Fenxy

I actually walked into it COMPLETELY unaware that it was a "zombie film" of sorts. So I WAS surprised when the infected showed up. They DID look like Mummy Rejects in that they seem to have adapted detachable jaws and stretchy skin somehow.

Good movie overall... I do think the ending was WEAK!

Since I read the book, I knew the ending could not be a feel good one. The movie did not follow the book, but I still enjoyed it and thought Will Smith did a great job. The movie ending was more upbeat than the book I believe.

My first impression was that the movie's a cross between "The Quiet Earth", "Serenity" (the parts with the Reavers, anyway), and "The Stand".

Technically, it's the other way around; all those films borrow off (other films that have borrowed off) Richard Matheson's 1954 novel.

As for the most recent film; Will Smith was excellent, but the whole not-keeping-the-real-twist-ending thing? Not cool. Gutless Hollywood. There's quite an acute point in the film, too, where you can feel the story derailing as it diverges from Matheson's original idea. I think if I hadn't been expecting the 'real' ending I wouldn't have been so disappointed, but as it was I have to knock this film down from "Awesome" to "Meh" just because of the last third.

Technically, it's the other way around; all those films borrow off (other films that have borrowed off) Richard Matheson's 1954 novel.

I sit corrected. Thank you.

since we're tossing spoilers.. what was the ending in the novel?

My first impression was that the movie's a cross between "The Quiet Earth", "Serenity" (the parts with the Reavers, anyway), and "The Stand".

No reminiscing of 28 Days Later?

I thought Will Smith did a good job acting. I believed him, and I loved the scene where he begs the mannequin to answer back. Overall, I did enjoy watching it for entertainment's sake.

But, I thought the script was terribly weak and wouldn't call it anything more than entertainment. This is in comparison to Smith's last few flicks (and 28 days, which I consider the best in this league). Peroty came across an interview with one of the makers where they call it more of a character-oriented movie than an action flick. Yes, I can see what they're getting at, but I still think they wasted an awful lot of film on useless semi-action scenes. It felt like an attempt to mix typical, money-making Hollywood recipes with something more serious. Ending up with an intriguing cookie — but still one you give up for your other batch.

The scope of what actually happens in the film is woefully short.

Chronologically speaking, somebody finds a "cure" for cancer causing a zombie-making virus to spread fast, Smiith somehow finds out that he's immune, begins his research, tries to send his family away, 3 years pass and the zombies develop some sort of hunting mentality, get his dog and wound him. He is rescued by a woman, she takes him home and mends him, unwittingly luring the zombies back to his house, where they break in, forcing him to hill himself and all the zombies so she can escape with her blood which turns out to be the cure.

What was there was well made and well acted -- for example I feel they did manage to portray the effect of 3 years of solace quite well -- but what was there wasn't a lot. It may have meant detracting further away from the novel but I just can't help but feel there needed to be another level of interaction in there.

The book sounds like it adds this missing element. It seems a lot more two sided (something which Hollywood isn't usually interested in making) and a lot more thought-provoking (ditto).

since we're tossing spoilers.. what was the ending in the novel?

In a nutshell (and 'scuse errors; it's been a while): Time passes, bad stuff happens, people die. At the end of the story, Last Man Dude is captured by the vampires -- who now have an organised society -- and put to death. As he's paraded out in front of a mob, he looks and realises that everyone is afraid of him; now he's the monster who lurks in the dark (well, light) and preys on them. He's now their bogeyman, their legend (hence the title).

As far as I know, this ending has never survived the conversion to film (and the book's been shot several times).

I would have preferred that ending.

The book ending made so much more sense than the film. In the book (as alisdee rightly points out) he is the legend because he is to the vampires what they were once to him.

He is their evil, he's the one who kills them, they fear him and putting him to death makes him legend. He's the last man alive and without him Vampire society can flourish.

