iamlegend10.jpg

Almost. Damnit.

I Am Legend / Dustin Rowles

Film Reviews | December 15, 2007 | Comments (133)


I Am Legend is so good for so long that the last 25 minutes — which are like staring at the unflushed leavings on Taco night at Michael Bay’s house — are worse than a slap to the face; the last act is like a spiked wrecking ball into the left orb, puncturing your fibrous tunic and spilling eye collagen into your lap. Those in love with the novel’s original story and ending may as well walk toward the nearest bridge, grab the collar on the back of your shirt, and toss yourself over. Hell, I almost wish I’d left before the wrecking ball arrived, because until then, I Am Legend is a beautifully shot, almost meditative mutant flick, a quietly exhilarating cross between Resident Evil (if RE were any damn good) and Cast Away with Will Smith in the lead, an actor who may not be as talented as Hanks, but one who’s arguably more interesting to watch.

I Am Legend is the third failed attempt to successfully translate Richard Matheson’s 1954 novel to the big screen, and while this 2007 version is a an improvement over both 1964’s The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price, and the bastardized ‘71 version, The Omega Man, with Charlton Heston sharing the screen with a group of resistant albinos, it may be another thirty years before they get it exactly right. This year’s version contains the same underlying last-man-standing premise: Robert Neville (Smith) is military virologist who, inexplicably, survives a man-made virus reverse-engineered from the measles, originally thought to be a cure for cancer. Instead, it wipes out the world’s population, which is one way to cure cancer, I suppose.

Neville, who sends his family away and chooses to stay behind at “ground zero” when Manhattan is quarantined, is left alone in his Washington Square apartment with a well-stocked cupboard, a massive arsenal of weapons and DVDs, and a bathtub he sleeps in with his dog, Sam, hiding away from grazing Dark Seekers, cruddy CGI zombies who come out at night to terrorize the city and seek prey. During the day, Neville hunts for his own (and seldom will you see anything as stunning as a herd of deer running through New York City, even a shitty CGI herd), making the Big Apple his lonely playground, as he drives a Shelby Mustang GT 500 through a desolate Manhattan, streets and sidewalks cracked with grass, a picturesque scene that’s lack of vibrancy creates an unsettling mixture of heartbreak and eeriness.

Francis Lawrence (Constantine) does a superb job of demonstrating the sense of forlorn isolation that Neville feels, and he does so without resorting to cheap plot devices; there are no voiceovers, for instance, in a movie where it might otherwise seem natural, at least for a lazier director keen on insulting the intelligence of his audience. There is enough in Neville’s daily routine, the rituals formed over three years, to provide a sense of how it must feel to be the last man alive. Clearly affected by his alienation from civilization, a psychologically unhinged Neville carries on conversations with mannequins at the video store and his relationship with his Man Friday, Sam, is depicted with a rich affection. Indeed, the excellent use of visual clues (Neville watching every movie in the video store, in alphabetical order, for instance), along with a smart, vulnerable Will Smith performance (his cocksure bravado would have been woefully out of place here) deftly captures the novels sense of despair.

However, the script — written by Mark Protosevich (Poseidon) and polished up by Akiva Goldsman (The Da Vinci Code, Cinderella Man) — never explores in any meaningful way why the virus infected the world’s population in the way that it did, nor is there any explanation as to why the Dark Seekers must avoid the light or why they sleep in pulsating football huddles. In fact, there is no mythology behind the creatures at all; they just are. And what they are, unfortunately, are terrible CGI creations, like something from The Mummy or Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed — schlocky, risibly goofy pale people with no hair — which is why the movie works best when the mutants are off-screen or seen briefly, and in the dark. Neville, however, does spend much of his day (when he’s not hunting deer or teeing off of aircraft carriers) trying to develop an antidote to the virus, one that he experiments on Dark Seekers that he booby traps. But even in his daily videotaped medical findings, Neville offers little in the way of substance, just meaningless statistics and a record of which anti-viruses seem to be working the best rather than a scientific explanation as to what happened or why he’s one of the lucky few with a natural immunity.

Eventually, just before the isolation drives him to suicide, Neville is discovered by two other people immune to the virus, a Brazilian woman (Alice Braga) and her son (Charlie Tahan), who traveled from Maryland after they heard Neville’s voice on AM frequency. But once they are introduced to the movie, the wheels come off the whole production. For non-sports fans, forgive the analogy, but for two thirds of the film, I Am Legend is akin to Philadelphia Eagles game against the New England Patriots a few weeks ago. Despite a flimsy script, a relative lack of talent, and the occasional misstep, for three quarters both the director and actor performed way beyond what they were capable; it’s palpably tense and thrillingly suspenseful monster flick, though you can sort of sense that defeat is inevitable. And that fourth quarter proves to be an epic train wreck. Frances Lawrence — filling in for the film’s intended director, Ridley Scott — proves why he may be the A.J. Feeley of Hollywood, making one bad throw after another. That whole last act — replete with a Bob Marley tribute, an out-of-fucking-nowhere Jesus theme, massive explosions, a butterfly tattoo, and some truly horrid Spielbergian schmaltziness — is simply unforgivable. I could overlook the many differences between the movie and Matheson’s storyline because Lawrence ably captures the spirit of that desolation and the psychological effects of loneliness while creating some eye-popping visuals (I can only imagine the havoc filming must have created in NYC), but the third act completely spoils the entire film while making an absolute mockery of the meaning behind Matheson’s title. It’s deplorable for both those who do and do not have an allegiance to the book — one giant cornball wrapped around a hand grenade. And when it explodes, you’re left covered, soaked in disappointment.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife and son in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Enchanted | Golden Compass, The





Comments

Damnit indeed. Sigh. Guess I wont spend the $ to see it in IMAX.

Posted by: Jen Vegas at December 14, 2007 12:01 PM

This is a terrible shame. Not only do I love Will Smith for various reasons (among them FPoBA and Gettin' Jiggy With It, which got me an A in gym 8th grade when I made a dance routine for it), I was excited to see this movie. Hell, even my friend who went to a midnight showing said it was a blast. But, I may have to take a step back after reading this review. God knows one of the worst things in life is getting ready to see a movie you know will change your life, only to have it end in pure misery (Transformers).

Posted by: jonr at December 14, 2007 12:03 PM

Actually, the filming of this movie caused major mayhem in NYC, especially in midtown. I don't know how much of it was shot here, but the center of the city was damn near shut down for weeks.

Posted by: Mick at December 14, 2007 12:04 PM

Ahhh, disappointing. I hate to say it, but Will Smith has me firmly in his corner; I think he's adorable and charismatic. And the idea of NYC with no people creeps the HELL out of me...shots from the trailer of this movie totally had me creeped out - the deer, the grass growing from the sidewalk, both things you mentioned. I was really hoping for something good here. I might go see it for the first 2/3rds anyway.....

Posted by: Lara at December 14, 2007 12:06 PM

I had guessed that I wouldn't like this as much as the book, but I'm disappointed to hear it sucked so bad. The Dark Seekers would have probably been more interesting if they'd kept them mostly out of view. I'm of the opinion that the scariest things on film are those that are unknown and unseen. I have yet to see any CGI shenanigans that frighten me. I'm still going to see it, out of loyalty to Will Smith, the fresh prince of my heart.

