I Am Legend [Archive]

View Full Version : I Am Legend

Pages : [1] 2

Watashi

11-03-2007, 04:32 AM

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2393/legendbannerob2.jpg (http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/ialf1s-reg.jpg)

Trailer (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/iamlegend/trailer/hidef/trailer_480.mov)

I wasn't really excited about this project, but this is a really freakin' great trailer. It will be very interesting how they execute the ending of the book.

Mal

11-03-2007, 04:42 AM

I find nothing exciting about this movie. It's I,Robot... in NYC... with less people.

MadMan

11-03-2007, 05:03 AM

My problem with this film is that Will Smith isn't right for the role, although he is a good actor. I think the film is upgraded to "rental" status right now, as I am curious to see how they updated it for the 21st century.

Kurosawa Fan

11-03-2007, 01:48 PM

It will be very interesting how they execute the ending of the book.

My prediction: They won't.

D_Davis

11-03-2007, 02:09 PM

My prediction: They won't.

Or may they'll adapt it to be a good ending for the movie?

I think this movie is going to rule. Hard.

Kurosawa Fan

11-03-2007, 02:36 PM

Or may they'll adapt it to be a good ending for the movie?

I think this movie is going to rule. Hard.

Is it too early to have another Match Cut Crazy contest?

D_Davis

11-03-2007, 02:37 PM

Is it too early to have another Match Cut Crazy contest?

Yes. You need to wait three more days.

jenniferofthejungle

11-03-2007, 05:27 PM

I wonder if I'd hate the idea of this movie as much if I hadn't read the book and loved it beforehand.

Kurosawa Fan

11-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Yes. You need to wait three more days.

Planning a whopper of an entry in your top 100? :p

megladon8

11-06-2007, 06:11 PM

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 06:44 PM

According to the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-smith4nov04,1,783335.story?ctr ack=1&cset=true), the creatures are zombies.

Fucking fuck.

Is it so hard to make VAMPIRES?

Zombies that only come out at night are pretty much vampires anyways. Both are undead. I don't remember, but in the book were they really vampires? I mean, did they utilize the standard vampire mythos, and vampire powers, or were they more like ghouls?

I don't think it really matters what they are, and given the way Hollywood treats most vampire stories, I'd rather see them as zombies.

Kurosawa Fan

11-06-2007, 07:07 PM

Yeah, I don't think they're ever really referred to as vampires, and they certainly aren't your typical vampires even if they're described as such. They don't survive on blood, they can't survive death unless by wooden stake, etc. I have no problem with them not being "vampires", since they apparently can't appear during the day, which is the only truly important part of the story.

I do have a problem with most everything else though. This film will suck.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 07:11 PM

They're definitely vampires.

I read the book last week.

They're vampires.

Kurosawa Fan

11-06-2007, 07:13 PM

They're definitely vampires.

I read the book last week.

They're vampires.

What makes them vampires? What do they do, aside from only coming out at night, that coincides with typical vampire myths? It's been a while since I read the book.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 07:14 PM

What makes them vampires? What do they do, aside from only coming out at night, that coincides with typical vampire myths? It's been a while since I read the book.

They drink blood - only eating each other when they're starved.

Afraid of crosses and religious symbols.

Allergic to garlic.

When they can, they sleep in the ground.

Fangs.

Killed by wooden stakes.

Yeh...they're definitely vampires. And they're referred to as such several times.

Kurosawa Fan

11-06-2007, 07:17 PM

Seems I was totally incorrect. Well then, this is just another reason to hate the upcoming film. :P

Bosco B Thug

11-06-2007, 07:22 PM

Can't read the article, but yeah, if that's true, it's inexcusable. Maybe the writer is just speculating off the trailer and not familiar with the source material?

megladon8

11-06-2007, 07:30 PM

I just read the article again and noticed he once refers to them as "night-crawling vampire zombies".

Sounds like maybe they don't even know what they are.

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 07:32 PM

They're definitely vampires.

I read the book last week.

They're vampires.