In my opinion
The film tried too hard to deviate from the book and lost the meaning along the way. True I love Will Smith and felt it was beautifully acted (and I really enjoyed how it was directed) but ultimately I think they should have followed the book.

sounds like we've got a lot of folks around here that are soft on Vampires and soft on the causes of Vampires.

never did understand why people want the ending of their films to be bleak and 28 Days Whatever is the worst piece of trash ever shot on cheap DV, up-resed to 35mm and inflicted on the cinema going public.

I am Legend is a good flick, needed more story in the third act and what's wrong with Vermont?

No reminiscing of 28 Days Later?

I shamefully admit I've yet to see it.

The thing is, the book isn't much of a zombie story. It's about a man who does everything to stay sane being the last person on Earth.

Of course, like those of us who read the book, he is legend because he's the last human alive, the myth in the darkness.

I have yet to see the movie though, I do hope it's worth watching. Especially after watching The Golden Compass which now ranks top of the list for the worst movie adaptation of a book I have ever seen.

I see that I'm in the absolute minority here, but I thought the film was trash. I generally love Will Smith, but this movie has me firmly believing that he is much better suited for the comedy genre.

I love 28 Days Later, and though I realize that both films are based off of the same book, I think the prior was much better done. I Am Legend mixed too many things together and excuse me for saying it, but the death of the dog was absolutely unnecessary and it was at that point that I began to hate the movie. If I hadn't been there with two other people, I would have walked right out of the theater. What crap.

Erin: 28 Days Later was based on the book I Am Legend?

Gnorb: They very briefly tried to explain the remaning humans being in Vermont because the virus supposedly couldn't survive the cold temperatures. Not sure if that makes medical students cringe or not, I'll have to find out...

Since there always has to be an uber-nerd that points things like this out, technically they weren't vampires just infected (hairless, seemingly primitive) human beings with a sensitivity to light. Really no more like a vampire then any nocturnal animal is.

I thought the movie was pretty damn good because of the emotion it invoked, and because it was shorter rather than wasting time and stalling.

I Am Legend mixed too many things together and excuse me for saying it, but the death of the dog was absolutely unnecessary and it was at that point that I began to hate the movie.

I'd love to hear a good argument for why they shouldn't have killed the dog, it was perhaps one of the most effective moments of the movie (and true to the novel also, I believe).

Neville and Sam (the dog) does die in the book so that much I expected and any deviation from that would just be bad.

What I want to know from the movie is that does it still bring the same feeling of despair and claustrophobic isolation that the book gave? I'm beginning to think that the movie is giving a different kind of atmosphere (aside from the obvious Hollywood bastardization) but for those that read the book and have watched the movie.

Does it capture that despair?

It does capture the despair of isolation I believe because Will Smith does such a good job of showing how isolation has affected his mental state. In the movie, Neville seems to try to hold on to his humanity more than he does in the book.

My personal opinion that it was converted to be another "Will Smith Movie". In fact, while watching it I was constantly reminded of iRobot. Many of the same scenes were acted out in I Am Legend. Not only that, but I strongly believe with some sharp editing skills you could cut some clips from iRobot and replace them with the ones in I Am Legend and someone whom has yet to see either movie would not realize the difference.

As far as the plot goes, I do believe that the beginning of the movie was well done however, the introduction of conflict was poorly done. Will Smith is meticulous in his every move prior to the "Frank" incident and then suddenly he becomes irrational in his behavior. Yes, I do know that being by yourself for three years could cause that, however, I do believe that not much was done to accurately portray this to the audience.

Another concern is the resolution in the movie. They have the cure but how will they use it? Will they be developing bullet injections of the cure. Also, how are they to duplicate it? Perhaps I missed something.

Either way, I believe that it was a rather interesting and entertaining movie however, the book does seem to be a lot better. But then again what book isn't better than the movie?

Lord of the Rings had the movie being better than the book. We all have to admit that.

Erin - I am pretty certain that 28 Days is actually a closer adaptation of Wyndham's Day of the Triffids. In fact, pretty much the entire film (and definitely the first half hour!) are lifted straight from the book. With the dramatic replacement of zombies for killer alien plants.