Posted by: Kristin at December 14, 2007 12:20 PM

I was interested in this, not because of Will "welcone nu' earf" Smith, but for the dog. I loooove German Shepherds. Hope they don't kill it, although they probably will. *sigh*

Interestingly, I've read that the ending on this was re-shot after the original tested poorly in the heartland, so you may have the Wal-Mart demo to thank for the shitty last quarter.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 12:23 PM

They shoulda done it like 'twas done with "Descent". No excuse for crappy CGI, unless of course you started your day with a fifth of gin and a line of blow.

Fertheluvvagawd, please tell me that Smith doesn't do his "Aww hell no..." line in this movie. Please?

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at December 14, 2007 12:24 PM

As schmaltziness doesn't actually bother me, I still have hope that this is one of your I-am-a-disappointed-critic-because-they-could-have-done-so-much-better reviews that you have done before on I movies I LOVE.

I'll still go see it.

Posted by: invah at December 14, 2007 12:28 PM

This'll be a renter, or something to give to my dad at Christmas next year. He did like I Robot after all.

Posted by: Agente provacatrice at December 14, 2007 12:39 PM

I just realized there's no way I'm gonna pay to watch this thing, Willow Smith, his other fucking kid is in it. WHY oh WHY must this individual insist on foisting his untalented brood upon the viewing public?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 12:40 PM

There's your problem!!! A script attributed (even partially) to Akiva Goldsman. I don't care if the asshole won an Oscar for his bullshit excuse of a biopic "Beautiful Mind." This is the man that took full credit (proudly) for "Batman & Robin."

No wonder they fucked this up. We should've seen it coming.

Posted by: Scott at December 14, 2007 12:41 PM

There's your problem!!! A script attributed (even partially) to Akiva Goldsman. I don't care if the asshole won an Oscar for his bullshit excuse of a biopic "Beautiful Mind." This is the man that took full credit (proudly) for "Batman & Robin."

No wonder they fucked this up. We should've seen it coming.

Posted by: Searchingforbloodymarys at December 14, 2007 12:43 PM

Well there's one problem already. You had the Academy Award winning screenplay writer of Batman & Robin, Akiva Goldsman doing the adaptation.
Can people please look at what screenplays he's written: The Client, Practical Magic, Batman & Robin, A Beautiful Mind, The DaVinci Code, Cinderella Man and still not get it that this man catches name stars when they're in prestige mode?

He's in the same pantheon as Paul Haggis.

Posted by: JS at December 14, 2007 12:44 PM

I saw this on Tuesday and I really liked it. I didn't read the book though, so to me it wasn't a dissapointment that it wasn't like the book. The God/Jesus thing was a little out of place at the end though. But all in all, I thought it was a decent movie.

Posted by: meljune at December 14, 2007 12:48 PM

The less said about Batman & Robin the better, as for Da Vinci Code, oh brrrrother that shit's unwatchable. Tom Hanks just adds more stink on the turd.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 12:49 PM

Man, why you gotta pick on the Eagles? Is it because Will was in West Philadelphia born and raised? Kick a team while their down.

Jesus. Why don't you just tell Dick Clark he needs to ennunciate better on the New Years Eve countdown?

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at December 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Good work, B Slim. Way to start a second (third? fourth?) Wally World War just when everyone in Pajiba Land was getting so full of cutesy Christmas gift stories and "Tina Fey rules!" affirmations and peace and understanding that I was almost getting a little worried. Still, it's an interesting piece of info. Where'd you read it? I'd like to take a gander...

Posted by: Kristin at December 14, 2007 12:52 PM

As someone who is in love with the source material I thought I was being reserved in my hopes for this movie, preparing myself for the worst. But seeing how this sad hearing that they loused it up makes me, apparently, I was just in denial over my optimism.

At least I now I know what to expect.

Posted by: adamae at December 14, 2007 12:55 PM

Kristin: As you know, our mighty Pajiba Overlords will not allow the posting of links. So take a look at the article on CHUD.com (I am Reshoots from November 15, 2007) or Google: "I am Legend ending reshot"

:)

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 1:08 PM

Akiva Goldsman also wrote "Lost In Space" so that pretty much negates anything else he may gain acclaim for over the course of his career.

Posted by: Rob at December 14, 2007 1:15 PM

That whole last act -- replete with a Bob Marley tribute...

Uhm, what? That must have seemed to come out of nowhere. I haven't read the book though, so maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by: katy at December 14, 2007 1:40 PM

I'd really like to see this movie, despite the apparent stinker of an ending, but can someone who has seen the movie, do a spoiler alert and tell me if they kill the dog?

Cause I'm such a fucking bleeding heart when it comes to animals that if they kill the dog it'll ruin the entire movie for me. I'd much rather just not watch it and pretend the dog lives.

(And yes, you may commence with the mocking of me and my sissy love for animals now. I'm used to it.)

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 14, 2007 2:14 PM

This is disappointing, though not unexpected considering the writing 'talent' involved. Unless something better comes along I'll be seeing this on Christmas day with my small group of friends who also don't go home for the holidays.

Here's hoping for a Christmas miracle.

Posted by: Dave at December 14, 2007 2:18 PM

Rats, I was really looking forward to this movie. This is the second review that compared the CGI creatures to "Mummy" rejects. And I have only read two reviews. Not good.
What really disturbs me is that those dumbfucks lopped off the "what a tweest!" ending...you know, the one that reveals why it's called "I Am Legend" in the first place.

Alternate movie title: I Am Will Smith

Posted by: numchuck at December 14, 2007 2:20 PM

CGI has ruined so many live-action movies. I'm not a progress-is-bad guy (at all), but THIS progress is bad. Ugh.

Posted by: JMW at December 14, 2007 2:31 PM

"Frances Lawrence -- filling in for the film's intended director, Ridley Scott -- proves why he may be the A.J. Feeley of Hollywood, making one bad throw after another."

Best line ever.

Posted by: weck at December 14, 2007 2:48 PM

I ran into the filming crew and the dirty old cabs, cars and buses they planted along the side of the roads all over midtown Manhattan a year or so ago. I even accidentally walked onto one of the streets they had blocked off one day. The movie was a mystery until I saw Will Smith (and the German Sheperd) filming on my street early one Saturday morning, which is why I have to see this movie, I just want to see the final effect of how they emptied out Manhattan. I had pretty low expectations for the actual movie (Will Smith saves the world . . . again?) so I'm surprised it passed the pajiba test for the first 2/3. Sounds like a decent flick to see with the family over the holidays.

Posted by: soulfusion at December 14, 2007 2:55 PM

POSSIBLE SPOILER HERE - to Elizabeth

First off, I so feel you! I'm the exact same way with animals. Kill 500 people, I'm fine. One freaking bird dies and I start blubbering. Anyway, in the book, the dog does not make it. From what I hear, the movie does follow the book here, with the dog succumbing to the 'disease' as Will tries to treat/save him.

I will be avoiding this myself and wait to cry in the privacy of my own home on DVD.

