Movie Review – “The Book of Eli”

by Dean Crawford

The fourth collaborative outing from Albert and Allan “Menace to Society” Hughes, is “The Book of Eli” starring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. It promised to be an exciting affair for several reasons. One, the film appeared to deal with many themes including the role of religion in the future. Perhaps this would encourage some serious debate, as the presence of religion in society is a topic on most people’s minds right now. It also appeared to have some exciting action sequences and I found the idea of Denzel Washington as a sword wielding religious bad-ass to be quite appealing. It was also the newest in a line of post-apocalyptic movies to be released here in the UK, and it came only a week after “The Road”, which is superb. Now, for me to make comparisons between “The Road” and “The Book of Eli” would be unfair, as they are two totally different films with very different directors. Well, sometimes life just isn’t fair so I’m going to anyway! First, the outline of the film.

“The Book of Eli” centres around Denzel Washington’s character, Eli, who has been charged with the heavy duty of carrying the last remaining Bible on Earth. Eli is our main protagonist and our hero. He has been walking for over 30 years and all he knows is that his job is to carry the bible West to put it into the hands of people who will know what to do with it. This task is not as easy as it seems as the roads are filled with gangs that are willing to do anything to find scraps and leftovers.

This world is lawless. People rape, people kill, people eat each other. Sound familiar? After using his holy sword of justice to destroy a group of mercenaries, their boss Carnegie, played by Gary Oldman, tries to persuade Eli to join his gang. It just so happens that Carnegie is on his own holy pursuit to find the book but for totally different reasons. He intends to use the bible to corrupt. He sees the book as a weapon. So it’s lucky for Carnegie that Eli spends a night in his “hotel” and subsequently realizes that Eli is carrying his much sought after item. What ensues is an all too predictable game of cat and mouse in which Eli and his female companion try to stay one step ahead of Carnegie. They encounter strange people on the way. They almost get caught. Eli kicks arse. They run away. They almost get caught again. They blow sh!t up. They run away again. You think they are giving away the book. They are not. You think they aren’t going to make it out West. They do. There is one genuine twist in the film which I won’t give away, but it doesn’t affect the outcome of the film in the slightest.

At times, “The Book of Eli” is visually stunning. It has a stylish sepia, almost as if the contrast has been turned up so high as if to make you feel like the characters in the film, who are constantly under the threat of being blinded by the sun. It is not 100% confirmed what caused the world in which they live to become the way it has, but we do know that it was a war that started it. Because of the bright, stylized nature of the film, possibly a nuclear as the toned up bright lights reminds me of The Matrix or Highlander Part 2 where wars or science burned holes in the sky to which people must now protect themselves from. The action sequences at times are equally impressive. Denzel does a good job with the fights, though sometimes they feel quite laborious and his movements lackadaisical and highly staged. Obviously they are choreographed fight sequences, but you don’t want to realise this during the film ruining the illusion. He is also helped by the way the directors choose to stage the action. Whether is be filming them in shadow, or making numerous cuts so as to not linger on Denzel too much. One action sequence in particular is quite breathtaking. Eli and his companion are inside a house and Carnegie is outside, and all hell breaks loose. Guns blaze, rockets fire and things get blown up. The camera goes in the house, outside the house. Through the letter box. Through bullet holes. Think one particular shoot out in “Bad Boys 2”, only more impressive. And what makes this scene so impressive is that it appears to happen in one take. Gary Oldman is his usual brilliant self, seamlessly mixing smooth criminal and manic psycho in one fell swoop. The rest of the film, however, is less impressive.

