द बुक ऑफ़ एली

The Book of Eli has the potential to be a great film or complete rubbish depending on your expectations of what is to come. If you are looking for a film with some deeper meaning then I would not recommend it. However, if you are looking for a film with beautiful cinematography, solid acting and a little bit of fun action then you will be pleased.

The key in watching the film is to not buy into the plot too much, which is where the viewer is going to be disappointed. The ending is a little far fetched and I couldn't help but roll my eyes. Although I honestly don't see a particularly good ending for the basic premise of the film.

If you are able to put the silliness with the story behind you, the film is wonderfully done. There is great camera work with interesting angles and framing; the set showcases the contrast between the stark light of the sun and the shadows where humankind is hiding; and the acting makes you want to buy into the characters and their conflicts.

I would recommend seeing the film, just don't get too involved with the story. Instead concentrate on the acting and the scene.

The first thing that strikes you about this film is how horrid and beautiful it looks all at the same time. We are in a post-apocalyptic world of washed out colours, destroyed structures and dying people scrabbling to make sure they are not the next to die; and it is a world that is really well designed and really well filmed by Don Burgess. Everything looks convincing and it doesn't feel like they just shot it out in a desert location, it genuinely feels like a scorched earth. The only slight irritant about the look of the film is that it does feel very much like a great copy of the world of Fallout 3 as created by Bethseda – right down to the design of the "bandits" with their goggles and ragged clothing; this bugged me and those very familiar with this world via gaming may also feel the film is "borrowing" rather than creating.

I talk about the look and style of the film first because to me it is really one of the main reasons to watch this film and indeed for the first 20 minutes or so, it is all we are drifting on – this sense of the cool and the barren without much in the way of who's or why's. Unfortunately when the plot does start to come in, it does so with a terribly corny story and message that wouldn't be out of place in one of those overly-earnest low-budget films made by Christian companies. Indeed this is what this film is – an overly earnest religious film, it just happens to have cost millions and have massive Hollywood stars involved in it. Now, this is the point where you assume that I dislike the film because it is to do with God and the bible, but this wasn't it all at – it didn't help for sure, but this isn't the reason.

The main problem I have is that the film doesn't actually seem interested in making this message work and the plot just seems like a necessary evil to get the character walking in slow-mo around this cool landscape. There isn't much development beyond the basic dialogue about the power of this book and it is nothing but endless corn in the main; I may have respected it more if it had done something with the content, but it doesn't, indeed it seems almost embarrassed by it. The Hughes Brothers for sure aren't particularly interested in that and thus the performances and shots are all about the style, the atmosphere and the look of the film. Accordingly the cast do the same – which is fine because I wonder why they were all queuing up to be in this story. Washington is a great lead because he is all style and presence and he fits the landscape well. Kunis' character makes less sense as she goes on but she is stunning to look at and again fits the style aspect of the film. Oldman's villain is poor and as a result he is only OK.

What all this leaves then is a film that should be watched by fans of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, simply because it is a great film recreation of those worlds, from the colour of the sky down to the costumes it feels and looks like the games. Outside of this though, the casual viewer is left with very little of interest going on behind the style; the story is cloyingly religious and lacking any insight or intelligence – in terms of writing it feels like having two guys at your door trying to sell Jesus to you with platitudes and clichés. It all looks fantastic but unfortunately the script simply doesn't deserve the visuals.