Posted by: jessi1974 at December 14, 2007 3:04 PM

But...does the dog survive?...even tough I love apocalyptic settings, I can't feel truly interested in this movie except for one reason...the dog, I hate it when animals die in movies x_X

Posted by: Radlum at December 14, 2007 3:05 PM

And I'm back. Did anyone in the Pajibaverse even notice I was missing for three weeks? I feel so unloved.

Anyway, I'm with you Elizabeth, I need to know if they hurt the dog before I'll see this. I'm the girl who went out for another helping of nachos during Schindler's List (and munched happily away) but cried her heart out when the kid kicked the Jack Russell in My Dog Skip. Some of us just have weird priorities, I'll admit it.

Posted by: PaddyDog at December 14, 2007 3:08 PM

PaddyDog, I was just thinking yesterday that I hadn't seen your name pop up in a while. There's some love for you in Pajibaland.

I've steeled up over the last couple of years and it's not as difficult for me to see depictions of animals dying. My main issue would be the sadness for the human who is losing their only companion. Doubly so because canine companionship is the best.

Posted by: katy at December 14, 2007 3:20 PM

Well, let me be the first to say that I HATE dogs (except PaddyDog. And dalmatians). For me, dog getting killed = major selling point for this or any movie.

Posted by: Pen Dragon at December 14, 2007 3:38 PM

A fucking dog, a nut and ass licking dog. I hate dogs. But I love Will Smith, not in the homo kind of way, but rather in the oh shit!! it's Will Smith kind of way.

Posted by: Pookie at December 14, 2007 3:50 PM

That's so weird. I'm in the middle of reverse engineering a recombinant Paramyxovirus right now. Fingers crossed,Pajibans.

Posted by: Lobstersurprise at December 14, 2007 4:03 PM

Thanks Jessi for the spoiler alert. And I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who can't watch movies where animals die.

PaddyDog - I'm totally the same. I can watch people dying on film and do feel sad but watch an animal killed or hurt on film and I'm a sobbing mess. It destroys the movie for me.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 14, 2007 4:18 PM

I Am Richard Matheson's Abortion.

Posted by: JP at December 14, 2007 5:07 PM

I'm wondering, where is he getting the electricity to watch all these DVDs? How is he pumping the gas to fuel 12mpg Shelby 500? Who cleared the roads for his little high speed jaunts after what must've been monster traffic jams?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 5:20 PM

I loved the original story by Matheson, tolerated the Price and Heston versions, and the crappy trailers did not lead me to expect any qualityfrom this film. So why did I see it at an Imax? Because of the 6 minute Dark Knight preview ahead of it!
SPOILER ALERT
I stayed and watched I am Legend after the incredible preview was over (To hell with Nicholson, this is the real Joker) and you know what? It was fantastic.
The dog is subbed in for the Neville's friend who is killed in the novella so naturally she has to die. The novella's ending gives a different reason for the title of the story, instead of the admittedly trite one of the film. (In the book Neville is so lethal to the infected, he becomes their boogeyman that they tell fables about), the destruction of Neville's sanctuary is violent, but makes sense given he has had years to prepare defenses. The CGI infected do look like CGI, but the live action camerawork is astonishing. The initial deer chase is so vibrant and beautiful. The realization that Neville is completely insane from guilt and loneliness is well played by Smith. He really is incredible carrying the entire film for 80% of its run time. I liked it except for the last three minutes.

Posted by: Adam C at December 14, 2007 5:26 PM

I agree with Pookie, much man-love for Will Smith.

Honestly, I think the only thing keeping him in the 'gutter' of movie stars is his own Ego, he's got talent, he just doesn't tap it as often as he should.

I dunno about the rest of Pajiba but I thought Tom Hanks struggled visibly in Road to Perdition. Not his character, the Actor portraying the Character. He was going against the grain and just seemed unable to fully connect with the role. Maybe I'da missed it if I wasn't watching him to see how he'd do playing against type...

Posted by: Spike at December 14, 2007 6:04 PM

Spike: Tom Hanks hasn't been more natural in a role than he was on Bachelor Party followed closely by Dragnet.

All before he started his overbearing, "earnest" Jo Schmoe shtick.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 14, 2007 6:22 PM

As to the fate of the dog in the movie (Sam)
SPOILER BELOW ALERT SPOILER BELOW ALERT!!!
.......................................... ................................................................................................ ................................................ ................................................ ...................................... ................................................. ................................................. ................................................................................................ ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. ......................
Yes, unfortunately the dog does indeed die, and not only that but the scene is rather heart wrenching (even if you don't like dogs). First it is mauled by another infected dog, then as Will Smith's charactor is cradling and trying to save it Sam turns evil and attacks him, forcing him to strangle his own dog to death with his bare hands. At least half of the theater was in tears.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
END SPOILER

Posted by: John at December 14, 2007 6:40 PM

How the hell did Anna and Ethan get to Manhattan from Maryland with the bridges blown up?

Posted by: Patrick C at December 14, 2007 7:27 PM

I think i will still see this movie.
=======MINOR BOOK SPOILER (not movie) ==========


I knew as soon as I saw the teasers that the ending would suck, for one simple reason: Hollywood can't kill Will Smith. The best part of the book is the end, when Neville dies.

==========END SPOILER================


I still want to see it though, just for the first 2/3s.

Posted by: the_Wakeful at December 14, 2007 7:32 PM

Barbado: Ah. See, I haven't watched much Tom Hanks except for Dragnet. I saw Big long ago but I think that's about it.

I'm simple: If it isn't funny then people better be dying violently. Everything else is boring.

Of course, my definition of funny is a little hard to pin down....

Posted by: Spike at December 14, 2007 7:48 PM

The ending is a major disappointment. It shifts from a smart thriller/horror film to a really cliche action film out of nowhere.

This is why they lit up Washington Square Park like Yankee's Stadium for the better part of a month? Not worth it. Sorry.

Posted by: Robert at December 14, 2007 8:01 PM

what the fuck with all these damn spoiler alerts. its like a fucking cnn news ticker around here. its like warning me you are going to show me a pic of britney spears' chewed up beaver. I just can't resist looking.

Posted by: jp at December 14, 2007 8:03 PM

what the fuck with all these damn spoiler alerts. its like a fucking cnn news ticker around here. its like warning me you are going to show me a pic of britney spears' chewed up beaver. I just can't resist looking.

Posted by: jp at December 14, 2007 8:04 PM

After watching Will Smith save the world in Independence Day and save it again in iRobot and after watching him (shudder) emote as he told of his deep seated hatred for robots (they! saved! his life!) I can give this a pass.

Posted by: OscarTamerz at December 14, 2007 8:38 PM

Just got back from seeing it.

Good: Will Smith actually acting, creepy atmosphere

Bad: Indeed the out-of-nowhere Jesus theme, the CGI.

Frankly, and I can't believe I am saying this, but the movie would have been much better if it was only Will Smith. The second the woman and kid showed up, it went wrong.

Some answers:

BSlim, they showed him with several generators powering the house.

The dog does die.

The woman and kid must have had a boat of some kind. Otherwise, why wait at the pier?

Horrible Joke Time: Did Will Smith have to choke a bitch?

Posted by: Vermillion at December 14, 2007 8:42 PM

I am so torn on this one.