Well, zombies are better than vampires, and zombies make better films, so if this is true, then this movie will be even better.

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 07:33 PM

But it would be even better if they were Chinese hopping vampires.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 07:34 PM

Well, zombies are better than vampires, and zombies make better films, so if this is true, then this movie will be even better.

This is so untrue :(

Have you read the book?

Seriously, this is one of my favorite pieces of literature. This makes it the 3rd time they couldn't even get the vampire part of the story right.

If someone adapted "Galactic Pot-Healer" for the screen and instead made it about a guy who is a doctor and mends broken bones, called to an alien planet to help fix a giant alien sloth's broken leg, wouldn't you be a little pissed?

jenniferofthejungle

11-06-2007, 07:35 PM

Seems I was totally incorrect. Well then, this is just another reason to hate the upcoming film. :P

It had Will Smith in it. That was reason enough for me. :lol:

I actually promised Braden we'd see it together, and I won't spoil his movie experience, but I'm not expecting a great movie.

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 07:40 PM

If someone adapted "Galactic Pot-Healer" for the screen and instead made it about a guy who is a doctor and mends broken bones, called to an alien planet to help fix a giant alien sloth's broken leg, wouldn't you be a little pissed?

Not really, so long as it is a good movie.

Paul Verhoeven turned "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale" into a rip-roaring, violent, action packed spectacle, and I think it is a great film while I also like the short story which is completely different.

Plus, I just don't really like cinematic vampires. I think they are a great literary creature, but something always gets lost in the translation to the screen. In I Am Legend, I would rather seem them treated like the uber-vamps in Blade II, so, basically, they would be like blood-thirsty zombies.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 07:45 PM

Not really, so long as it is a good movie.

Paul Verhoeven turned "We Can Remember it For You Wholesale" into a rip-roaring, violent, action packed spectacle, and I think it is a great film while I also like the short story which is completely different.

Plus, I just don't really like cinematic vampires. I think they are a great literary creature, but something always gets lost in the translation to the screen. In I Am Legend, I would rather seem them treated like the uber-vamps in Blade II, so, basically, they would be like blood-thirsty zombies.

You should read the book :D

They are ferocious animals, but also capable of communication. But even their communication is violent and evil. They basically just taunt Neville to try and get him to come out of his house in a fit of rage so they can overtake him.

Their mindless violence, I suppose, could be seen in a zombie-light...but I really don't want them to lose that evil intelligence they have.

I, too, loved the vampires in Blade II. If they are like that but also able to speak, that would be great.

But from that article, it makes it seem like they're just like every other fast-running zombie from the last 5 years.

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 07:55 PM

You should read the book :D

It's on my "to read" shelf. I'll probably wait until after the movie though.

Ivan Drago

11-06-2007, 08:32 PM

According to the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-smith4nov04,1,783335.story?ctr ack=1&cset=true), the creatures are zombies.

Awwwww, HELL naw!

Sycophant

11-06-2007, 08:42 PM

Well, zombies are better than vampires, and zombies make better films, so if this is true, then this movie will be even better.I've been seing this sentiment tossed around a lot lately, to the point where some have been saying there are no good vampire movies. I can certainly think of more zombie films I've liked than vampire films, but, really, wasn't From Dusk Till Dawn awesome?

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 09:02 PM

I've been seing this sentiment tossed around a lot lately, to the point where some have been saying there are no good vampire movies. I can certainly think of more zombie films I've liked than vampire films, but, really, wasn't From Dusk Till Dawn awesome?

But in From Dusk Till Dawna they were really more like zombies, in that they weren't the typical dramatic, romantic vampire crap. I like vampires when they are treated more like undead ghouls, and less like drama-school rejects.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 09:30 PM

But in From Dusk Till Dawna they were really more like zombies, in that they weren't the typical dramatic, romantic vampire crap. I like vampires when they are treated more like undead ghouls, and less like drama-school rejects.

So in other words, you dislike a certain type of vampires :) And I am in total agreement with you.

