Atheist Cinema


Atheist Cinema

A place to talk about your favorite movies, genres, actors and directors. Please try to keep one discussion per genre, actor or director.

Members: 256
Latest Activity: Jan 15

Discussion Forum

Predictions in Science Fiction movies

Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Idaho Spud Sep 1, 2016. 9 Replies

The Unbelievers

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 12, 2013. 2 Replies

The Ledge (2011)

Started by Micah Johnson. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 1, 2013. 6 Replies


Started by Marc Draco. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013. 6 Replies

Ten Favorite Atheist Films

Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by Eric A Flynn Feb 10, 2013. 39 Replies

Cloud Atlas

Started by Loren Miller Sep 7, 2012. 0 Replies

Documentary: "8: The Mormon Proposition"

Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin Jul 29, 2012. 3 Replies


Started by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012. 0 Replies

Real Steel

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Apr 21, 2012. 2 Replies

How an Iranian film unites us all (CNN)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by TNT666 Feb 21, 2012. 3 Replies

agora best atheist movie?

Started by vondutch. Last reply by Craigart14 Sep 24, 2011. 13 Replies

Most Disappointing Movie Ever

Started by Edward Teach. Last reply by Gabriel Garcia May 29, 2011. 23 Replies

The Cove

Started by TNT666. Last reply by TNT666 Mar 12, 2011. 7 Replies

John Barry is gone

Started by Loren Miller Jan 31, 2011. 0 Replies

A Serious Man

Started by S.A. Alenthony. Last reply by A Former Member Sep 16, 2010. 3 Replies

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Atheist Cinema to add comments!

Comment by Marc Draco on October 2, 2011 at 6:56am

Guess Canada was more, er, informed than we are (were) in Blighty.

I do miss the water pistol fights during the rain... Ah, great days.


Even as Dallas notes, this is a great feel good movie and even though I've not seen it in over a decade, it feels "good".

Comment by TNT666 on October 2, 2011 at 5:50am
No way... smoking at the cinema!!!!!!!!!! Even in Quebec, where people smoked everywhere in the 80s (and 90s and 70s) cinemas were a safe haven for me! I can't handle nicotine, it makes me sick. Hmmm... I guess that's one thing that contributed to my cinema addiction, NO SMOKE! :)
Comment by Marc Draco on October 2, 2011 at 4:36am
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Happy days. I remember one guy lighting a newspaper because, I guess, he figured the lighter wasn't enough. This was in the days before the smoking ban in cinemas (1980s) and the result was two of us jumping on the small fire he started in the isle.

And yeah Dallas, a great feel good movie - sorely underestimated by many.
Comment by TNT666 on October 1, 2011 at 9:54pm
Back in the 80s I purchased the double CD of audience participation, fabulous! Every year cinemas in Montreal play it to audiences in full regalia with all props, too much fun! :)
Comment by Marc Draco on October 1, 2011 at 8:46pm
Love this movie. Used to dress up for the show even though I worked at the flea pit that was showing it. Great times.
Comment by Marc Draco on September 20, 2011 at 7:56am

I'll happily answer that charge, just as soon as you start answering the questions and stop quote mining out of context. For instance, the fact that what I've said is moderated by the phrase that's what comes across; and the evidence I have seen supports that assertion.

You are the one who claimed to have, what was it, "1: my [sic] grammar is notoriously impeccable."  Yet when it suits your purpose you dispense with ellipses to indicate that you've edited the phrase.

Refusing to capitalise isn't eccentric, it's a way to show you're different from us; please correct me if I'm wrong.

English evolved long before the US and Canada were invaded; and capitalisation is a requirement the very grammar you boast to perfection.

It's a rule; not an option to be flouted on a whim. Correct capitalisation is required to convey information - you're not having to read your ejaculations without prior knowledge so you wouldn't see that.

Capitalisation is not required on a board that supports HTML either - we can use bold and italics to indicate various stresses. Caps were an alternative when we only had 7 bits of information per char and a limited character set. This is before your time, of course.

Since you think it's OK to drop capitals, why bother using punctuation, hell, why even bother with spacing? These things exist to make the text readable - to convey information often in context.

Take this (made up phrase) in Eganspeeke. "when handing ram be careful to use an anti-static wrist strap." Which makes me wonder if this sheep is electric. Ah wait, that must have something to do with the wool. However, use the correct capitalisation and the meaning is clear.

Comment by Marc Draco on September 19, 2011 at 8:20pm

Not at all, I was saying it's a poorly directed movie because you can see Eli's iris (clearly in the clip and film). I only zoomed this as a courtesy from the 360px. This lack of attention to detail (and many others) on a critical plot point is what makes this a bad movie. Diverting attention is one thing, getting it wrong is quite another.

I had no trouble following, Inception or Usual Suspects which are far better from a directorial and writing standpoint, so I guess you'd be wrong again. Kaiser Soze, for example, is well exposed in the movie (and script) but few people guess it.

Your responses are typically narcissistic. You're never wrong; everyone else is and you're better than us: at least that's what comes across here and on Facebook - but that reveals even more about you some of which you might prefer people not to know.

The people who inspire you include Carl Sagan - you might get further if you behaved more like him. Adams likewise, is a fantastic writer but he respected grammar and I doubt Stephen Fry would appreciate your petulance nor Master Kong your proclivity for rudeness.


My complaint is not just that Eli is a bad film, its that it tries to be something smart and fails: badly. Reading other people's views reinforces this and you're in a small minority made up largely of people who either missed the point completely or just enjoyed it as a harmless romp. So yeah, you are the narcissist - but watch your back because there's always another one coming up behind you.