As a fan of the book and Matheson in general, of course I wanted to see what kind of treatment/justice they do to the story. Will Smith is entertaining and often engaging; he's one of the last true matinée idols.

Then I saw the trailer and from a split-second shot of Smith carrying the dog down the street and keening, I got that the dog's fate is not exactly in the happily-ever-after vein. And I am one of the already several who have expressed their absolute loathing of cinematic animal death. I can watch humans get decimated left and right and not bat an eyelash.

One animal is hurt or killed and I'm yelling at the screen, "Mother-FUCKER! I HATE this movie!"

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the filmmakers played to the cheap seats and dinked with the ending. Even with Will Smith, a bleak an ending as the novel had would be a hard sell for a holiday tent pole movie. I've resigned myself to the fact that Hollywood can and will screw up even the most celluloid-worthy of books (Hello, "Hitchhiker's Guide"?).

So torn, am I. I want to be entertained, but the doggie death and doodie poo ending might keep me away.

Nuts.

Posted by: Alabamapink at December 14, 2007 8:45 PM

The theater had a HUGE line for Alvin which I laughed at...I almost (I said ALMOST) wish I would have been tortured by that instead of I Am...a really bad film. I totally agree with the 2/3 being good, maybe even great (the theater laughed at Will's plight too much though). But the "zombie" POS?! (scarey as sh*t but not the zombified vampires that could talk in the book and definately not the "social" vamps) WTF...I'm all about books being made into movie that only slightly resemble them and are still good but what part of this movie resembled ANYTHING in the book. His name, the title, and some of his plight... That does not deserve to bring Matheson's name into the mud! The last 1/3 and the creature wtfs ruined the entire movie for me.

However...I think with some editting we can fix the ending
==KIND OF SPOILERS..ISH==



So lets pale up the women and kid and make them "social" vamps. Get rid of the jesus crap. Make Smith show up at the camp and redub with the book's voice-over ending. Look film solved...

And the book's virus wasn't man-made (I don't think) and it had more social commentary then this woman-created virus lead the film to have (look...she's Eve...or...Lilith and the hispanic is Eve...or...something)


====END SPOILERS====

Posted by: Luke at December 15, 2007 12:17 AM

i loved this fuckin movie fuck da review every1 is different this was a great epic and will smith actually acts without being loud thank go d and bob marley tribute was great

Posted by: jessica at December 15, 2007 1:23 AM

pen dragon and pookie, you guys big michael vick fans,?creepin me out dudes

Posted by: pasadenamike at December 15, 2007 1:42 AM

MOVIE SPOILER DOWN BELOW: I love Will Smith, as an entertainer, in general. I love animals, such as dogs, in general. I had wanted to see this movie for quite some time & went to opening day. Though I truly enjoyed the movie, I will NEVER watch it again (I didn't think I'd ever say that about a Will Smith movie.) & I have just one question: WHY DID OUR BELOVED COMPANION SAM HAVE TO DIE AT ALL, ESPECIALLY LIKE THAT??? MOVIE SPOLIER OVER

Posted by: deityjade25 at December 15, 2007 3:24 AM

MOVIE SPOILER DOWN BELOW: I love Will Smith, as an entertainer, in general. I love animals, such as dogs, in general. I had wanted to see this movie for quite some time & went to opening day. Though I truly enjoyed the movie, I will NEVER watch it again (I didn't think I'd ever say that about a Will Smith movie.) & I have just one question: WHY DID OUR BELOVED COMPANION SAM HAVE TO DIE AT ALL, ESPECIALLY LIKE THAT??? MOVIE SPOLIER OVER

Posted by: deityjade25 at December 15, 2007 3:25 AM

Dustin: Please, don't hate on The Omega Man. That movie provided countless amounts of enjoyment as a teenager when it played at 3am on AMC (I am easily amused...shiny things and all). I know I should hate the man, seeing that I am as as liberal as they come, but I love me some Charlton Heston, especially some post-apocalyptic, ass-kicking Charlton Heston.

As for this movie, it looks okay. I enjoy every facet of Will Smith's career and will probably rent this based solely on my love of all things Will Smith (yeah...I bought his Willenium album even though I knew that it was bad *hangs head in shame*).

Posted by: Gigi Worthington at December 15, 2007 4:02 AM

I spotted in the trailer that the dog was in danger of cinematic death, and though some of it looks interesting, I won't see if because of that.

Wait, once it's out on dvd someone should do an edit just to show all of us soft hearts the good bits. Just like someone did a Phantom Menace edit with all the crappy kiddie bits cut out.

Posted by: Arwen at December 15, 2007 7:34 AM

If you cut the crap bits out of Phantom Menace it would be six minutes long.

Posted by: twig at December 15, 2007 9:57 AM

I love you guys. Thanks for the alert about the dog. I've been so anxious to see this movie but i waited until i could find out about the fate of the dog. (i've got 8) They can kill all the people in the movies that they want- no problem- but no messing with the livestock. I cried like a sissy bitch just reading that the dog doesn't make it. that sucks. i really wanted to see this, too. shit.

Posted by: stephthealphabitch at December 15, 2007 10:19 AM

I hope Lucas make three more Star Wars movies just so he can rob you muthafukers even more.

Posted by: Pookie at December 15, 2007 10:30 AM

" They can kill all the people in the movies that they want- no problem- but no messing with the livestock"


Nothing personal,steph, because this sentiment is agreed with again and again...man oh man you "animal lovers" have some whacky priorities and sensabilities.

Posted by: mamitabrujita at December 15, 2007 10:45 AM

I saw this last night, amazingly with a packed house that actually respected the somber moments of the film. I guess there were alot of animal lovers.
The crappy "wtf" ending notwithstanding, I found the movie very affecting and Will Smith did an excellent job. It was alot more heartbreaking and disturbing than scary, and some of the scenes (particularly the video store scene following Sam's death) really knocked me on my ass.

Posted by: Dingles at December 15, 2007 10:45 AM

mamitabrujita- i agree. sometimes i feel a little guilty about it.

Posted by: stephthealphabitch at December 15, 2007 12:07 PM

both of you two should get a room.

Posted by: Pookie at December 15, 2007 12:13 PM

Given the recent interest in all things Richard Matheson, I thought I'd check out I Am Omega, a straight to DVD release starring Mark Dacascos. Other than being the Chairman on Iron Chef: America, I only know him from Brotherhood Of The Wolf, in which he kicks all kinds of ass, so I thought it might be some good, stupid, chop socky fun. No such luck.

I Am Omega is bad. In all aspects, from start to finish, bad.

I had to watch The Legend Of Hell House (an old Matheson favourite), just to get the stink out of my brain. It probably helped that Matheson wrote the screenplay as well as the source novel.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2007 12:20 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I saw the movie last night and I actually thought it was pretty good. Granted, there are a few holes in the plot that could have stood to be answered. What did it for me actually was the Bob Marley tribute. I know a lot of people think it was random or misplaced, but it really made me see a deeper meaning to the film. To me, it was a metaphor for humanity as a whole, and the dark seekers are what society is destined for: they can survive in the darkness, but not in the light, in the same way that humanity today is headed in a downward spiral where negativity (darkness) flourishes and anything positive (light) is almost taboo. That's just my interpretation, but I've been called idealistic on many occasions :-)

Overall, even with the abrupt and rushed ending, I thought it was a good movie. I've always been a Will Smith fan, and I think this film really touched on his ability to draw emotion from the audience.