The book "I Am Legend" is filled with the "undead ghouls" you speak of.

This is why I am so angry that it seems they're basically making 28 Days Later...in NYC...with Will Smith.

D_Davis

11-06-2007, 10:09 PM

The book "I Am Legend" is filled with the "undead ghouls" you speak of.

Right. I bet the creatures in I am Legend are still vampire-like, because they seem to only come out at night, but perhaps they are not scared of religious iconography, which is okay by me. That whole cross/holy water/garlic thing is kind of tired. It was cool in the Lost Boys, but if I see one more movie where someone fills a squirt gun with holy water I'll scream.

Bosco B Thug

11-06-2007, 10:18 PM

They drink blood - only eating each other when they're starved.

Afraid of crosses and religious symbols.

Allergic to garlic.

When they can, they sleep in the ground.

Fangs.

Killed by wooden stakes.

Yeh...they're definitely vampires. And they're referred to as such several times. Yeah. And we see none of this iconography in the trailers so far. Kinda depressing.

I personally find vampire stuff kinda boring, but from the sound of it, Matheson's story sounds really interesting (deconstruction of vampire mythos deal). But we've gotten no glimpse of a crucifix or fangs or anything! I'd really like some confirmation on how vampire-y this film will actually be.

And on that, it would be a cool incongruity to see gothic vampire iconography used in the [relatively, for the sake of the argument] "gritty," "real world" atmosphere the trailer suggests the film has adopted (complete with timely displays of militaristic destruction... were there jets exploding in the book?).

Ezee E

11-06-2007, 10:24 PM

megladon8

11-06-2007, 10:36 PM

It makes sense that they aren't vampire vampires with what happens to the world.

It will be a shame to lose that temptation for Will Smith to go outside. Hopefully they keep the character that's determined to find him.

Why does it make sense?

Pretty much the same thing is alluded to in the book - chemical warfare.

megladon8

11-06-2007, 10:41 PM

Yeah. And we see none of this iconography in the trailers so far. Kinda depressing.

I personally find vampire stuff kinda boring, but from the sound of it, Matheson's story sounds really interesting (deconstruction of vampire mythos deal). But we've gotten no glimpse of a crucifix or fangs or anything! I'd really like some confirmation on how vampire-y this film will actually be.

And on that, it would be a cool incongruity to see gothic vampire iconography used in the [relatively, for the sake of the argument] "gritty," "real world" atmosphere the trailer suggests the film has adopted (complete with timely displays of militaristic destruction... were there jets exploding in the book?).

One of my very favorite parts of "I Am Legend" is that Matheson blends myth and reality so well.

Vampirism is, in fact, a disease - and an airborne one, at that.

And he explains the crocifixes quite well, and the idea that a Jewish or Muslim vampire does not fear this, but instead would fear a Torah or Qur'an.

He also explains the need for a stake to kill a vampire, and why bullets, knifes, etc. doesn't hurt them.

Hell, he even explains why vampires turn to dust when they're destroyed.

However, on top of that, he still keeps a great level of mystery with the vampires, so that we - the readers - do not lose fear of them because everything has been explained. There are traits about the vampires that are never explained, and the book ends reminded the reader that these things haven't been explained, so perhaps behind all the scientific fact that Neville came across, there actually was some supernatural, God-like power at work.

It is such a great, great book. I really wish more people would read it, and not be deterred by the subject matter - vampires, sci-fi, etc.

Ezee E

11-06-2007, 10:56 PM

Great book, atmosphere, and ideas. I just didn't care for the ending as I've mentioned before. Highly recommended though.

Bosco B Thug

11-06-2007, 11:51 PM

I'll make sure to read the book before the movie comes out. Even if the film's so different, it won't matter. :)

megladon8

11-07-2007, 01:30 AM

Yeh, I suppose in the end I feel the same way D does - as long as it's a good movie, I'm happy.

But I tend to get a little "protective" of some of my favorite books/comics/whatever translated to screen.

