The Book of Eli (2010)

Title: The Book of Eli (2010)

Directors: The Hughes Brothers

Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Tom Waits

Review:

Most post-apocalyptic films play with the same themes and situations over and over again. In these films, most of the time humanity is fighting for gasoline, water or food. The main preoccupation in many of these films is to simply keep the human race going, to not let the light of humanity fade away. So many times, procreation plays a big part in these films. And most of the time, it’s humans vs. humans, humanity as their own greatest enemy. And I’m not saying The Book of Eli is the most original post-apocalyptic film ever, because it isn’t. It actually plays with many of the genre trappings we’ve come to expect from post-apocalyptic films. But fear not! The Book of Eli actually displays a glimmer of originality! To my understanding, this is the first post apocalyptic film to address issues of religion and belief as an integral part of its plot. That I remember, only one other post apocalyptic film does this (albeit in an extremely superficial manner) and that was Enzo G. Castelliari’s Italian flick The New Barbarians (1983), a film in which a religious sect called ‘The Templars’ is in a mission to wipe the earth clean of those they don’t consider worthy. The Book of Eli addresses religiosity a bit differently and in a more profound way. It’s nowhere near as cheesy or unintentionally funny as The New Barbarians was.

In The Book of Eli we meet a lonely nomad named Eli, he wanders the world all alone, same as the main characters in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) and The Postman (1997). On his treks across the lonely quiet earth, Eli stumbles upon the usual gang of crazies that a loner will encounter in these types of films, you know, rapists, cannibals, and all around undesirables. Finally, Eli comes upon a town that’s trying to re-emerge from the ashes of the post apocalyptic world, trying to re-establish civilization and regain some normalcy. The towns’ leader, a man called Carnegie says that he needs a book in order to give the people of his town some hope; this book is the bible! And it seems that Eli has the only copy in existence! Eli uses the bible in a benevolent manner, while Carnegie wants to use it to control and manipulate his people. He sees the bible as a weapon that can be used to manipulate the minds of the weak. Apparently, this is a world that’s so far down the apocalypse, that they’ve forgotten all about religion. Too bad for Carnegie that Eli, same as The Blues Brothers (1980) themselves were, is on a mission from God. Eli says that one day; God talked directly to him and told him where he needs to take the book. So it is Eli’s mission to take the bible to this safe heaven. He tries not to get distracted, but this is something that is getting increasingly difficult for Eli, especially when Carnegie gets a whiff of the bible! Then it’s a race to the finish, will Carnegie get Eli’s bible? Will Eli get the bible to its ultimate destination?

So of course, this being a film that addresses religion, I was immediately interested. I find religion fascinating in many ways, though I don’t subscribe to any belief system. In fact, to be honest, I had not seen this film yet precisely because it was about the bible. I don’t particularly enjoy films that are preachy or try to convince me of how important faith and religion are, because I myself am a staunch non-believer. Im one of those guys who believes that religion is one of the greatest evils in the world. But thanks to this post-apocalyptic themed thing I’m currently conducting here, well, I decided to finally give The Book of Eli a chance a good thing because I actually found myself enjoying it. It reminded me of Alex Proya’s Knowing (2009) in the sense that it’s not exactly preachy. I mean you can either believe Eli was protected by God; or not. You could choose to believe he just really believes in the bible, and it's all in his head, or that God is actually protecting the guy. In the film, Eli represents the true believer; the guy who believes God can and does talk to him; that every word in the bible is worth following to the letter. Yet Eli is a mild mannered humble man; the quintessential good soul who looks forward to doing more for others than he does for himself. I guess he represents that balanced Christian who doesn’t crossover to the dark waters of fanaticism. Carnegie on the other hand represents that evil soul that chooses to use faith in an evil manner like the Jim Jones’ or David Korechs’ of our modern world. The guy who wants to manipulate and benefit from the weak minded. In other words: evil personified. At the same time, the film wisely uses the villain to state many truths. This is something that many films have done in the past and usually happens when a message or a theme is extremely controversial. You get the crazy guy to say it. Or the villain, but that crazy guy kind of makes sense sometimes don’t he?