Posted by: Shannon at December 15, 2007 12:54 PM

The book was excellent, I would never ruin it by seeing some big hollywood bullsh*t movie version of it...

Posted by: Tsuru at December 15, 2007 12:59 PM

Imma have to disagree with ya, Dustin. I liked the flick. A lot. Sue me. It was tense, humorous, and fun. I didn't find the ending rushed or abrupt. It didn't come off hokey in the least. I found no plot holes. The CGI wasn't bad at all. It was fun to jump at the scary parts, laugh at the very funny parts, and be touched by the emotional parts. But then again, I go to movies like this to be entertained, not to seek out some deeper meaning of life.

Oh, and Will Smith. Brings. It. The guy is phe.nom.en.al. in this flick. If it weren't sci-fi/action, I'd think the Academy would be handing him a nomination.

Posted by: Ciji at December 15, 2007 2:04 PM

For me T2 and Children of Men are the real deal. They are deeper and more complex. This is the simplified version. I didn't mind the last quarter in so much as it was too abbreviated to wrap things up.

Overall though, mounds better than AJ Feeley.

Posted by: jazzy at December 15, 2007 2:30 PM

as the review said, the first 3 quarters of the movie were a pure masterpiece. however, when that dumb hooker and her condombroke son arrive, the movie just dies

Posted by: gangsta at December 15, 2007 9:50 PM

did anyone fail to mention the best part of going to Legend?

The NEW JOKER/BATMAN SCENE

BRILLIANT - The crowd howled.

Posted by: jazzy at December 15, 2007 10:18 PM

AlabamaPink- "I've resigned myself to the fact that Hollywood can and will screw up even the most celluloid-worthy of books (Hello, "Hitchhiker's Guide"?)."

AP, I respect you but I am so SICK of people ragging on /HHGTG/. People. DOUGLAS ADAMS WROTE THE SCRIPT. As someone who /loves/ his books, I can say without a trace of hesitation that the movie was excellent. When the author himself sees fit to alter details to make a good movie, instead of making a mediocre movie out of a great book, I'm not gonna sit around bitching.

I admire the man immensely for understanding the demands of different mediums and managing, unlike almost any other author in existence, to interpret his own story into two mediums so brilliantly.
As a matter of fact, even if Adams hadn't written the screenplay, I'd say it was a fantastic movie.

Posted by: amea_gari at December 15, 2007 11:54 PM

Not to mention, what makes /HHGTG/ a Hollywood movie anyway?

Posted by: amea_gari at December 15, 2007 11:59 PM

Kind of makes me glad I got free tickets to this picture.

Posted by: chenry at December 16, 2007 1:38 AM

I'm with Amea, I enjoyed Hitchhiker's.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 16, 2007 7:18 AM

How can anyone in the western hemisphere not know who Bob Marley is?!?!

Posted by: Ragin Malaysian at December 16, 2007 12:24 PM

very easy Ragin, in America we are only concerned about who's cunt we can see exiting a car. So a genius like Marley is often overlooked.

Posted by: Pookie at December 16, 2007 1:29 PM

I saw this movie and I actually really liked it. Of course, I do have an INTENSE affinity for zombie movies, and I have NOT read the book, so that probably contributed to my enjoyment. The friend I saw it with and I had both read reviews that said it wasn't very good, but being zombie fans, we watched it anyway, and have both resolved to read the book now so we might better understand the criticism. But if you haven't read the book and like zombie movies, I think you'd still like this movie.

Posted by: Cady at December 16, 2007 4:16 PM

"If you cut the crap bits out of Phantom Menace it would be six minutes long."

LMAO. And word.

Posted by: Cady at December 16, 2007 4:27 PM

if the movie doesn't end like the book does (and of course, there's no FUCKING WAY it would), then it's a renter for me.

Posted by: idiot dentist at December 16, 2007 4:37 PM

Really disappointed to hear this. It isn't released in Oz until the new year and I was waiting on the reviews. I love the book

******BOOK SPOILER WITH QUESTION******
************************
************************
************************
************************
************************
************************

I was prepared to wear the "updating" of the story, even the "making Neville part-responsible for the outbreak" angle which seemed a needless development at best- but to sanitise the ending is unforgivable.

The whole goddamm payoff of the story is the inversion of Neville's character, viewed from the perspective of the creatures he hunts. Rather than being the lone wolf hero fighting against the world, Neville becomes the legendary creature that hunts and kills the unwitting populace as they sleep. Anyone who fucks with that message is not, in my humble opinion, telling the story Mathieson wrote.

To those who have seen the film, is this the case?

END SPOILER
***************************************
***************************************
***************************************
***************************************
***************************************

Surely Zodiac proved that a film can be set within it's original time (the 70's) without descending into nostalgia? There is enough action and "human interest" in Mathieson's story to make it work with trying to modernise it.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at December 16, 2007 5:46 PM

I was really looking forward to this take on the novel, as it looked like the best one so far. To be fair, it really is the best one so far, but the ending is still all wrong. Mathieson's ending is wonderfully written and provides such a reality check for the readers siding with Neville that it stays in your mind for weeks.

While they kept the part about Neville being a scientist, they leave out the scientific process almost entierly. Leaving it to guess and check methods and a whole mess of random findings.

After seeing the movie, these are really the only bad things I have to say about it. Up until the 2 other characters enter the film, Smith provides a very dynamic character. He really stepped up to this role, something I was slightly dubious about, and it was a very pleasant shock.

Even after reading this review I went to go see it in IMAX, but purely because I knew that there would be a preview for The Dark Knight in selected showings as opposed to the teaser-trailer in theatres. It was well worth it.

Posted by: Kay at December 16, 2007 8:00 PM

Okay, so I normally don't bicker in the comment threads, but I want to defend my off-the-cuff remark about the film version of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I'm a big Douglas Adams fan, since I was a teenager and devoured nearly everything the man wrote. The book itself was an adaptation of Adams' radio play, so I thought that it would be an easy fit into a movie with little changes needed from one medium to another.

It's been well over two years since I first saw the movie, but in my recollection there were a few things I enjoyed about it: Sam Rockwell's and Mos Def's performances, Alan Rickman's voicing of Marvin, Stephen Fry as the voice of the Guide. There were also some genuinely balls-out funny moments where the spirit of the book really shone through: the Vogons (especially the Vogon soldiers), the Heart of Gold in Improbability Drive, Eddie the on-board computer, Marvin with the Point of View gun. Plus there were loads of blink-and-you-missed-them references to the BBC TV series and the other books.

Overall, however, I think the filmmakers missed the mark. There was little trace of the droll, wry Douglas Adams prose and dialogue. The movie had a manic, uneven energy that didn't fit with the book at all. Wit was replaced with slapstick. The Trillian character was weird, turning from a cool-headed astrophysicist to a wide-eyed flibertygibbit. While I was ecstatic initially about Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent, I was sorely disappointed with his characterization of Arthur as an eye-bulging spaz. Then there was the horrid Trillian/Arthur love story subplot. Plot points (good, funny ones at that)from the book were either completely reworked like the reason Zaphod wanted to find Magrathea or missing completely, like Arthur shutting down the ship's computer for a good cup of tea. I didn't like the way the flow of the story was scrambled all higgildy-piggildy because it seemed unnecessary. The story flowed quite naturally in the book; why did it have to be rearranged for the screen?

