie at this point. We're going back and forth on whether or not a majority of people would accept or be skeptical of divine intervention as an explanation for a current event (regardless of what they think of things which happened before their life times). -- at least that's what i'm talking about. You're mincing words, so it's tough to tell.

1/20/2010 3:03:40 AM

i'm LOL'ing at all of these 5000 word posts

1/20/2010 9:54:52 AM

there are A LOT of words on this page

i think i'll wait until the posts are succinct again

1/20/2010 3:15:01 PM

Quote :

"The reason the divine intervention thing isn't working for me is because 1) God saw it fit to intervene to assure a text go to a certain point? If so, either God (whatever god that may be) really wants as full of a history kept as possible or the King James Bible is THE word that needs to be passed on. - if it's the latter, well fuck, that guy just threw it on a bookshelf with other religious texts. - or, while Eli got the book there, maybe that's all his role was. Maybe he just got it there so someone in the future will read it and spread the good word. Not bad, but they could have shown a child reading the bible and then shown a preacher 20 yrs later or something."

As I said earlier, I thought the movie was decent enough (and would agree with whoever said redbox rental), but that's largely because i'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic type stories.

But, i'd say the thing about religion being "less believable" than zombies/aliens/superheros or whatever, is that the "King James Bible" as specifically referenced in the movie refers to a specific set of beliefs, that if taken for what it is, would be paradoxical to the message the movie is trying to portray. So the God that uses his power to protect (how did he Eli not get shot in those shootouts???) and guide Eli saw fit to refuse to help the entirety of humanity before whatever catastrophe killed maybe millions or billions of people, and left the world devastated? This really makes no sense at all, and is one of the big flaws in actual religion, with modern-day religious people.

But if you look past the giant, gaping hole in most religious ideologies that the movie also looks past, there is an entertaining movie about an interesting (to me) premise, and some decent action scenes.

I also don't ever see,under any circumstance, Americans burning the bibles and banning the bible because "that's what causes war" or whatever. It seems that they are trying to push the whole Christian persecution complex that modern-day Christians like to push too.

I agree with duro982's sentiment that the movie could have been a LOT better if they went with a premise that made more sense than religion.

1/20/2010 3:16:45 PM

Quote :

"So the God that uses his power to protect (how did he Eli not get shot in those shootouts???) and guide Eli saw fit to refuse to help the entirety of humanity before whatever catastrophe killed maybe millions or billions of people, and left the world devastated? This really makes no sense at all, and is one of the big flaws in actual religion, with modern-day religious people."

If you've read the Bible you would know that this has happened before. By a stretch, the movie had similarities to the story of Jonah.

1/20/2010 3:31:39 PM

Also Elijah in 1st and 2nd Kings and Paul.

1/20/2010 5:26:48 PM

^^ Its not really similar to the Jonah story.

It's more similar to the Noah's Ark story, where the great, merciful, kind god of the Old Testament (note: sarcasm) destroys the entire world, except Noah and family. The story itself is a good story, but it doesn't fit logically with the idea of God portrayed in other parts of the Bible.

Likewise, the story of Eli is a good story, but if the message is that God's Will can't be questioned, then you must assume it was God's Will that destroyed the planet in the first place, which is pretty messed up. God is essentially a brutal rule, who acts on whims? Or what?

Really, IMO, the only remotely introspective element of the plot is the main villain very clearly intends to use religion as a tool of control, which is the most realistic way it's used by humanity, past and present. Unfortunately, they really ignore this truth for the hero, which is understandable, but removes this movie from being considered much more than an amusing action flick set in a post-apocalyptic world. It can never be considered a "great" movie, whatever that means.



[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2010 5:43:29 PM

^its more similar to the Jonah story than Noah's ark lol...The world has already been destroyed in this movie (by man no doubt).

I'm not quite sure if you know the story of Jonah or not.

Quote :

"It's more similar to the Noah's Ark story, where the great, merciful, kind god of the Old Testament (note: sarcasm)"

sorry, where is the sarcasm? I must have missed it.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 6:21:02 PM

Quote :

"The short response is no, and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get a mass of semi-educated people to look at any modern, immediately unexplainable event as divine intervention."

Being specific about the event doesn't matter. What matters is if they believe its even possible. If they believe its possible then they're likely to suspend reality and believe in it for a movie.

And it would be more than easy to find a mass of semi-educated people that believe in the possibility of divine intervention.

1/20/2010 6:31:25 PM

^^ I think you're missing the point...