Article19 - it's not exactly that the ending of the book is 'pro-vampire', it's that it asks you what is the everyday and what is the monster. If the dominant species is vampire and humans are reduced to just one person (so no hope of revival), and that last human is waging a bloody war killing every sentient being (vampire) he comes across just because they are different from him with no effort to talk or compromise, why shouldn't the vampires defend themselves?

I will agree that there is a lot of "yay, book! grr, film!" going around. Personally I think you should evaluate the two seperately as they are distinct genres. What makes a good book quite frequently does not make a good film (and vice versa). So long as you enjoyed the movie (or book), that's what's important. But I'll agree with the majority and say that the zombies in I Am Legend (film) were disapointing and the ending just blew the whole film for me. Not because it was different to the book ending, but because it just didnt' work with the rest of the movie.

Kami:

I'm beginning to think that the movie is giving a different kind of atmosphere (aside from the obvious Hollywood bastardization)

The movie actually avoids a lot of standard Hollywood tropes, so in that sense I think you should be pleased.

ChrisA:

Another concern is the resolution in the movie. They have the cure but how will they use it? Will they be developing bullet injections of the cure. Also, how are they to duplicate it? Perhaps I missed something.

The movie actually makes you think about a lot of things, instead of just telling you everything flat out. The infected society is very strongly hinted at in the movie, but never even addressed by Neville despite being a scientist. I inferred that he'd been living alone and running from them for so long that he had mentally ruled out any possibility of them not being totally primitive.

Will Smith acted very well, and there were a few parts where you get clues that Neville has built himself up as the last hope for humankind, even though there are chances that others have survived too. Even after he meets others, he doesn't want to leave NYC because to him that's ground zero and the only way for him to fix everything. In his mind, he's made the infected out to be pure bad guys, even though the movie really starts to show you they may not be. Hollywood has gotten to the point where a big sign would come up 3/4 of the way through that says "they aren't bad guys love them now", but instead this movie continued viewing through Neville's psychosis and he ignores any signs to the contrary.

Lord of the Rings had the movie being better than the book. We all have to admit that.

Ohhh no we don't! But that's for another thread methinks.

New thread: started.

28 Days Whatever is the worst piece of trash ever shot on cheap DV, up-resed to 35mm and inflicted on the cinema going public.

To each his own but I liked 28 days later... I think 28 weeks later was a bit of a stretch but it was still good.

Damnit, I'd have to watch the movie now. It really sounds like I'll enjoy it even if it doesn't follow the book to the letter.

I saw it yesterday (mainly because I needed to be in an air conditioned room for a couple of hours) and found it rather meh. I too am of the opinion that Will should stick to comedies.

The monster society thing becomes bleeding obvious when he captures the female zombie and then thinks that the male one came out into the sun because he had gone berserk or something. And that coordinated attack in the seaport? You'd have to be blind to miss that.

And that coordinated attack in the seaport? You'd have to be blind to miss that.

Sure, if you're only watching for an hour. But think of it from the character's point of view: he's been in the city, essentially alone, for 3 years. That in itself is a pretty alien mindset for most of us. He hasn't seen anyone and is only barely holding on to his last remaining shreds of sanity, especially since he's there because he believes he can "save all of [them]." I think the mannequin scenes were a prime example of this, trying to hold on to what he knew and how he knew it, to the point of thinking the mannequins were actually people he knew, almost like purposefully splitting your personality between that which knows what's going on and that which prefers to pretend not to. If they're evolving a society, he may simply not be able to see it due to his condition. (I would have found it pretty fake if he'd figured it out right away.)

Also, who says he missed the coordinated attack on the sea port? That's still not a sign of higher intelligence, nor does that automatically presuppose the idea of relationships between the individuals of a pack or group. After a lot of observation he probably would have come to this conclusion, but being in a constant "kill or be killed", "survivalist", "it's up to me to save the world" mentality I'm sure would get in the way of complete inference based on limited evidence.