Anyway, I know Adams had a hand in writing the screenplay (He wrote that ridiculous character, Humma Kuvula, specifically for Malkovich.), but I also know he died three years before filming began and that the producers brought in another screenwriter to do some work on the script. Who knows how much of Adam'ss original work remained in tact. Besides, as much as I love Adams, the man's not perfect. Other authors have tried their hands at adapting their own work and not had much success (I'm thinking Stephen King specifically.), so why would Adams necessarily be immune?

And finally, I consider it a Hollywood film because it was produced by Touchstone Pictures, not exactly a small-fry indie outfit.

After that big old diatribe, 'bama's shutting up now. This was probably the internet version of talking to a wall, but it made me feel better.

Posted by: Alabamapink at December 16, 2007 9:36 PM

"The whole goddamm payoff of the story is the inversion of Neville's character, viewed from the perspective of the creatures he hunts. Rather than being the lone wolf hero fighting against the world, Neville becomes the legendary creature that hunts and kills the unwitting populace as they sleep. Anyone who fucks with that message is not, in my humble opinion, telling the story Mathieson wrote.

To those who have seen the film, is this the case?"

Honestly, this was the feeling I got in the first 3/4 of the film: seeing that lead "vampire" risking the daylight to howl as one of his own was captured was delightfully hinting, to me, that Will Smith was going to end up a bad guy in his own film, and I was really looking forward to that ending.

But it never came, sadly. I wish it had.

Posted by: teacupnosaucer at December 17, 2007 1:42 AM

This review is spot on - just saw the film today and felt exactly the same - surprisingly good/exciting/cool movie until the end (with the end-end being even worse) - then spent most of the time after watching it discussing the odd decisions/logical holes of the script that just could have easily been avoided and wondering why they were not - still, pretty enjoyable viewing experience, particularly on an IMAX screen, and just a very poor conclusion

Posted by: Catsandbeer.com at December 17, 2007 3:04 AM

Certainly is spot on. I've read the book so many times I cant keep track anymore and I love the ending. It just completely sums up why it is in fact called I Am Legend. As soon as I saw the girl and kid I thought "ok there wasnt a kid but this is where his undoing begins, any second now..." and even up to where theyve hit the wall and are stuck I thought "surely theyre going to turn him in and he'll have his badass death." and then......the director turns around and gives you a quick slap. It's like Natalie Portman punching you in the balls mid-sex, calling you needle dick and proclaiming she will tell the whole world of your shame.

Posted by: Alex at December 17, 2007 5:06 AM

Cady,
I haven't read the book either, and I saw the movie on Friday and I really liked it, too. I also saw it because of my intense love for zombie films (and apocolyptic films). I personally liked the ending, but I agree that the book should be read in order to understand the criticism. Maybe I will go buy it later...

The only thing I didn't like was that the zombies were that cheesy CGI. I think using real people would have been scarier. The CGI zombies all looked alike and were kinda lame.

Posted by: Mistress Violet at December 17, 2007 11:07 AM

I saw the movie last night, haven't read the book. The ending I keep seeing mentioned about Neville being the bad guy . . . what a great ending that would have made!! I love having my point of view switched like that. The ending of this was pretty terrible, it felt rushed and trivial.

SPOILER ALERT------------------------------------------------------

I cried my head off when the dog died. It was horrible. And when he went up to the mannequin the next day because he promised to say hello and started asking it to "please say hello back" that killed me. It wasn't just the dog dying, which was bad enough, but that he was so completely alone after that and started becoming even more unhinged. I just couldn't stop crying and I HATE doing that in a theater. Must stop now, getting upset about the dog again. I'm such a wuss.

END SPOILER-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the review, great movie until the end. Smith really steps it up--he had to since there was no one to act against. He carried the hell outta that film, and then other people step in and ruin it. And now

Posted by: sharon at December 17, 2007 2:45 PM

Rumors abound of last-minute reshoots, I would love to know why, because it would be hard to make a worse thrid act. So much of it just betrayed the movie, like the reveiw said.

Also, I had the same reaction as sharon, above.

Oh and why did the infected people have to be CG at all? It made no sense.

Posted by: Seth L at December 17, 2007 3:09 PM

I agree totally, but I think it was still worth plunking down my $9 for the first 3/4ths of it.

Minor gripe, but I can't not say it:

(SPOILER)

Sam is his GAL Friday. When he's cradling her injured body in his arms by the car he cries out, "Samantha!" The audience I was with gasped audibly at this--why it should be so surprising, I'm not sure, but there you go.

Posted by: Domino at December 17, 2007 3:23 PM

Sharon-

I totally feel you on the "Please say hello to me..." scene. I was already wrecked because of his dog, but that was pretty much the most gut-wrenching thing I've seen in film in a very long time. Will Smith pretty much earned every cent he made for that performance as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Dingles at December 17, 2007 5:12 PM

I find the Will Smith/Tom Hanks comparison very interesting. The difference I see between them is this: Smith makes it look easy, Hanks makes it look hard.

Domino - fascinating observation!

Posted by: Samantha T at December 17, 2007 5:13 PM

I find the Will Smith/Tom Hanks comparison very interesting. The difference I see between them is this: Smith makes it look easy, Hanks makes it look hard.

Domino - fascinating observation!

Posted by: Samantha T at December 17, 2007 5:14 PM

Cheers teacup, I thought that might be the case :-(

There have been that many spoiler alerts I might as well throw in another one-

The "Neville as a demon" notion plays out in a couple of interesting ways in the book. Not only does he come to realise how he is viewed by the vampire populace, but Ruth's perspective eventually becomes similarly inverted. She comes to see Neville not as the monster her side believes him to be, but as a human being using the only means available to defend himself. Its a sadly poignant moment that the film could only be poorer without.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at December 17, 2007 7:17 PM

Movie was ruined the second the chick and the brat entered in. It was like watching beautifully rendered kabuki theater only to have a drunk fratboy run up on stage and do the Funky Chicken. Could have been great I tells ya.

I can't think of the last thing I've watched that has made me cry. Hell, I can't remember the last time my eyes watered but I'll tell you, I cried for a solid fifteen minutes in this damn film. Full on breath hitching, tears that wouldn't end, there was even a smidgen of snot action going on.

Even if you're not an animal lover like myself, if you watch that death/video store scene and feel absolutely nothing, you have nothing resembling a soul.

I am now Will Smith's bitch.

Posted by: kali at December 18, 2007 2:03 AM

Unless Will also runs the power plant, please explain to me how he can keep watching videos when no one's making the 'lectricity? Does he have one of those hand crank DVD players?