Comment by Marc Draco on September 19, 2011 at 6:36pm

Now you're just clutching at straws, Egan. Again.


As a writer/director, my job is to convince the audience what they are seeing is real: and that includes offering a visual explanation why not a single "shooter" is capable of hitting Eli is broad daylight and relatively close range.

Yes, this is an apocalyptic future, all the more reason that those who carry guns would be very good at using them since ammo is likely to be at a premium. It's just weak visual exposition and poor writing; hoping that we'd ignore it among all the VFX. You're expecting me to believe that of all the people Eli encounters, he is the only one who can shoot - and that he's blind?

Have you actually seen this movie? This is indicative that Eli has no iris in either eye. This is very, very obvious in the close-up. I don't have a still to post here - but I'm sure you could find one.

Page 110:

Eli removes his goggles. Solara can't believe what she sees.
His eyes are pale, milky-white, dead. TOTALLY BLIND.


As to your "impeccable grammar", that judgement I will leave to others - CraigArt is, I believe, better qualified than I am in this regard. You might want to what the word means as your naive grandiosity appears to be bordering on psychological narcissism; and yes, I do know what that diagnosis entails - it's an observation of your behavior on these boards and not an ad hominem.

Comment by Marc Draco on September 19, 2011 at 11:38am

1. You don't think the basic rules of grammar and syntax apply to you and so you leave them out? No wonder you can't see context.

2. I describe Eli as (and I'll quote here) "also virtually indestructible..."


4. Narnia (the film) is a religious metaphor; I didn't mention Aslan. I can't be clearer than that because I refuse to waste my time with this drudgery.

3 & 5. I have watched the movie and I have (as an indy writer/director myself) studied the shots I've cited here. I'm guessing you haven't had much experience with blind people, Egan. My father in law is almost blind and my Uncle in the 40 years I knew him.

Blind people use sounds as directional cues; but if you knew as much about sound as you think, you'd know that human hearing is only directional at higher frequencies; and only then in a direct line. Someone elsewhere observed that Eli regularly makes shots, under duress, that would be impossible for a blind Olympian. Humans don't echolocate; that required millions of years of evolution.

I've read bits of the script (which makes more sense than the movie, incidentally) the gunfight starting on page 60, for instance hints that the antagonists are lousy shots. This is not what comes over in the film, unfortunately. You can see it yourself here:,-The.html

Starting around page 83 though (in the run up to the confrontation in he house) we're presented with  a padlocked gate which Eli cuts through with bolt cutters. Later in this section the scripted approach to the house is replaced with a fall into a pit. There's a major cockup here - Eli's eyes are clearly visible. I expect when someone notices, they'll CGI come shades on him later.

Comment by Marc Draco on September 19, 2011 at 4:55am
You're wrong about something vital here: context.
"if this were set on another planet, and the book was a fictional scripture from a fictional religion, would your view of it be the same? of course not."
Egan, please don't assume to know my mind - you do not; but please do us all the courtesy of using capital letters where grammar dictates as lack of them makes your remarks difficult to read.
If Eli had been set on a far distant planet, the ya-de-ya, given the context I would most certainly have found it just as ridiculous if there had been sufficient context and expository dialogue to show that the book he was protecting had been directly responsible for millennia of bloody warfare.
The whole plot is flawed demonstrably by the twist. Not sufficient that he's a terrific shot but he's also virtually indestructible. In scriptwriting this comes under the "As you know John..." heading of stuff you just don't do.
Take Sixth Sense. I don't like much of Shyamalan's work (in fact, since SS, his career has been in free-fall) but when you look at the "reveal" in act three, all the clues to Bruce Willis being a ghost were right under our noses. A similar plot device is used in The Usual Suspects to mask (and later, unmask) Kaiser Soze.

Neither film actively lie to the audience although both throw us a number of misdirections.

Throughout BoE we are shown Eli as being an ordinary guy with and fabulous aim - and extraordinary luck particularly when being shot at by a number of well-armed thugs.

In the act three reveal, we're shown that Eli is blind with no explanation how he managed these wondrous feats.

To your point about non-US films, this is also one of context. The US film industry tries to sneak these "messages" past us occasionally. Narnia is the best example I can think of, as a franchise which is entirely based on religious metaphor. Book of Eli just rubs our nose in it.

Asian cinema doesn't have the same axe to grind - and has its own rich cultural history to draw on and this is a matter of context again.

Evidence of appalling direction is clear in this clip.

Where Washington's eyes - clearly visible - follow the POV of the people watching over him. There is some expository dialogue here, about the sign, but that's hardly a clear clue. A clearer one is probably Washington "kicking" for the step but there's nothing to suggest how he knew to start kicking. There's a hint - with the shotgun - measuring the distance to the door, but this is overridden later in the scene.

In this clip, Washington looks directly at distant objects - later looking through a window and at some stuff in a holdall...

It could be a 2nd unit that screwed this up, but since Washington is present, I would have expected it to be 1st unit and that's not excusable in any event.

These errors appears to be largely directorial, as the dialogue clues are more defined. We can't be 100% sure without Gary Whitta's original script, of course.

For comparison, you might try looking at the reveal scenes in Sixth Sense - note how no one (except Cole) relates to Dr. Malcolm (Willis)? They don't even look at or acknowledge him - because, being a ghost, he's not really there.

A widely known goof in Sixth Sense is that Malcolm's body always casts a shadow (a ghost would not, being ethereal in nature) but this is minor in comparison.

The lesson for filmmakers is simple - if you're going to lie to your audience, be consistent.


Members (255)




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service