(Your comment reminds me of the guy to goes to a horror movie and starts telling the screen "don't open the door! Don't open the door! Aw, man, how could anyone be that stupid! I wouldn't have done that!")

Ditto to everything in Gnorb's comment.

On a side note I think that if some zombie disease did spread across the earth, Will Smith would still be the only person left.

@Gnorb: maybe so, but stil...
In horror movies I always root for the bad guy because that means more splatter

@Vidar: Then you should have been rooting Neville because he is the bad guy in the movie.

That's the thing. It's not supposed to be a zombified horror movie. It's supposed to emphasize bias for the only human left standing. It should have left you empathizing Neville only to leave thinking of how wrong you are when you realize that the vampires are actually us and Neville is the one killing them all without prejudice.

On a side note I think that if some zombie disease did spread across the earth, Will Smith would still be the only person left.

and Chuck Norris.

Neville isn't killing them and they're not Vampires. The response of the infected is to behave in a hostile manner and Neville's responses are self defence. Yes he captures them to test the cure but he's also running animal tests before hand.

The intelligent humane survivor is trying to help the belligerent, hostile, "infected". They're sick and he's trying to cure them.

Yeah I was gonna say they didn't strike me as "vampires"... they only share an "allergy" to UV light like a vampire would in the movie (don't know about the book).

I equated their behavior to something like the zombies in Stephen King's book "Cell" (which I would like to see in movie form if done well). Their humanity has been moved below their animalistic instincts. Thus the hunting in packs etc...

People call 'em vampires because that's what they're compared to in the novel; it's credited as being the first modern vampire story.

The reason we think of them as 'zombies' has more to do with the fact that the zombie movie genre, care of Night of the Living Dead, appropriated the tropes used in the book (massive hordes, spreading infection, few survivors, etc.) whereas subsequent modern vampire mythos spiraled off into a more "dark angels of the night" romantic lone kind of trope. The reason we think of them as 'infected' is because modern zombie films like 28 Days Later have revisited the zombies-as-disease trope that I Am Legend originally postulates as a cause of vampirism. But being 'infected' doesn't negate them as being zombies/vampires; they're just zombies/vampires with a scientific origin rather than a mythical one.

So, technically, they're all of the above. The tropes are incestuous.

@Article19

The response of the infected is to behave in a hostile manner and Neville's responses are self defence.

See, this is where the movie shoots itself in the foot. Because the whole point of the original story is that Neville is the murderous monster; he might be acting in self defense, but so too are the vampires. We just don't realise it until the end because we're used to interpreting stories from an anthropocentric (i.e. humans are Good, monsters are Bad) manner.

The film (mostly) ditches this idea, which is why the story gets ridiculously weak in the last third. :\

this is a film, it's not the book and they are neither zombies nor vampires.

How can the infected be acting in "self defence" when Neville isn't actively going out and hunting them down to get something to eat? He captures them alive to try and save them. Monsters, by definition, are bad, that's why they're monsters.

The notion of happy or positive endings are perceived as naff because film critics spend too much time watching movies and not enough time doing anything else.

People call 'em vampires because that's what they're compared to in the novel; it's credited as being the first modern vampire story.

None of that changes the fact that, in the movie (which is what most of us are referring to when saying they're not vampires) they lack pretty much all characteristics of vampires EXCEPT for their UV sensitivity. The movie is different from the book though, and I'm intrigued to hear that they were more like vampires in the novel. I may have to read it soon.

In the book they are allergic to garlic and depending on their religious affiliation they are afraid of crosses. If they were not christian, the cross thing did not work on them.

In the film they also follow the scent of his blood.

@Bartoneus

I agree that it makes you think about a lot of things, which I am perfectly fine with. However, I believe that the resolution provided in the movie is weak and should not make you think of things such as what are they going to do with the cure, rather, the thoughts that should be going through someone's head should be, "How did these zombies end up this way? How did they develop their own society? Etc..." These questions would spawn new discussions concerning our society and then this no longer would be a movie but a film.

ChrisA: Agreed!