Aside from its interesting exploration of religion, the film does have a fault or two. I think it needed just a bit more action to it. As it is, this is not a very exciting film, which is really the films only real fault. It does have its action scenes, but they are few. It was cool to see Denzel kicking ass, he actually trained a lot for this role, he did all the fighting sequences himself. But at heart, this is more of the kind of film that wants to explore its themes, and so we get characters having these conversations that explore the ideas of God and faith. The film wants us to believe that God is protecting Eli through out his journey; that the bible is the greatest book ever written, when in reality, it’s a very convoluted book with many, many contradictions. And don’t get me started on the things that don’t make sense about it. But on this film God makes it a priority to spread this book around so the confusion can start all over again! Why not write a new book through Eli who obviously functions as something of a prophet in the film? But no, according to the film, God decides to give the same old bible, with all it’s confusion to the world all over again. The way I saw it, the film states that faith is something that can help us move along through life, to get through it in a less painful manner; with a bit of hope along the way. In one moment of the film Solara, the female character that ends up following Eli around asks him “How do you know that you’re walking in the right direction?” and Eli replies: “I walk by faith, not by sight. It means you know something, even if you don’t know something. It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s faith, it’s faith. It’s the flower of light in the field of the darkness that’s giving me the strength to carry on, you understand?” I prefer not to go through life lying to myself. Reality is best for me, it keeps me grounded in something tangible, real. My thoughts don’t drift away to some fantasy land just so I can keep my cool, like some kind of drug to cool me off from the craziness in the world. I find my cool by looking for solutions to my problems, and if I can’t change them, then I adapt to them and keep on moving. But that’s just me, if religion and the bible works for you, coolio my friends!

I found it interesting how Eli says that the voice he heard came from inside of him because I’m sure this is what happens with most people who say they’ve heard the voice of God. They want to believe so much, that they end up hearing voices in their heads, in their dreams. I have faith of a different manner; I choose to believe that humanity will eventually evolve, improve and pull itself out of the darkness if we only leave greed behind and learn from our mistakes. I think we can rely only on ourselves to do what we gotta do in the world,  I believe in myself and the idea that I can achieve my goals in life if I put my mind and strength to it. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but then again, so is faith in invisible beings we never hear or see. Still, The Book of Eli was an enjoyable post apocalyptic film. It has A-list actors, two directors who have proven themselves to be good in the past (The Hughes Brothers) and who by the way turned in a great looking film and finally, the film had a decent budget which is a rare thing in the world of post apocalyptic films. In other words, an enjoyable flick that explores faith, if you don't mind the preachy side, then you should have yourself a fine time.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Bride (1985)

Title: The Bride (1985)

Director: Franc Roddam

Cast: Jennifer Beals, Sting, Clancy Brown, David Rappaport

Writer: Lloyd Fonvielle

Review:

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of those timeless works that has been adapted to the silver screen on countless occasions. The Frankenstein mythos has gone all around the place, its even been translated into science fiction form by the likes of Roger Corman who directed Frankenstein Unbound (1990), a film in which a time traveler transports himself to the time when Dr. Frankenstein was doing his famous experiments with the undead. The Frankenstein Monster was even turned into an E.T. like character in Fred Dekker’s The Monster Squad (1987) a film in which the Frankenstein monster befriends a group of kids who team up with him to destroy the forces of evil, just to mention two of the most off beat examples. But one thing is for sure, the Frankenstein Monster, a.k.a. “The Creature” is frequently portrayed under a positive light. He is always the misunderstood monster, always looking for a friend, and always getting the cold shoulder from everyone because of his looks. This is primarily the way in which the creature was portrayed in Franc Roddam’s The Bride. How did the filmmakers behind The Bride treat the Frankenstein mythology?

The story is pretty much a retelling of Mary Shelly’s novel. The film picks up pretty much half way through the story, when Dr. Frankenstein is already creating “the bride” for his creature. Problem comes when she turns out to be extremely beautiful and Dr. Frankenstein and the creature begin to battle for the brides attention. The Dr. and The Creature duke it out for a couple of minutes until finally the creature decides he has been betrayed and runs away from his creator. Rejected. Betrayed. What horrors await the creature out in the world? How will The Bride react to being brought back to life? Will the creature ever reunite with his Bride?