In my recent review of the Road, I mentioned how impressed I was with the look of the characters. In that world, the remaining people who survived have nothing and it really showed. The people looked dirty. I mean, really dirty. However, in “The Book of Eli”, despite living in a post-apocalyptic world where water, let alone soap is like gold dust, many individuals still manage to have a certain sex appeal. Some of the woman’s clothes are horrifically dirty, yet are luckily ripped just in the right ways as to show a nice amount of cleavage or lie tantilisingly high above the knee. Even some of the men manage to get matching outfits and look like trendy cyber punks. In “The Road”, people wear a mish mash of garments and simply make do. “The Road” has a magical way of reminding us to not take things for granted by the intense pleasure they take in the small things, such as a cigarette or a can of peaches. It is subtly done. In Eli, we have Denzel Washington spell out to his audience what went wrong in the past.

“In the world before, people had more than they needed and had no idea what was precious. We threw away things that people kill each other for now” – Eli.

I know this is nitpicking and like I mentioned earlier, it is totally unfair for me to compare the two films as they are unique and each director had their own individual visions on how best to portray their worlds, but I believe it’s the little touches like this that make the difference between average filmmaking and great filmmaking.

Another fault I found in the film was the crass way in which it tries to make a statement. On the one hand, we have Eli who is walking across the country on blind faith alone. A voice inside told him where to find the book and what to do with it, and he is protecting it with his life. He lives his life by the words inside and in this brave new world, this appears to make him one of the last few decent people in America. We could deduce it is his faith that allows him to act this way. So, are the filmmakers trying to say “look what happens in a world without religion? People loot, people kill, people pillage, people eat other.” If so, then we should bring religion back right? Well, contrary to this opinion, Eli suggests that religion might have well been the cause of the war. And take Gary Oldman’s character Carnegie for example.

“It’s not a book, it’s a weapon! A weapon aimed at the hearts and minds of the weak and desperate. They’ll come from all over to hear it’s words and they’ll do whatever I tell them…it’s happened before.” – Carnegie.

He is quite clearly the representation of the darker side and religion and how some new radicals can take the words of religious texts, whether it be the bible, the Koran, the Tora, and use it’s message for destruction and self gain rather than peace. He is the total antithesis to Eli. Both points of view are put through to the audience so it is hard to know what side of the fence it sits on. If, like Eli suggested some people believed, the bible was the cause of this apocalyptic event, why not simply leave it be? Wouldn’t the war he described simply happen again? If there are people out there who are willing to rape, kill and pillage to get their hands on it to spread it’s message for that of selfishness and their own interests, why not just destroy it too, or bury it so no one will be able to manipulate it’s message ever again. The answer is obvious, of course. And I am sure that by presenting such strong cases for each case, the directors want the audience to make up their own minds, but I just see it as a way of dumbing down an audience so you don’t necessarily have to think about it too much and just focus on the ass-kicking.

Ultimately, what could have been a well thought out movie that infers the role of religion in the future and what role that can play on our lives, ends up in a none-too-original popcorn action flick. Instead of subtly trying to engage in debates and let us try and make weigh up the pro’s and con’s of each character by their actions alone, we are bashed about the head with a shovel full of contrasting opinions. “RELIGION IS GOOD!” “NO, RELIGION IS BAD AND CAN CORRUPT!” RARRRRRR!! And what also could have been a slick action movie with great pacing, merely dragged along from one formulaic narrative point to the next. I wouldn’t say that “The Book of Eli” is that bad, it just isn’t that great either. I would say that the directors missed a great opportunity. They would probably say they just wanted to see Denzel Washington as a sword-wielding religious bad-ass. In that respect, they reached their holy grail. Amen.

Trailers that were shown before the movie:

“Ninja assassin” - Looks lame, but the fights look great.

“The crazies” – Zombies? Air born viruses? Whatever, looks creepy.

“Shutter Island” - The trailer could have consisted of Leonardo Di Caprio reading the Great Gatsby for two hours and I would still be excited for this.

“Edge of darkness” – Mel Gibson goes crazy and beats up people…again. Directed by Martin Campbell who did Casino Royale so I’m in.

“Green Zone” - Could be interesting, but it just looks like The Bourne Identity Part 4 – Bourne Got His Memory Back.