Not to the point where I nitpick every detail - which is a problem I find a LOT of comic book fans have when they see their favorite heroes on screen. But I really want to see I Am Legend with VAMPIRES! :(

D_Davis

11-07-2007, 01:32 AM

Yeh, I suppose in the end I feel the same way D does - as long as it's a good movie, I'm happy.

And herein lies the rub. I, too, hope it is a good movie. It looks awesome, but it could end up totally sucking, vampires or not.

EvilShoe

11-07-2007, 09:20 AM

megladon8

11-08-2007, 11:35 PM

Apple.com has the trailer up (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/iamlegend/), and it describes the beings as "The Infected".

Wow...I wonder if there'll be "_____ Days Later" title cards used throughout the movie.

Thirdmango

11-09-2007, 11:45 PM

megladon8

11-10-2007, 02:47 AM

Watashi

11-10-2007, 04:57 AM

Really? The music is awesome?

Who is it by?

James Newton Howard

Bosco B Thug

11-10-2007, 07:29 AM

Having seen about half the movie it's looking to be an alright movie. The music in the movie is awesome but of course that's the part I was there for. If I hadn't been involved in the making of process I probably wouldn't like this movie, but as I was I'll probably buy it. What an endorsement! :P Thanks for the insider info, I'll let go of hopes for a stunning surprise, but I'll hope for something at least a little interesting, to not be too scheudenfreud (sp?)-y.

megladon8

11-10-2007, 10:19 PM

It'd be pretty cool if Neville was played by Martin Short.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/MARTIN_SHORT_HIGHRES.jpg

EvilShoe

11-11-2007, 10:09 PM

For those of you who want to see this movie done differently, I present:
http://www.theasylum.cc/pictures/moviepics/OMEGA8grn.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWskbJrz1T8

Starring Mark Dacascos!

megladon8

11-11-2007, 10:46 PM

I don't think I have seen a rip-off so blatant.

Seriously, how could they actually manage to get away with saying that's an original idea?

Kurosawa Fan

11-12-2007, 02:59 AM

I just saw a TV spot with Will Smith screaming to invading "zombies": "Wait! I can save you all!!!". This movie will suck balls. That's a guarantee.

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:15 AM

I just saw a TV spot with Will Smith screaming to invading "zombies": "Wait! I can save you all!!!". This movie will suck balls. That's a guarantee.

You didn't see that in the latest trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/iamlegend/trailer2/large.html)?

That whole "I can help you...I can fix this...LET ME SAVE YOU!" line?

Yeh, while I am leaning towards the "it's going to suck" side, I just can't help but hold onto a smidgeon of hope that it will be good.

I suppose I'm probably being too optimistic, but I just wish and hope so badly that they touch on the great study of loneliness that the book was. But I am afraid it's going to be a mindless horror/action romp :(

Kurosawa Fan

11-12-2007, 03:19 AM

I stopped watching the trailers. My mind is made up on this one.

Ezee E

11-12-2007, 03:29 AM

You didn't see that in the latest trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/iamlegend/trailer2/large.html)?

That whole "I can help you...I can fix this...LET ME SAVE YOU!" line?

Yeh, while I am leaning towards the "it's going to suck" side, I just can't help but hold onto a smidgeon of hope that it will be good.

I suppose I'm probably being too optimistic, but I just wish and hope so badly that they touch on the great study of loneliness that the book was. But I am afraid it's going to be a mindless horror/action romp :(
You flip-flop on this movie like none other.

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:30 AM

I stopped watching the trailers. My mind is made up on this one.

That latest one with music from The Fountain is actually a damn good trailer.

It's pretty much the sole reason why my hope is being kept afloat for this movie.

I was a non-believer like you, KF, but this trailer made me want to see the movie, despite everything that weighs against it.

Watch it, KF...for me...

*cues violin music*

Kurosawa Fan

11-12-2007, 03:32 AM

Watch it, KF...for me...

*cues violin music*

I'll give it a whirl, but I can guarantee my stance won't change.

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:33 AM

You flip-flop on this movie like none other.