So this movie has a great opening sequence which takes place inside of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory. In this early stage of the film, it has a real horror movie feel. With Dr. Frankenstein and his servant trying their best to bring The Bride to life. Lots of lightning, a furious storm outside and a dark brooding castle. Let’s not forget there’s a mad scientist performing some mad experiments! I loved the art direction on these opening sequences; Dr. Frankenstein’s lab is filled with morbid half complete experiments. Disembodied heads inside of jars, headless bodies floating in liquid. These opening sequences felt very much like a horror movie. But, don’t let yourself be fooled. If you were expecting a horror movie from this re-telling of the Frankenstein legend you are sorely mistaken my friend. Though this opening sequence does give us a glimpse of the horror roots within the Frankenstein mythos, this film isn’t a horror movie. And that’s really what sets it apart from the rest of the Frankenstein movies.

In reality, this film has many interesting themes that don’t really have a lot to do with horror. The filmmakers opted to go with a story about true friendship, and the “sexual politics” between men and women at the time. You see, Dr. Frankenstein decides that he wants to teach The Bride (who is later named Eva, after Adam and Eve) good manners and proper behavior. But he is also interested in creating a woman who is equal to man in terms of freedom to speak her mind and do as she pleases. Problem is that when he gets what he wants, and Eva starts doing things her way and speaking her mind, he can’t really take it. So this tension between man and woman is something that dominates one half of the film.

The other half of the film concerns itself with the story of the creature roaming the country side looking for a new life. Along the way he meets a little person called Rinaldo who is on his way to Budapest to join the circus. Rinaldo is a midget who is constantly made fun of by people in the street. But he soon befriends the creature and even gives him a name! Rinaldo decides to name the creature Viktor. Together, they become the best of friends. This part of the film is really my favorite because of the friendship they develop. Rinaldo likes having Viktor around because he is a huge hulk who can protect him. And Viktor likes Rinaldo around, because Rinaldo is smart, and doesn’t take crap from anybody in spite of his size. Together, they go searching for fame and money in the circus. Best parts of the movie for me are those were Viktor (the creature) finds happiness out in the world on his own. Of course, he also encounters a couple of low lives and has to learn the hard way that the world is filled with individuals such as these. But Viktor never forgets the lady of his dreams. And Rinaldo always reminds Viktor to follow his dreams. So eventually Viktor makes his way back to the castle searching for his promised “Bride”.

The themes of the movie are many, but this film doesn’t focus so much on not being able to accept death as a natural part of life. This is really what most Frankenstein movies are about. Not being able to accept our own mortality. But not The Bride. The Bride is more about the family dynamics between parents and their offspring. The creature is essentially a child who is in discordance with his creator and runs away from home to face the big bad world all on his own. To learn to survive on his own merits. He goes out and learns all about good and evil. While The Bride Eva remains in the castle with Dr. Frankenstein. The Dr. ends up wanting to mold her into what he considers a woman should be like. She naturally rebels against her creator. She wants to be free to do things her own way! I like how this film addresses the fact that a parent can mold their child into whatever they want during those early formative years. A parent has a huge responsibility in shaping that life into what it will eventually become. The question the film asks is: What if we don’t like who our parents turned us into? What then? Learning to go our own way and take our chances in finding our own path in life is what this film is really all about.

A lot of people felt disappointed with this film because it wasn’t a horror film in the true sense of the word. This movie doesn’t really concern itself with having the creature killing people left and right or anything like that. It took a very different route then your typical Frankenstein film, but that’s really what I enjoyed about it. It has all the things you might expect from a Frankenstein film, but then it also has many that you won’t expect. It has the castle, the storms, the angry towns people, the blind man, the gypsies, basically every staple that you might expect to see in a Frankenstein movie is there. But thematically speaking, the film is different then most Frankenstein tales. Sting does a fine job as Dr. Frankenstein, playing him with an air of pompousness and evil. David Rappaport should have never blown his head off the way he did because he was a damn fine actor in everything he was in and his performance on The Bride is one of the most endearing things about the film. A ray of light in the evil world that the creature inhabits. The creature by the way was played by Clancy Brown, whom some of you might remember as playing The Kurgan in Highlander (1986). In my opinion, this film is one of his finest days as an actor. The only downside to this movie (according to some) was Jennifer Beals, but I don’t subscribe to that point of view. I think she has a naïveté to her character that fit the story perfectly. The film has great production values, great script and and some wonderful moments. I recommend it if you want to see a slightly different tale based on Mary Shelley’s book.

Rating: 4 out of 5