Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

...is what this movie wants us to believe. It strides off boldly in that direction without a second's reflection of its basic, flawed assumption that people are feral, rapacious, murderous and greedier than the worst animals are. Opening scenes show us women who willingly collude with misogynistic highway robbers, men killing each other for water and a supposed bible basher slaughtering a dozen people at a time. The 'hero' doesn't intervene when someone else's neck is on the line, though - for example, when a couple is being beaten and raped - oh no, fulfilling his quest is more important! Presumably, the additional message here is that preserving the alleged word of God is more important than the lives of innocent men and women, who are mere pawns in the quest to ensure 'something greater' survives. What could be greater than the human mind that creates these stories? Isn't destroying people to preserve a stupid book what countless inquisitors and jihadis believe to be right? How is putting a book above human lives meant to make the world a better place, when it apparently led to the near-annihilation of the human race just 30 years earlier? None of these questions are addressed or even asked. Many of the other assumptions that are made in this film are so gross, it seems like they must have come from someone who was raised with no other education aside from the bible. People never thought of sitting down and sharing food before the bible was written? Seriously?? Ancient artefacts from Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Meso America and all across the planet would beg to differ. Even monkeys and gorillas share their food, for crying out loud (even dogs do). Countless other civilizations have managed to survive huge calamities and upheavals and survive, without a bible. The directors ought to crack open a real history book sometime. They may be pleasantly surprised what they find there. I've personally also seen better use of this sort of black n white scenery in other graphic novel adaptations, like for instance, Sin City.

Movie Review: "The Book Of Eli" (2009)Silver Pictures with producer Joel Silver and Alcon Entertainment under script-benefiting producer Broderick Johnson realize the original screenplay by Gary Whitta, also known for his writing contributions on "Rogue One" (2016), for a Hollywood budget of 80 Million U.S. Dollars with "From Hell" (2001) directing-approved brothers Albert and Allen Hughes, who deliver with a decisive image system of a post-apocalyptic, desaturated neo-western scenario, which becomes an ideal vehicle of contemporary action-movie entertainment for leading, also-producing actor Denzel Washington as main character Eli, who walks West on a road through a desolated rural mid-west USA, thirty years after an unspeakable war, gathering random pieces of use, arrow-shooting a hairless cat for food purposes in a extremely well-executed opening shot by cinematographer Don Burgess under slight rain of ash within detailed-researched, homeless-scene-indulging production design by Gae S. Buckley, which then throughout "The Book Of Eli" keeps its tension of following the Afro-American man Eli, protecting his book, fighting hostiles and prevail in focus for his journey.The explicit action scenes come in frequent dosage, which surprise with precisely choreographed motions of a weaponized martial art variations, when Eli's sharpened senses, passion for battery-low running MP3-music playing gadget of rhythm & blues leading him to meet further memorable outlined characters in a dusty, daylight-high-pitching small town, where the character of Carnegie, performed by menacing-looking, range-playing actor Gary Oldman, builds a nemesis character for loner Eli, when confrontations arise in gun violence for the secret book-emerging knowledge towards power and highly-active, contra-giving female characters, portrayed by emotional-arc playing actress Mila Kunis as Solara; and further character conflicts of her husband Carnegie-outplaying actress Jennifer Beals as Claudia shares emotional beats in a quietly-received chamber room scene of paced satisfactions that mark a fair equivalence to full-frontal early-on showdown of a camera-immersive shoot-out at 75 minutes to a further subconsciously-creeping cannibal couple's house exterior location, before Eli breaks-free from oppression to deliver the book of books to its final destination at Western shores with further out-of-the-ordinary suspense-holding cameos by character actors as Michael Gambon and Malcolm McDowell. © 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

The Book of Eli features a post-apocalyptic wanderer and his treasured book. In fact, Eli's book turns out to be a rarity and the object of some envy and contention. Eli enters a town run by the despotic Carnegie. Carnegie wants the book to gain power and control people. When one of his henchman questions how a book can have such effect, Carnegie yells: "It's not an effing book; it's a weapon!" Eli, similarly, comes to objectify the book, albeit not as a weapon.At one key point in the film, Eli confesses to his co-traveler, Solara: "All these years I've been carrying it...I forgot to live what I learned from it." From the juxtaposition of Carnegie's and Eli's conceptions of the book, it's possible to surmise that the Hughes brothers want at least to communicate the point that ultimately this book is only as good or as bad as the people who use it. That's not a bad takeaway.This film features a great deal of clever interplay with the book, its contents, and the possessors of the book. In fact, this film does "inter-texting" like no other.It's all there in the double-meaning of the movie's title: The Book of Eli.In the most obvious sense, the "of" in "book OF Eli" is possessive. It's the physical book that Eli possesses, reads, memorizes, carries, protects.At the same time, because he has carried the book for so long (30 years!) he has had time to learn its entire contents by heart. In this sense, Eli has become the book, he IS the book. (Grammatically speaking, here the "of" in The Book of Eli functions as a genitive of apposition.) The double meaning of the book "OF" Eli sets up the ironic ending of the film. It also helps you understand the evolution of Solara, who begins as an unread novice but evolves into a book of her own.Perhaps there will be a sequel: "The Book of Solara"?

The story of a man in a post-apocalyptic world who risk his life to save the last bible in order to start another 2,000 years of warfare, discrimination, ignorance and division. I liked the Fallout style atmosphere. Because if there is one thing this movie has it's style. The nuclear post-apocalyptic ambiance is brilliantly achieved with its own fashion. The yellowish filter works but ultimately gets frustrating for some reason. None of the acting impressed me, in fact I had the feeling that I had seen those same actors playing the same characters in other movies. It's a collage of past performances. Whether you believe or not might influence your feelings about this movie. But if you put aside this specific aspect of the story you're objectively left with a pretty container but no content. There could have been much more developments with the story and more explanations about the background of the neo society (or absence of). Special mention to the hands verification that they perform to know if they can trust someone. It takes some time to figure out why they do it but it's subtle and gives an uneasy feeling. A search on the Web confirms the science behind it. Having said that, it's a movie that entertained me well enough to remember it for years to come (no small feat for me as I usually forget about movies which didn't have an emotional impact).