I know. :(

I think about everything that's piling against it - Will Smith as Neville (blech), no vampires AGAIN, directed by Francis Lawrence (Constantine was fun, but I want this to be more than that), potential for terrible CGI.

Yet every time I watch that new trailer I am left thinking "gee, this could actually be good".

jenniferofthejungle

11-12-2007, 03:34 AM

You flip-flop on this movie like none other.

My diabolical plot to make him dislike Will Smith as much as I do is working.

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:34 AM

I'll give it a whirl, but I can guarantee my stance won't change.

:pritch:

Well, at least let me know what you think.

Kurosawa Fan

11-12-2007, 03:46 AM

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:55 AM

Nope. Here's what I think: They gave Will Smith the dog from the beginning so he can still have his Will Smith moments like "Eat your vegetables." The film will use melodrama where it isn't necessary. It's a well constructed trailer, but it doesn't change my opinion that this will be completely inferior to the novel.

Oh I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will be inferior to the novel. that's a 100% certainty.

I am just hoping against hope that it has some redeeming values - at least enough to raise it above the level of the usual theatrically released shlock.

It's not impossible, but it's also not probable.

Winston*

11-12-2007, 03:56 AM

I have this book on reserve. I will read it. If it is not the second best book I have ever read, I will not be happy.

megladon8

11-12-2007, 03:58 AM

I have this book on reserve. I will read it. If it is not the second best book I have ever read, I will not be happy.

Sweet - please let me know what you think of it once you've read it.

It's a book I am always eager to discuss.

EvilShoe

11-12-2007, 06:32 AM

I don't think I have seen a rip-off so blatant.

Seriously, how could they actually manage to get away with saying that's an original idea?
You're not familiar with The Asylum?
They're also responsible for snakes on a train, The Da Vinci Treasure, and Transmorphers.
And that's only a few of their titles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Asylum

EvilShoe

11-15-2007, 10:28 PM

The ending has been reshot:
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12571

Just the other day I got the invite for the I Am Legend junket here in Los Angeles at the end of the month. They'll be showing us the film, obviously, but it sounds like they're going to have to go double time in the editing room to get it finished: I have confirmed that there were reshoots on the movie as late as last week.

What's not confirmed is what has been reshot. My source tells me that the ending was redone, as the studio wasn't happy with the finale that director Francis Lawrence had. Since I know that Lawrence's ending was already unfaithful to Richard Matheson's original story, I can only imagine that the new ending is more action packed and even more upbeat than before.

This is the kind of thing that makes me look forward to the eventual book about the making of the film or Lawrence's life; we won't get the full story as to why the ending had to be changed or why it had to be changed so late in the game during the upcoming press deluge for the film, and nobody will go on the record with the truth for a good long time.
Oy!

megladon8

11-15-2007, 10:41 PM

Wow...just...ugh...

I still want to see it :P

Henry Gale

11-15-2007, 11:56 PM

The ending has been reshot!

Awwww hell no!!

But seriously, I don't know what to think any more. I wanted to love it just so we can get a good telling of the story (even if it doesn't at all resemble the original way), but with the more good things I see, the worse things I begin to hear regarding this.

But a re-write of an Akiva Goldsman ending that may not be done by him himself may be a good thing, right? And Lawrence is a fairly talented and stylish director, hmm? No? Okay... well I liked Constantine...

Ivan Drago

11-18-2007, 03:10 PM

I'm still looking forward to this. I thought the new trailer I saw before Beowulf was impressive. Speaking of which, I love the use of The Fountain music in said trailer.

megladon8

11-18-2007, 11:23 PM

Looking at the cast on IMDb and other sites - as well as the press releases - it looks like there's no Ben Cortman in the movie, either.

Either they changed his name, or he's not there.

Damn :(

I wonder if the creatures will even be able to speak?

Thirdmango

11-20-2007, 09:55 PM

So it'll have a different ending then the one I saw huh? Blast it all.

megladon8

11-20-2007, 09:59 PM

So it'll have a different ending then the one I saw huh? Blast it all.