Posted by: Debbie at December 18, 2007 7:28 AM

Though I'd surprised if anyone's still reading this thread, I found this contradiction in Dustin's review mildly entertaining:

"Francis Lawrence (Constantine) does a superb job of demonstrating the sense of forlorn isolation that Neville feels, and he does so without resorting to cheap plot devices; there are no voiceovers, for instance, in a movie where it might otherwise seem natural, at least for a lazier director keen on insulting the intelligence of his audience. There is enough in Neville's daily routine, the rituals formed over three years, to provide a sense of how it must feel to be the last man alive. ... "

Followed by:

"However, the script ... never explores in any meaningful way why the virus infected the world's population in the way that it did, nor is there any explanation as to why the Dark Seekers must avoid the light or why they sleep in pulsating football huddles. In fact, there is no mythology behind the creatures at all; they just are."

In other words: I love how nothing was laid out for me (I don't need voiceover like those dolts who normally go see action movies!) and I enjoy having to figure things out for myself...except for that part where I wanted gobs of exposition to explain exactly how the virus operated and why it made their flesh sensitive to light.

(That being said, I think that it doesn't matter. They are what they are...the other, the enemy. A terribly rendered CGI other/enemy, I'll agree with that. But is it really necessary to understand exactly how the virus effects their DNA? I don't think so.)

Posted by: SB at December 18, 2007 3:39 PM

I just recently read Cormac McCarthy's The Road, and had a lot of similar feelings with the first hour or so of I Am Legend. Both works send you into an immediate feeling of isolation and doom. Problem is, once the feeling burns off you're left with an empty space where the plot is supposed to go. The Road succeeds because it is more meditational and has a relationship at the core (even though it kind of fumbles the end). Even though McCarthy could have done more with the idea of creating a new culture by burying the old, it succeeds by truly exploring the characters. I Am Legend seems content to be reduced to a weak thriller, abandoning any hope for something more than a dumb action movie. It felt like at some point a studio bean-counter said, "Alright, let's see some blood."

Posted by: lonnie at December 18, 2007 6:54 PM

To BSlim who commented about Willow Smith, was that really necessary? She's adorable and articulate and talented. She had a small part and did a pretty good job, and I think it's rather childish of you to refuse to see the movie based solely on the fact that Will Smith let his daughter make a 5-minute appearance. She's just a kid, and apparently so are you. And as far as "The Pursuit of Happyness" Will's adorable son did a pretty good job as well. What is your problem with this man's kids?

Posted by: april at December 18, 2007 10:24 PM

Kali,

Near the beginning of the movie, there was a clip of him preparing food or something and the camera angle showed ~5 Honda power generators running which provided electricity.

Posted by: Jeff at December 19, 2007 12:47 AM

Kali,

Near the beginning of the movie, there was a clip of him preparing food or something and the camera angle showed ~5 Honda power generators running which provided electricity.

Posted by: Jeff at December 19, 2007 12:48 AM

First off, I think your review is very poor. To claim that the last 25 minutes makes the whole movie bad, well, that's just stupid. As for everyone else who is not going to see this because some idiot said he didn't like it. Maybe you should actually form your own opinion. Jonr, your friend, who you know personally said it was a good movie (which it was), you were excited to see it (rightfully so), and I don't know if you personally know the guy who wrote this piss poor review, but if you don't see it just because this faceless guy on the internet said to not see it, you are a sad little man.

Posted by: bob at December 19, 2007 10:13 AM

Don't get it twisted and think this movie "sucks". Just the ending is a disappointment, but such is the conundrum for a lot of interesting movie plots. The premise is amazingly intriguing, but the story loses direction and they don't really know how to end it. I have never read the book so I don't know how that ended, but I thought I Am Legend had a decent finish versus some other crap I've seen. And hopefully we'll get a DVD with an included alternate ending.
I thought the flick was intense. Yes, the ending fell off a bit but I've almost come to expect that from Hollywood. Few directors/producers/studios are courageous enough to end a film without some sort of happy, everything's-gonna-be-ok ending.

Posted by: RichieRich at December 20, 2007 1:07 AM

Gee Bob, are you new here?

Late to re-reply to AlabamaPink, but I just got a computer that actually works.

"And finally, I consider it a Hollywood film because it was produced by Touchstone Pictures, not exactly a small-fry indie outfit."

Well, the thing is, all movies do not fall into one of these two categories. Just because a movie isn't an 'independent' (which is virtually a meaningless term anyway, these days) doesn't make it Hollywood. It's a complex assessment since there's a lot of collaboration, but it's more than where the money came from and where it was filmed.
HHGTG was certainly made free of typical Hollywood conventions and restrictions, however.

That said, you certainly did justify your opinion, AP, though I still don't agree with it.

Posted by: amea_gari at December 21, 2007 9:25 AM

I don't get why you didn't like the ending. The entire movie was lame. I wanted to like it, because it had some good qualities, but all in all it was just another Will Smith blockbuster. Just... meh.

Posted by: kayla at December 21, 2007 11:51 AM

Read the book (IMO rather dull and not the SF classic as I've been led to beleive) haven't seen the movie. As far as the feel-good ending I keep reading about, there was no way this thing was going to be as bleak as the book. To paraphrase Andy Kaufman, 'This is from Hollywood, baby.' And people, why don't you see the movie for yourselves and see if you like it? Don't let one of these Pajiba reviewers steer you away w/ their pseudo-hip snark.

Posted by: Stork of Pumbleosity at December 21, 2007 2:39 PM

The comments are better than the reviews! Get a little perspective reviewer, you are too soft.
Kayla says it all....how can you say the last 25 minutes are disappointing when those cheesy over-animated 'monsters' show up in the FIRST 25 minutes?
simple problems: bad script, cliched new age spirituality, horrible art direction and horrible cgi. Shocked that it was headed by same director as Constantine.
Again, only good thing about this movie is the dog, who deserves a bone for being prostituted in this mind-numbing stinker!

Posted by: andrea at December 22, 2007 5:52 AM

Dang. I must have a really low bar, but I thoroughly enjoyed this flick. Also, I'm not a pet person. Meaning, my friends make fun of me for how stiff and weird I am with pets. I'll be damned if I didn't mist up when SPOILER Sam died SPOILER.

Posted by: samantha t at December 23, 2007 12:04 PM

This is a weak zombie movie. It's even a weak version of this story. Omega Man...better. Last Man on Earth...better. I Am Legend...borefest. Pajiba gotta get of Will Smith's payroll. Yeah, the dog dies. It always does.

Posted by: seth at December 26, 2007 3:15 AM

I just wanted to say the movie was great. The end was fine although no it doesnt keep in track with the novell. Sorry to say but so many of you are sheeps. Many folks including my friends berade the ending because it didnt "stay true" screw u.

None of my friends had even read the book but after reading a review like this condemed the movie and played it off like they read it. So many peeps here started all but admiting the end sucked even b4 they had seen it.

I am done with movie review sites and the drones they draw. Going off about how much actor/director A and B sucks. Sorry to say this but please dont comment about others work when you r simply looking to sound like u know what you are saying.

Posted by: josh at December 30, 2007 3:55 AM

What the hell is going on with all the text/LOL-speak? This isn't Digg or Youtube.

Posted by: slc at December 30, 2007 12:44 PM

well i think your review is horrible because this movie is better than the book hell it even explains why the title is such so stop bitching because it was a great movie with a great actor.