Everybody's talking about what happens after the apocalypse these days. "The Book of Eli" is sort of the boiling point of this science-fiction concept, a combination of last year's "The Road" and George Miller's "The Road Warrior." America is a post-apocalyptic wasteland and Denzel Washington is the only self-sufficient badass. So originality is not exactly "Eli's" calling card, but it clearly establishes its ruinous world and the Hughes brothers ("From Hell") take good care of its characters while supplying top-notch action. Washington stars as our stolid protagonist, Eli, journeying westward with his canteen, a large machete, a couple guns and a special leather-bound book. He lives on an Earth that was fried 30 years before by the sun because of a war that ripped a hole through the ozone layer. Sun-goggled bikers run amok pillaging, killing and raping passers-by, yet Eli is morally sound and focused on keeping his book safe no matter what so he can deliver it somewhere out west. Although written by a first-time screenwriter and former PC Gamer editor, Gary Whitta, "Eli" impressively creates its world between the sunglasses/goggles due to the sun's power, trading of goods because money's obsolete and the constant examining of hands to determine if someone is jittery from eating too much human flesh. Whitta also places Eli squarely in the story. He's a good but dangerous man who's not afraid to kill, and as he sits idly by as a couple gets attacked, it's abundantly clear that this is a world where compassion is secondary to survival and self-interest. Where the plot comes in is "Eli's" weak link. It doesn't try too hard to hide just what exactly the book is and that sort of dissolves some of the film's mystique. The plot is essentially Eli wants to protect it and take it west and he has a run in with Carnegie (Gary Oldman), an older man who runs a small town and desires it for selfish power-related reasons. Along the way, anyone who threatens to lay a hand on Eli gets sliced up or shot. In the two or three fight scenes where he takes down numerous guys at once, you can't help but wonder why after he kills the first few guys, the others don't run the hell away, especially considering people are otherwise in self-preservation mode living in a wasteland (and they know nothing of the book). The Hughes brothers make those scenes worthwhile, however. There's a style and grace to their action scenes -- they create a sort of a moving tableau in some scenes and execute a wide range of tempos in the action sequences to make them more intense. When Carnegie's men encounter Eli and the young woman (Mila Kunis) that he inspires who follows him at the home of some old folks (cameos by famous Brits Frances De La Tour and Michael Gambon), they place the camera in the middle of the action and sweep along with the gunfire (part- digitally) from one side to the other. It's very cool and is an example of one way the Hugheses keep the focus away from the plot's shaky skeleton. I only have beef with their excessive slow-motion walking-toward-the-camera shots and showing a bit too much of the cloudy green-gray sky. Some people are going to be more surprised and impressed with the film's big reveal than others, but anyone with a love of action and that post-apocalyptic context will find something to make "Eli" a worthwhile watch regardless of plot weakness. Washington is slightly under-utilized but he's an ideal fit. He brings an intensity in his demeanor that makes him an intriguing character and the film does a good job of making his character more central than anything else. ~Steven C

In a very short space of time two post-apocalyptic films have been release, the brilliant The Road which is aiming for Oscar glory, and the action packed The Book of Eli which is appealing for the mass audience.

30 years after a massive war which blow a hole in the sky, possibly a nuclear war, Eli (Denzel Washington) is a lone traveller heading to the West Coast of America. He is a skilled martial artist, armed with guns, a long knife and a bow and is carrying the last King James Bible. On the way he has to avoid and kill hijackers and cannibals. On his travel Eli has to stop off in a ramshackle of a town to buy water and recharge his gear. The town itself run on a barter economy. The leader of the town, Carnegie (Gary Oldman), was impressed by Eli's skill and even more impressed when he found out he can read. Carnegie offer's the traveller a place in his gang. But when Carnegie finds out Eli has the Bible he ends up searching for Eli. The Bible would give Carnegie the ideological based to strengthen his position and expand his power base. Eli goes on the run, hoping to go West and is joined by a young girl Solara (Mila Kunis). He teaches Solara about the Bible and religion and why it is important he goes west.

The best thing about the film is the action. It was slick, stylist, well-edited and at times a fine long fixed shots. There are brilliant moments with the way the camera goes through buildings, and follows the action. The Hughes Brothers have good style as action directors, better then say Michael Bay or McG who throw everything at the camera.

The story is not that original, there are elements of likes like Mad Max 2 and 3, The Road and the Man With No Name trilogy. But there are interesting ideas, the use of religion as political ideology, the use of religion as political control and showing both the good and bad sides of faith. Most films only show one side of the other: but this does both and I can praise it for that. I think given a bit of fine tuning then this could have been a really good script.

As mentioned, the Hughes brothers have style as action directors, but they also filmed in a slightly washed out look, giving the film a more given a gritty, earthy feel. It doesn't camp it up like the third Max Mad film did. They pacing was good for the most part and allow you to get to the character as well as seeing the action. However some moments did drag the film and could have been sped up. Others just didn't fit, like the slightly comical scene with an elderly couple played by Frances de la Tour and Michael Gambon. 10 to 15 minutes could have been cut.

Denzel Washington is possibly one of the coolest actors in the world. He was well cast as the protagonist, and since the character is a bit older then usual action hero Washington was the right age for the film. Gary Oldman does his use villainous role he is normally good at, look at his roles in True Romance, Leon, the Fifth Element and Air Force One. He gives his character a young Jack Nicholoson quality, though my brother said he reminded him of Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York. He was good as he normally is. However whilst Mila Kunis is easy on the eye, her performance was weak and wooden. She wasn't believable as a young girl looking for a way out and able to grow as a character. At least she has Family Guy to fall back on. Other smaller roles were also not as convincing as the lead roles.

This was a decent film, but there was room for improvement.

Hughes bro's are not trying to alter people's views on religion or any thing else. They simply made a great watchable apocalyptic movie with marvelous actors and credible story. Relax and give it the credit it deserves.