Can you put in spoilers what happened at the end of the one you saw?

Spun Lepton

11-20-2007, 11:21 PM

Fuck me sideways ... Akiva Goldsman was involved? I figured it was going to suck, and that the ending was most definitely going to suck, big-time. But, with Goldsman on-board, that's a major red flag for me and guarantees I will not support the theatrical release.

Rental at best.

Henry Gale

11-23-2007, 01:13 AM

So it'll have a different ending then the one I saw huh? Blast it all.
Can you put in spoilers what happened at the end of the one you saw?

I would also love to hear this.

Mal

11-23-2007, 08:35 AM

Am I the only one...

or are 90% of the roles that Will Smith "gets" aren't suited for him at all?

[ETM]

11-23-2007, 01:57 PM

Am I the only one...

or are 90% of the roles that Will Smith "gets" aren't suited for him at all?

I think that's a very good thing... for him. In Hollywood, "suited" often means "stereotypical". Now, some films might have been better with someone else in the lead, but not by a significant margin in any case.

megladon8

11-23-2007, 03:15 PM

I just have a hard time believing Will Smith to be a grief-stricken middle-aged father and husband who is more emotionally devastated by loneliness than by the destruction of all humanity.

Though it seems this isn't really the direction they're taking the movie in, anyways.

[ETM]

11-23-2007, 04:48 PM

I just have a hard time believing Will Smith to be a grief-stricken middle-aged father and husband who is more emotionally devastated by loneliness than by the destruction of all humanity.

Well, to be fair, that is such an incredible situation to even ponder, who knows what anyone on Earth would do in his shoes? We can only guess.

megladon8

11-23-2007, 06:08 PM

;9083']Well, to be fair, that is such an incredible situation to even ponder, who knows what anyone on Earth would do in his shoes? We can only guess.

Well the book is this exact situation and give a pretty damn good blueprint of what this particular character would do.

I don't understand why they feel they have to stray from a perfectly good story.

megladon8

11-23-2007, 10:17 PM

I got the theatrical poster today for $4.99.

Last one left, too.

Grouchy

11-29-2007, 05:26 PM

Am I the only one...

or are 90% of the roles that Will Smith "gets" aren't suited for him at all?
That's true. He gets these hero roles like what Harrison Ford was doing in the early '90s, while in fact, Smith is only really good at light comedy. He should still be doing Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

My only knowledge of the I am Legend story comes from the Charlton Heston adaptation, Omega Man. How faithful that one is? I should buy me the book and track down the Vincent Price adaptation.

number8

11-29-2007, 05:39 PM

Agent Jay is probably the most perfect movie role for Smith.

megladon8

11-29-2007, 05:40 PM

That's true. He gets this hero roles like what Harrison Ford was doing in the early '90s, while in fact, Smith is only really good at light comedy. He should still be doing Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

My only knowledge of the I am Legend story comes from the Charlton Heston adaptation, Omega Man. How faithful that one is? I should buy me the book and track down the Vincent Price adaptation.

The Heston one isn't particularly faithful. It maintains some of the same scenes and the overall concept, but instead of vampires they're nuclear freaks, and it's horribly cheesy instead of having an ounce of tragedy.

That being said, it's pretty much the most faithful adaptation of the book on film.

Oh, and the latest episode of the movie tie-in comic book cartoon thingy is on Apple. You can view it here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/iamlegendisolation/large.html)

Both episodes of this have been really lame.

amberlita

12-09-2007, 05:03 PM

I just bought this book today. I have a busy two days ahead of me but it seems like a quick read and I'm hoping to have it finished before the weekend.

megladon8

12-09-2007, 05:46 PM

I just bought this book today. I have a busy two days ahead of me but it seems like a quick read and I'm hoping to have it finished before the weekend.

