I Am Legend

Remove all ads!

I saw this film when it opened on Friday the 14th. I'd been looking forward to it for some time being a fan of the original Matheson book from which it is derived. I walked out of the theater at the end feeling somehow cheated.

For about 70 minutes the film was wonderful. It was suspenseful, moody, dark and visually stunning. The pace was well done and I found myself often anticipating what might happen next. Then Hollywod took over.

The powers that be opted to violate the entire feel of the first part of the movie and the source literature to slap a patented "Hollywood Ending" onto it. It just didn't fit.

My overall impression with the movie was that it was decent...I found myself thinking back on images and sequences from early in the film in order to not think about the ending. It's particularly sad because it could have been nearly great if producers and directors and writers had enough gumption to not crumble in the face of the Hollywood movie forumla.

What are your thoughts about the film?

 

SPOILAGE HAPPENETH - YE BE WARNED

I see what you're saying, but I really enjoyed it. The ending didn't bother me at all. I'm glad it ended on a positive note. I went into the movie with high expectations and, for once, wasn't let down at all. Given - I hadn't read the original book before seeing it (though I did swing by Barnes & Noble on the way home and picked it up). It does deviate greatly from the book. And if I wanted a faithful retelling of the book, I'd be disappointed.

But I decided long ago that movies based on books were RARELY going to faithfully represent the source material, and that Hollywood re-writes are always going to change things. This is especially true the older the book is that is supposed to be semi-contemporary in setting. So I always try to judge a film on it's own merits. Your comments seem to mirror those of most critics at this point - that the last leg of the movie was a let-down. But I didn't feel that way, personally.

One thing I didn't like, though: the creatures were over-done with the CGI. They looked too fake. I understand that the director was originally using live actors with prosthetics - but halfway through production he decided that they didn't look like the rabid, over-adrenalized menaces he'd envisioned...but rather a bunch of dudes in prosthetics who just looked angry. So he went all CGI but based the movements and expressions on real actors (like how Gollum was done with Andy Sirkis). They just looked all rubbery and wierd to me.

Still good all around...though one I'm unlikely to add to my DVD collection when it comes out (common for suspense/scary movies with me...which lose their charm once you know where the thrills are).

One nagging plot-hole, though: If the military destroyed all bridges leading into Manhattan, effectively sealing it off...then how did hot little Brazillian chick and her spawn drive his SUV to the Virgina Survivor Colony? That one hit me on the drive home...

 

I'm just shocked that Hacken Slash is still alive.

 

I don't think it was a very good movie. Besides the many, many plotholes, I don't think the right atmosphere was achieved. That's the main killer for this movie, because in something post-apocalyptic, atmosphere one of (the?) most important element. It fell flat here, IMO. Too much 'Hollywoodisation' was probably what hurt it the most. It never achieved the faint depressing buzz which is what makes me hunt down post-apocalyptic fiction.

I'm not even really sure why this movie was made. 28 Days Later did everything that this movie does except several hundred times better.

 

I've read some people saying that an older remake called "I Am Omega" starring Mark Dacascos was actually better. Personally, I haven't seen any version nor read the book.




Edit: I "haven't" seen any...

 

Overall, I liked the movie. The ending was kind of sudden to me, and I also wondered about how she got into and out of NYC. The wife hated the movie. However she couldn't get past the part that the cancer cure turned everyone into monsters. She felt that it was blaming people with cancer for destroying the world.

 

o.0 It was definitely blaming our trust and reliance in Big Pharma for our downfall, not people with cancer.

I loved the movie, hated the ending.

 

Did she also blamed Umbrella Corp.?

 

*Spoiler-ific*

YESS - I was thinking the same.

I didn't really *like* the movie that much, I wouldn't watch it again (having said that I'm not into survivor horror in any way), but I thought the cinematography and the story was incredibly well done (apart from the ending). I loved how the flashbacks tied in closely with the present as well as Smith's interactions with inanimate objects. It felt somewhat deeper at the time of watching, but that's maybe because it was more fresh in my mind back then.

Samantha's death really hit home for me, when I was 7 my German Shepherd had to be put down. This was probably the first time I've shed a tear in a movie in quite a long time.

 

I just saw this movie yesterday, without having heard anything about it (didn't even know it came from a book). I liked it, it had the right atmosphere and looked great, but I too think it ended while I felt we were still in the middle of the movie. That's probably why I didn't think about the 'no bridges'-thing, I was still in shock that it ended pretty suddenly I don't know what is written in the book, but perhaps they should have stretched the ending a bit, as I feel it could easily have been 15-30 minutes longer.

They should also perhaps have focused a bit more on the psychology and sociology of the Darkseekers. Neville simply states they show de-evolutionized (is that even a word ) behavior, but they seem not to have lost their humanity entirely as there was an undertone of love: the boss of the Darkseekers willingly gets burned by the sun when Neville captures the female Darkseeker (I think Neville was wrong by thinking it was simply stupid behavior to get to him, or whatever he called it), and the boss-guy went through great lengths to get back to her... or am I the only one who saw a soppy love story in it?
Also, the Darkseekers still seem to be able to learn new things (the snaretrap) and somehow understand the relation Neville has with the mannequins (how else would they know they could use it as bait?).

I understand that they can't put these things in a big Hollywood production, as they might loose a part of the audience. Perhaps I should look for the book some day, to see if it adds this extra dimension to the story.

 

Just saw the movie last night. I share the same observation with Mesmero. I saw the "soppy love story", how the darkseekers where able to construct the trap, and too actually follow them to Neville's house. Except for the abrupt ending, I kind'a enjoyed the movie. And I can't believe Ana doesn't know who Bob Marley is.



*** S P O I L E R S ***

Some of the things that gripes me. How Anna got in and out of New York. And it was truly a stupid idea that Ana would actually go to the rendezvous area in the night and to actually go to the house at night without thinking they would be followed. Felt more like she was still inexperience after years of running. It's a clumsy premise to have her there and be able to rescue Neville in that situation.

 

**More Spoilers**

In my opinion it was Ana's arrival that began the undoing of an otherwise great, moody piece to that point. I have a feeling that there is missing footage and an alternate ending that someday we may be able to see. The assumptions that others have made about the Darkseekers having reasoning ability and some form of society are correct. I think that was shown with the anticipation of being used later in the movie, but was later cut to provide for a Hollywood ending.

Any of you who've read the Matheson novel on which the movie is based will know that there are basically two kinds of "Darkseekers". There are the fully turned and totally depraved kind and another "half-turned" variety. The half-turned seem to be mostly human, although they are vulnerable to light among other symptoms. The brilliant twist of the novel is that Neville initially can't tell the difference between the fully turned and the half turned. He slaughters them all with equal vigor. His personal climax comes when he discovers that many of the "Darkseekers" he has slaughtered were still very human. It's a painful discovery for him to realize that he has become "The Legend"...the boogeyman if you will, to these half turned victims.

It's a wonderful twist on the classic monster story. I think the movie intended in some way to introduce this element, but backed off in favor of presenting a hopeful and stilted ending.

Oh well...we'll see how "Cloverfield" handles the monster movie genre this weekend...

 

I also like the movie very much.It is a good movie that every one must see it.

 

I just saw it a few days ago and enjoyed it.

There apparently is an alternate ending that will be in the DVD release.

 

This movie end is surprising end and overall good movie.