Movie Review - Up In The Air

Movie Review – Up in the Air

by Dean Crawford


‘Up in the Air’ was a film that interested me for several reasons. All the ingredients appeared to be present to make this film a critical and commercial success. Though if the truth be told, it did seem more like a film that you probably should see rather than one you would want to see. For the film snob, ‘Up in the Air’ was adapted from the 2001 novel of the same name written by Walter Kirn. You have Jason Reitman at the helm who is the Oscar nominated director of the 2007 surprise hit ‘Juno’. And on Sunday, the film won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay which is a good indicator that it will be in the running for the same award at the Oscars. For everyone else, you get to, as my girlfriend so subtly put it, “swoon over the Cloon”. The advertising campaign has been suggesting that this is a quirky, yet quite serious film. And with it being released at this particular time of year it is clearly being geared up for the Oscars. But is it any good?

In short, yes. It came as a surprise to me, but I really enjoyed it. It was one of those moments where the stars and planets align and a perfect mood is created for you to enjoy a film that you otherwise thought you wouldn’t. I was pretty tired and wasn’t particularly interested in anything fast paced and action driven, so ‘Up in the Air’ was a perfect choice. The films premise is simple. George Clooney plays Ryan Shawcross. He works for a company whose sole purpose is to outsource its consultants to fire other companies’ staff. So cue sequences of people’s reactions to getting fired. We have the “f@ck you!” reaction. We have the “but what am I to do?” reaction. We have the “what do I tell my kids?” reaction. And of course, we have the “uncontrollable crying” reaction. Ryan spends 80 percent of his life either on the road or flying in the air. This is where he is happiest and hates spending the rest of his time in his bare apartment in Omaha. He doesn’t need anyone or anything to complete his life except for his vast collection of loyalty cards and his quest to reach 10,000,000 air miles. However, his idyllic world is threatened to be cut short as technology and rising fuel costs seek to make him obsolete. In a bid to keep his lifestyle, he is told to take “the new girl” whose new ideas are revolutionizing his industry, on the road to show her the ropes. Ahh, how films love the ropes! Of course, the two are polar opposites. Clooney doesn’t ever want to get married, have kids or settle down as ultimately, we all die alone. Natalie Keener, played by Twilight’s Natalie Kendrick, has had her life planned out for years and believes in true love and happiness and being with somebody forever. As they travel together and Clooney shows her those ropes, they gradually begin to wear each other down and see the value in each other’s opinions. As you would expect, Clooney starts to soften up and realise that maybe he doesn’t want to be alone after all after spending time with the likeminded Alex Goran. Cue a whirlwind finale where each person goes through a moment of self reflection and ultimately decides how they want to live their life, and thankfully there is not a typical Hollywood ending in sight.

As you might have expected by it’s Golden Globe victory, the script is very, very good. Not a great deal actually happens in the film but you are more than happy to watch the characters go about their ways discussing life, love and the current financial climate as the fundemental issues raised by the film are prevalent in todays society more than ever. But be warned, there is a lot of dialogue in this movie. If you want to see an action driven film, this isn’t the one for you. George Clooney talks and George Clooney listens. This is how the film works. And it would never have worked without solid performances from the actors. The casting of Clooney is an inspired choice as, like his character, he symbolizes the older gentleman who loves his life and is still yet to settle down. The biggest compliment I can pay him, is that during periods of the film you forget you are watching George Clooney and he simply is Ryan Shawcross. He is still his usual suave self and for all the bravado and self-assurance he gives his character, you also sense of an underlying sadness and unease in his performance. Kendrick is also very good as the uptight, motivated new girl. She is fully believable as the driven, yet somehow uncomfortable idealist who knows what she wants and is going to get it. When she eventually cracks and breaks down in tears, it’s not as if it is a complete transformation as she has laid the pre-cursors and given clues to the frailties inside her. Her transformation is all too real. Vera Farmiga excels as Clooney’s love interest. Her character Alex Goran is a person that you sometimes wish you could be. Confident, sexy, fearless, and when you think you know her you find out you really know nothing about her at all. The actors immerse themselves in the script brilliantly and create characters that you want to follow around and get to know better. Like Clooney, you don’t want the plane journeys to end.