Awesome :)

Wryan

12-09-2007, 06:21 PM

Well if the original ending was "unfaithful" and they reshot it, it's idiotic for the guy in the quotes to assume that the new ending must therefore be more action-packed and "upbeat." Uh....how about "more faithful?" Isn't that possible? I'm seeing the movie anyway. Read some good/bad things about it so I'll see it because of my love of the book.

www.comingsoon.net/trailers has 6 clips linked on their site. They don't look half bad at all.

megladon8

12-09-2007, 06:24 PM

Well if the original ending was "unfaithful" and they reshot it, it's idiotic for the guy in the quotes to assume that the new ending must therefore be more action-packed and "upbeat." Uh....how about "more faithful?" Isn't that possible? I'm seeing the movie anyway. Read some good/bad things about it so I'll see it because of my love of the book.

I think the reason he assumes the new ending is more action-packed and upbeat is because that's what the studio said they're doing.

Apparently audiences at test screenings didn't like the ending, and wanted something happier.

megladon8

12-09-2007, 09:56 PM

Oh and BTW, those clips actually look half decent.

That last one called "Quieter" - the girl could potentially be terrible, but I liked Smith's dialogue and delivery.

Wryan

12-09-2007, 10:41 PM

I think the reason he assumes the new ending is more action-packed and upbeat is because that's what the studio said they're doing.

Apparently audiences at test screenings didn't like the ending, and wanted something happier.

Where's the proof of this though? In the quote mentioned above...

"What's not confirmed is what has been reshot. My source tells me that the ending was redone, as the studio wasn't happy with the finale that director Francis Lawrence had. Since I know that Lawrence's ending was already unfaithful to Richard Matheson's original story, I can only imagine that the new ending is more action packed and even more upbeat than before."

That says nothing about audience reaction and only talks about what the guy sorta kinda heard second-hand. The guy saw some of the film, including an upbeat ending that might have had some action in it. If there's more quotes from this guy somewhere, paste em here.

:lol:

Thirdmango

12-11-2007, 01:08 PM

I think what I'll do is when I see the movie on friday if indeed the ending is different then I'll say what was changed from when I saw it.

Doclop

12-11-2007, 02:37 PM

Saw it last night. Pretty mixed feelings. I was surprised how sharp the storytelling was and how the film truly achieves a clarity of vision made even clearer by its incessant combination of loneliness and grandiose. The action is well-shot and clever with fantastic sound.

The film fails at creating believable human relationships and is an utter disaster when it comes to its lose-God-find-God subtext. In fact, a large part of the problem is how truncated the final third of the film feels. It starts out so epic that the finale feels anti-climactic with the salt in the wound being a complete failure to communicate any form of depth or meaning, yet still seeming to try to do so, anyway. It was a much shorter film than I anticipated and I feel the film suffers for it.

Will Smith is middling, injecting a little too much humor, but ultimately still serviceable, of course. Anyway, it's a decent film with a few great parts (the action kills) that lacks the deserved payoff, instead offering up a small scale, empty whimper of a conclusion.

megladon8

12-11-2007, 05:16 PM

Great thoughts, Doclop.

It's good to know that the film is at least not a complete waste of time.

Sven

12-12-2007, 06:03 PM

Armond's review has me very curious, although he calls it a formulaic rip-off. Still, it's a very interesting angle, examining it through Will Smith's role as a pop icon.

Music video director Francis Lawrence makes flashy spectacle but indifferent characterization. Sketchy flashbacks clichÃ©s fill in Smith/Nevilleâ€™s background. The only contours of personality come in an ingenious moment when Neville awakes to a DVD of Shrek and recites from memory Eddie Murphyâ€™s dialog as the cartoon Donkey. Itâ€™s a moment of brotherly recognition; Smith communicating with Murphy as a Hollywood equal and with the global movie market as a pop culture beast of burden. Both successfully maneuver through international exposure and renown.

http://nypress.com/20/50/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

Dukefrukem

12-12-2007, 06:17 PM

EvilShoe

12-14-2007, 09:29 AM

CHUD has a negative review up. Prepape for suck:
(Spoiler for the book's storyline, not the ending though)

Credited screenwriters Akiva Goldsman and Mark Protosevich, with director Francis Lawrence, have jettisoned a major part of Richard Matheson's original text. In the novel, viral apocalypse survivor Robert Neville spends much of his time hunting the mutated, monstrous remains of humanity only to discover that his prey isn't as mindless as originally suspected. In fact, these creatures consider Neville to be their own all too real boogeyman. Neville's realization of this fact and the actions that follow are part of an elegant and memorable turnaround. That crucial perspective shift is completely missing from this movie.