Posted by: Gabe at December 31, 2007 6:41 PM

well i think your review is horrible because this movie is better than the book hell it even explains why the title is such so stop bitching because it was a great movie with a great actor.

Posted by: Gabe at December 31, 2007 6:42 PM

You guys see any (ironic) similarities between Tyler Perry fans' comments against bad reviews, and some of these people calling the rest of you drones for agreeing with this review? I do. :)

That said, I thought the movie was good for what it was, essentially a sci-fi drama turned into an uplifting Christmas movie (the time of release of it can't be that coincidental), but the woman and the kid were added in BADLY, like some fanfic writer's take on the story. It read like a really amateur "Wouldn't this be better? :)" kind of add-in, and ideally, they should've been left out. Either that, or SPOILER


SPOILER Emma Thompson should've been more than a cameo. SPOILER


Then again, there WAS that test audience, if that is true, and then, Goldsman DID write this movie, so really, you're lucky it was WATCHABLE. Remember Batman & Robin? I do. >

Posted by: Linda Binda at January 1, 2008 1:58 AM

Plot holes: How in the world could the zombies not find his car parked in the middle of manhattan island in the dark after 1001 days?
No bridges and the heroine drives on and off Manhattan island?
Where did the deer come from?
Who let the lions lose from the Brooklyn Zoo(?) and how did they swim to Manhattan island?
Why did alpha zombie let Will Smith take the time to put his dog in the SUV?

Posted by: Kevin at January 2, 2008 12:23 AM

Plot holes: How in the world could the zombies not find his car parked in the middle of manhattan island in the dark after 1001 days?
No bridges and the heroine drives on and off Manhattan island?
Where did the deer and lions come from?
did they swim to Manhattan island?

Posted by: Kevin at January 2, 2008 12:24 AM

Plot holes: How in the world could the zombies not find his car parked in the middle of manhattan island in the dark after 1001 days?
No bridges and the heroine drives on and off Manhattan island?
Where did the deer and lions come from?
did they swim to Manhattan island?

Posted by: Kevin at January 2, 2008 12:25 AM

Plot holes: How in the world could the zombies not find his car parked in the middle of manhattan island in the dark after 1001 days?
No bridges and the heroine drives on and off Manhattan island?
Where did the deer and lions come from?
did they swim to Manhattan island?

Posted by: Kevin at January 2, 2008 12:25 AM

Plot holes: How in the world could the zombies not find his car parked in the middle of manhattan island in the dark after 1001 days? No bridges and the heroine drives on and off Manhattan island? Where did the deer and lions come from? did they swim to Manhattan island?

Posted by: Kevin at January 2, 2008 12:26 AM

I'll be honest, I still liked the movie. I don't normally see anything that's even remotly frightening, so this movie creeped me out. Actually, the one thing that stuck with me was the scene with Smith trying to find the dog and finding the monsters huddled up. It was so oddly disturbing. Just them breathing out, as if they were all one. It's bringing up goosebumps all over again.

Kevin- You've never seen deer jump across the street? Without humans, they clearly had the chance to overpopulate take over the empty New York. As for the lions, it had me scratching my head till I remembered that New York has a zoo.

Posted by: Jamila at January 2, 2008 8:13 AM

Ok, so this movie has left me very confused;
why does Fred move?!?! I do not understand that part. Also what's the deal with the butterfly thing and the little music at the end?
But mainly...WHY DOES FRED MOVE?

Posted by: Tanya at January 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Ok, so this movie has left me very confused;
why does Fred move?!?! I do not understand that part. Also what's the deal with the butterfly thing and the little music at the end?
But mainly...WHY DOES FRED MOVE?

Posted by: Tanya at January 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Ok, so this movie has left me very confused;
why does Fred move?!?! I do not understand that part. Also what's the deal with the butterfly thing and the little music at the end?
But mainly...WHY DOES FRED MOVE?

Posted by: Tanya at January 4, 2008 12:18 PM

Fred moves, for one of two possiblities.

Either the mutants are a bit smarter than Neville thinnks

or

Neville is so f*cked up thar he can't even remember putting the dummy there.

Posted by: Omar at January 4, 2008 3:32 PM

no but, why does his HEAD move?

Posted by: tanya at January 4, 2008 11:53 PM

Tanya, freddie moves i would assume because of the zombie who i believe is in love with the girl who neville capptured. You know the one that hunts neville down, or seems to. Yeah so he 'observes' neville's behaviour moves the dummy and sets a trap similar to the one neville caught his companion in. Freds head actually moves as a dellusion from Nevilles perspective, upon seeing Fred move he sees the possibility of him being alive, his brain then makes an illusion of him moving his head. Just my take on it.

I hate doggies dieing on screen. Sooooo heart wrenching :(. And there was no need for Sam to die. She could have been contained and given 'Compound Six'.

Strangely enough i feel sorry for the zombie who gets his companion stolen and i find it interesting that noone else has seen it this way. He exposes himself to sunlight trying to bring her back and shows real sorrow in his eyes and goes to a lot of effort to kick Nevilles ass, love anyone?

Posted by: Jim Bob at January 7, 2008 1:35 PM

i want to know whether any dogs were hurt in the making of this film! PLEASE RESPOND

Posted by: mary at January 7, 2008 2:16 PM

Silly movie. :)

Posted by: Reader at January 13, 2008 11:37 AM

The most beautiful thing about this movie was the tribute to bob marley.

Posted by: Ashish at January 15, 2008 10:45 AM

I'm probably way too late in commenting for anyone to see it...but I'm a little disappointed in this review and extremely disappointed with the comments.

OK, Dustin didn't like it and I can maybe see why, but I don't agree. I really enjoyed the entire movie. I thought the ending was a bit too abrupt, but that's infinitely preferable to stretching the story out when it's clearly run its course.

What I don't get is the response from everyone here that assumes it sucks because one reviewer didn't like it. You guys are sheep! Go see a movie if it looks interesting and make up your mind about it -- THEN come here and weigh in with your opinion. Don't just make post after post echoing the reviewer's sentiments on something that you haven't even SEEN!

Hallsy OUT.

Posted by: HallsyHatesU at February 17, 2008 1:30 PM

man, what are you people talking about ; that was a very good movie, it shows how everything happend's for a reason , and that man kind is killing eachother. because people are to greedy & got no bit of compassion anymore.
pay more attention to movies when you watch them. i never read the book. it may not be as good. but it still was a good movie. you people jus got nothing better to do then to complain about a movie... that was actually good. & just dont realize the meaning of anything ;.

Posted by: Megan . at March 31, 2008 12:08 AM

man, what are you people talking about ; that was a very good movie, it shows how everything happend's for a reason , and that man kind is killing eachother. because people are to greedy & got no bit of compassion anymore.
pay more attention to movies when you watch them. i never read the book. it may not be as good. but it still was a good movie. you people jus got nothing better to do then to complain about a movie... that was actually good. & just dont realize the meaning of anything ;.

Posted by: Megan . at March 31, 2008 12:09 AM

Yeah, the ending sucked. The Bob Marley tribute made absolutely no sense in context of the film, and the ending ruined the title.

I think it would've worked better if they had stuck a little closer to the original storyline.

Posted by: Sara at April 14, 2008 1:20 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.