As for the directing, there is nothing flashy, nothing too outlandish as it wouldn’t have fit the story. Instead, Jason Reitman lets the story tell itself and it works incredibly well. He definitely makes air travel and certain lifestyles seem sexy. After leaving the theatre all I wanted to do was jump on an American Airlines jet and travel first class to anywhere! But then the reality set in that on all of my long haul flights, not once have I ever turned left after boarding. The closest I have ever come to a first class experience on a plane, was asking for a second dinner on a flight to Korea!

Whilst I was watching the film I couldn’t find anything to fault. But once again, if I had to find a fault it would be this – Why can’t the people around him just let him be? Apart from his long distance booty call, all of the people that are closest to Shawcross are trying to pick apart his life and tell him how he should be living his life and constantly tell him what will make him happy. Who are they to know what will make him happy or not? It’s nice for him that he has such caring friend(s) and family but if he has achieved his pursuit of happiness and found something that makes him truly happy in an unconventional way, shouldn’t we be pleased for him? Just because he doesn’t subscribe to the same notions of happiness that most people do, does it really give us the right to bully him into changing. Eventually he decides to take the plunge and give the “normal life” a shot. Does this make him happier? Does he decide to abandon his old life and settle down? Well, that wouldn’t be fair of me to spoil the ending but i can assure you it’s wholly satifying yet poses several questions.

Up in the Air might not be an Avatar with all it’s glitzy 3D special effects, or a cool ensemble such as Inglorious Basterds. But what it does provide its audience with is a picture of modern recession-era America (or the world for that matter), and a study of what is important in our own day-to-day lives. It is a wake up call to show how our dreams and aspirations can get lost without us even realising. ‘Up in the Air’ has moments of humour, wit and for some viewers, moments of self-reflection. Ultimately, it’s how we deal with these situations and if we have the ability to bounce back from them using change as a positive influence in our lives. It encourages us not take anything for granted. I for one will be taking these points on board and will no longer be afraid to live life to the full or chase my dreams. I can assure that the next time I fly long haul to Korea, I will definitely be getting that second dinner.

Movie Review (My first one so apologies if a little nonsensical and incoherent...) - The Road

Before I write this review there is something that i have to admit. I had absolutely no intention of seeing this film. I thought the trailer looked quite lame and sappy and not as gritty and depressing as I'd heard the book was supposed to be. I'd also heard other rumblings with regards to deviations from the book to make it more appealing to a different demographic, ie. all the ladies. So due to the apparent 'hollywoodisation' of the film, and what clearly looked to be a happy ending from the trailer, my principles and loving everything about film told me to give it a miss and go and see "Alvin and the Chipmunks" part 2 instead.

However, I just missed the squeakual so 'The Road' it was. Now if you are unfamiliar with the premise of The Road, here's a brief outline. In what could very well be the not too distant past, present or future, some undescribed apocalyptic event has taken place and now fires rage, the sun is blocked and no life or crops can grow. Trees fall and food is scarce. We follow Viggo Mortensen's character, who is simply known in the credits as 'Man', and his young son, 'Kid', on their journey on the desolate roads as they attempt to head south to the sea and a warmer climate in the hope for survival in this harsh new world. This is no easy feat of course. The Roads are a dangerous place filled with gangs and outlaws who only think of survival and food...human or otherwise! But to say this is simply a "road" movie (sorry) is not doing it any justice at all. It is so much more than that. But first things first…

I thought the road was brilliant. It was just so bloody dark. I wish I had read the book to see if it was similar in tone, but the darkness just never let up. Apart from the flashbacks, every scene is grey. The people are dirty and nothing is clean. The only time we see a natural bright light, is when things are burning down. So how ironic it is that our main characters look at this sight with wonder and awe in memory of times past such as when the sun came up, but at the same time they are watching the slow destruction of mankind.