The God in the King James Bible (that Eli carried...) would never do the events in the movie (for various reasons). Therefore, that part of the movie makes no sense.

Likewise, the New Testament god is portrayed as being more benevolent and "hands off" vs. the old testament god, who is relatively brutal and cruel (because Jesus hasn't come back to die for our sins yet?), and seemingly makes mistakes. Therefore, like in the Book of Eli, you can't reconcile the God they want you to think is pulling the strings, with the god the is described as being the string-puller in their own KJV of the bible.

If the book had just been Bible, it'd be slightly more believable, or even if it was of a made-up religion, it would have been very much more believable. What sinks their believability is that they specifically used the KJV of the bible.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2010 6:32:18 PM

Hai guise ITSA MOVIE. Chill.

1/20/2010 6:33:53 PM

Quote :

"The God in the King James Bible (that Eli carried...) would never do the events in the movie (for various reasons). Therefore, that part of the movie makes no sense."

you do know that the King James Bible and the NIV bible are both the same Bible but translated differently, right? Some people say the NIV is a better translation because it is based on older Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.

so the translation of the Bible doesn't matter in this case. It's still the same religion and God.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ^yes, but we're having a good discussion, isn't that the point of outside of chit chat?]

1/20/2010 6:40:38 PM

^, ^^^ Hence why the whole Christian idea of God is hard for me to swallow.

but thats soapbox material.

1/20/2010 6:46:46 PM

What I got from this movie, wasn't the details of a religion but how any religion can be used to control the poor, uneducated masses. If you noticed almost everyone couldn't read and pretty much ran around without any kind of law or order. Those that could read had the power to use it to their advantage (the pen is mightier than the sword) but not quite the words...which is where the religious texts come into play (showing all the religious texts at the end of the movie). Gives the people hope and something to believe in or a purpose to life.

You could interpret it two ways.
1) a jab at religion.
2) religion is a foundation to law and order/control.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 6:52:32 PM

sweet movie

1/21/2010 12:23:49 AM

^^ i'm not sure I follow entirely and maybe I'm misunderstanding... but i disagree

Quote :

"Those that could read had the power to use it to their advantage (the pen is mightier than the sword) but not quite the words..."

That was namely Gary Oldman's character in this story.. Everything I saw led me to believe that Gary Oldman's Character was a "bad guy."

Quote :

"which is where the religious texts come into play (showing all the religious texts at the end of the movie). Gives the people hope and something to believe in or a purpose to life."

That's not what a bad guy does. He wanted to use religion to control and take advantage of them. Not to truly give hope and purpose to the people. -- so i'm not really sure how/why you're going from one to the other.


I would say that Eli wanted to prevent the book being used for the wrong reasons. But I'm not sure he actually cared about that aspect. He felt that God gave him the purpose and ability to take the book to a specific destination. In a lot of ways, Eli was blindly following his faith (pun not intended, but maybe it's relevant), at no point did he say why it had to get there and he didn't necessarily seem to know nor care. He felt that some greater force was driving him, and he didn't seem worried about the hows or whys. (he may have said something about preserving it, but i don't recall for sure).

At the end, he sacrificed so much (he took lives, lost his own, his hardships), yet the KJVB was put on a shelf in a museum and appears to be no more important than any other religious text. That leads me to believe the KJV, in and of itself, is not important. Which means there was something else important about getting that book to that location.

Perhaps God did not want the likes of Oldman's character to get their hands on it, or maybe any religious text for that matter, and use it to gain greed-driven power

The guy (Malcom McDowell) said that they intended to teach people about all of the past. Maybe the idea is that people won't put any one of those religious texts above any other. And maybe that can help eliminate "religious wars." Eli specifically suggested that what happened ("the flash") was the result of something of that nature.


Anyhow, that's my take on it after giving it some more thought.

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 2:04 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 1:45:01 AM

Quote :

"That was namely Gary Oldman's character in this story.. Everything I saw led me to believe that Gary Oldman's Character was a "bad guy.""

Both he and the people of Alcatraz had the same end goal except he had selfish/bad intentions.

Quote :

"That's not what a bad guy does. He wanted to use religion to control and take advantage of them. Not to truly give hope and purpose to the people. -- so i'm not really sure how/why you're going from one to the other."

And how do you suppose he's going to control them with religious text? They will see him as their 'shepherd' so to speak. He will give them the feeling of hope and something more to live for, this is where the control comes into place...otherwise he's still the thug with all the guns.