Secondly, Viggo Mortensen is fantastic. Again, I would like to read the book (or have someone tell me through the interweb...) to see how faithful his portrayal is, but I thought his effort as "The Man" was excellent. His determination, motivation and exasperation ooze through the screen as we watch The Man deteriorate through every scene. He knows that he will not be around forever, and his sole purpose is to prepare his son for his absence. It could have been so easy to portray The Man as a strong, fearless character who will stop at nothing to get to where he wants. I mean, he is, but Mortensen has a real fragility about him. You can tell that he is just as scared in this new world and everything in it, just as much as his son is. There are some real touching moments between Mortensen and the boy. Little actions such as kissing his son's forehead or washing his hair say so much about their relationship in a way that words could not.

And thirdly, the score. I usually stay to watch the credits in most films, but on this occasion I had more of a reason to as to find out who composed it, as it was startlingly eerie and extremely poignant. The original music was written by Nick Cave (of the bad seeds) and Warren Ellis. If you ever want to hear a score that makes mixes hauntingly beautiful sounds with depressive undertones at the same time, here it is. John Hillcoats direction and the score work in tandem perfectly.

If I had to nitpick about anything in the film, it would have to be the supporting cast. I thought the Kodi-Smit McPhee (I wished his parents named me!) was solid enough as the kid, but at times I found him a little too whiny. Annoyingly so at times, as he tried to be the voice of reason in most situations. Whereas Man would be tough and show no mercy to anyone, whether it be an old blind man or a traveler who only ten minutes earlier had robbed them, Kid would always insist his father show leniency and continue to be one of "the good guys". It is beyond me how after everything the kid would have seen in his short years, that he would be so...well, so nice. I was dubious enough of everyone walking down the ko san road in Bangkok, let alone to people in a post apocalyptic world where you could potentially be the main course. I also had a problem with the wife and mother, played by Charlize Theron. Whereas Man thinks of nothing but his son, Woman seems to be suffering from some kind of exaggerated mutant version of post natal depression. Some might say she is the realist in the story, but I would just say she was a real downer. She is constantly moaning about how they have no chance of surviving another winter, or how they shouldn't have even had him. I can only think she is like this to accentuate Man's good qualities and to highlight his commitment to his son even more.

I also had a problem with one of the cameos. Don't be fooled by Guy Pearce's name on the poster. In a roundabout way, his character does have a fairly significant role to play in protecting the future of mankind, but he is barely in the film five minutes! So rather than taking in the last five to ten minutes of the film and digesting what I had seen whilst watching the climax, I found myself thinking "Oh that's Guy Pearce! I forgot he was supposed to be in this movie. Hang on, where the f@ck has he been for the last hour and forty minutes, wasn't he in the trailer? Why have they given him dodgy teeth?" However, like I said, this is all just nitpicking as the pro's of this film FAR outweigh any minor points that might have slightly bugged me.

At its core, ‘The Road’ is a film about the relationship between a father and son. But I think it also presents us with a chance to reflect on our own lives and think about the relationships that are important to us and what we would do to protect the ones we love. It's also about the appreciation of what we have. Things such as a pair of shoes or a can of coke might seem like trivialities to us now, but if we continue the way we are now, they might be like gold dust in the future. So, from this day on I will treat every day like it is my last. I will enjoy every meal or can of soda like it is the best meal I’ve had or it’s the amber nectar itself. And I will appreciate every movie I see. I will savour every image and try to analyse every film like it is Citizen Kane or Pulp Fiction itself. Well, that is unless I do finally get around to seeing Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.

Hello, and welcome...

...to my blog. If i'm honest, I don't really think anyone will anyone will read this but it's something i just wanted to do for myself. I hope to mainly post thoughts on films i see. I see a lot of films. Hopefully now all that money will be put to good use. Excuse me now whilst i go and tell my mothers dogs to shut up!