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 9:13:55 AM

I'm not sure he intends to give them hope and something to live for so much as dogma. I just meant that those weren't his true intentions, like you said. It's just a means to an end. While for someone else, giving them hope and something to live for is the end goal. I don't know, maybe just a different idea of law and order (civilized life) as opposed to simply controlling a group of people with strict doctrine.

And while I think the people at alcatraz want to give people hope, and something to live and be civilized for, I don't think they intend to do so with religious texts. They wanted to teach people about the past. They were collecting all sorts of things; music, art, literature (fiction and non-fiction), religious texts and artifacts. They did not appear to want to spread religion so much as respect it and teach people about the world's past, which happens to include those religious texts. -- those books were on one small shelf in a room full of all sorts of historical artifacts and remnants of life before "the flash." I think that's significant. They could have simply ended it with the bible being printed. Instead they showed it get printed and then put on a shelf in the room with all the other stuff they made a point to explain a few scenes earlier.

[Edited on January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason : .]

1/21/2010 10:03:01 AM

Quote :

"The short response is no, and I'd think you'd be hard pressed to get a mass of semi-educated people to look at any modern, immediately unexplainable event as divine intervention"

Haiti

1/21/2010 11:22:10 AM

you're saying that most people think the earthquakes in Haiti were caused by God for some particular reason, and they wouldn't have otherwise happened?

don't really want to discuss it here since it's not related to the movie. But feel free to pm me. I'm curious to know what makes you believe that.

1/21/2010 12:41:51 PM

^Are you ok dude? That is the shortest post i've seen from you in this thread so just wanted to make sure.

1/21/2010 12:44:39 PM

jesus christ... YOU people

1/23/2010 12:00:14 AM

Oh, I must have clicked on TSB by mistake.

I really enjoyed Fallout: The Book of Eli, it was very faithful to the original.

1/23/2010 3:20:30 AM

I really enjoyed this movie.

The thing that stuck out the most to me is the juxtaposition of the world at hand and the quest Eli is on; a post apocalyptic place in my mind seems like the last place or the hardest place at least for somebody to keep their faith or have any kind of religion. I thought it was interesting how Eli was able to keep his faith throughout these dark times and this, in conjunction with me having a soft spot for post-apocalyptic movies, made me really enjoy the movie. I'm certain I'll be buying it once it comes out on DVD.

1/23/2010 4:18:40 AM

I would have liked it five times better if they'd ended it at Eli's grave, instead of the Laura Croft-esque fade-into-sunset ending. That being said, I really did enjoy the movie--granted, it's not exactly an instant classic for future cannons of film... but damn was Denzel badass.

1/23/2010 9:18:57 PM

I want to see it again so I can see it knowing what the twist is.

1/23/2010 10:49:08 PM

^^ Yeah, i found myself wishing right after they started that shit you talked about that they just let it go right at the grave thing. Maybe done something with her... like say that she found he place, or that she was going to go home... but not make her look all badass and Denzel Part Deux when they never really gave the indication that she trained her or anything. It was laughable when the rest of the movie was really pretty good.

1/24/2010 12:08:24 AM

^ yea that ending really pissed me off. i was like "when did she go from whinny tag along to bad ass?"
loved that they showed the torah, qu'ron etc. in the finals scenes


the most interesting aspect of the movie is that it showed both sides to religion. oldman wanted to use religion to control the minds and hearts of people while denzel used religion to give himself a sense of purpose/belonging and his faith gave him strength.

-7/10

i'm off to play fallout 3

1/24/2010 6:40:49 AM

^^ yep. they should have ended it several minutes earlier. stupid cheesiness at the end definitely brought it down a few notches.

1/24/2010 11:59:50 AM

wow look at all those words

I never thought Eli was blind. you don't have to be blind to read Braille. I knew a family with a blind kid, and the parents read Braille by sight. A simple 1 to 1 code is easy to figure out - shoot I did it almost every day in the N&O.

I had a hard time suspending disbelief that someone as smart as the bad guy would give up in despair like he could never translate the Bible from Braille. guess he had other problems with his minions running amok anyway.

1/24/2010 12:30:26 PM

his eyes were hosed. they zoomed in on them. Looked like cataracts maybe.

1/24/2010 1:21:24 PM

^^ uh yeah, he was definitely blind

1/24/2010 2:02:07 PM

^^^ and dying of infection

1/24/2010 6:08:56 PM

Thought movie was very good. Not great, but very much enjoyed it all, except the last scene. That was a bit much, but hey maybe its a symbol of discipleship.

Enjoyed the movie, and yeah, he was def blind.


III

2/6/2010 5:05:57 PM