KK2.0

12-14-2007, 03:29 PM

I'm not surprised. Look at what they made of I Robot...

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

12-14-2007, 03:34 PM

I'm not surprised. Look at what they made of I Robot...

Well, I've never read Asimov's short so Proyas' flick was a minor summer surprise back in 2004.

Wryan

12-14-2007, 06:12 PM

Everything without the vampire zombies.......masterful, powerful.

Everything with the vampire zombies...sigh.

Although the dog is different, it's very well done.

lovejuice

12-14-2007, 06:51 PM

I'm not surprised. Look at what they made of I Robot...

turning it into a masterpiece of sci-fi?

actually like SchÃ¦ffer, i haven't read asimov's, but proyas's movie is very good, in my book.

D_Davis

12-14-2007, 07:49 PM

turning it into a masterpiece of sci-fi?

actually like SchÃ¦ffer, i haven't read asimov's, but proyas's movie is very good, in my book.

I, too, liked Proyas' film. It was better than I ever could have imagined it. Although, I still hope that someday, someone films Harlen Ellison's screenplay for the film.

Watashi

12-14-2007, 08:22 PM

Wow, there is a huge divide between halves in this film. The first half is some of the best scenes of the year and Smith's acting is truly dynamic even if he is drawn to play the typical action hero (is Smith the last big action star?). Then there is a huge drop-off after a pivotal point later in the film that feels rushed, not thought out, and just plain lazy storytelling. The ending is so out-of-place, it feels like an alternate ending (which it is) because it is handled so poorly. There is also a issue of faith and the whole end-of-the-world parallels that could have been scripted neater. This is one of the few director's cut I'm eagerly awaiting because it truly needs better focus in the last third.

Watashi

12-14-2007, 08:41 PM

There was also a really neat uncredited cameo by Emma Thompson that took me by surprise.

Ezee E

12-14-2007, 09:08 PM

Wow, there is a huge divide between halves in this film. The first half is some of the best scenes of the year and Smith's acting is truly dynamic even if he is drawn to play the typical action hero (is Smith the last big action star?). Then there is a huge drop-off after a pivotal point later in the film that feels rushed, not thought out, and just plain lazy storytelling. The ending is so out-of-place, it feels like an alternate ending (which is) because it is handled so poorly. There is also a issue of faith and the whole end-of-the-world parallels that could have been scripted neater. This is one of the few director's cut I'm eagerly awaiting because it truly needs better focus in the last third.
Last action star? Hmm... That could lead to an interesting thread of its own. Sure, there's guys like Jason Statham out there, but he has no draw like Will Smith who can get something like The Pursuit of Happyness to $100 mill.

Fezzik

12-15-2007, 02:50 AM

Overall, I liked it. Good film, with (as was said already) some great moments.

The end pissed me off, plain and simple.

I had issues with the film, obviously, but I can safely say that Will Smith was NOT one of them. I didn't expect the level of work I got from him here. He really does carry this movie on his back and I have a whole new level of respect for him after seeing this film.

number8

12-15-2007, 03:02 AM

Did any of you see the Batman vs Superman billboard?

Watashi

12-15-2007, 03:04 AM

Did any of you see the Batman vs Superman billboard?
How could you not notice it? The entire audience noticed it.

Did you also notice the Green Lantern poster in the video store?

Fezzik

12-15-2007, 03:06 AM

Did any of you see the Batman vs Superman billboard?

I was gonna mention that. Nice touch.

5/15/10 was the date on it...hmm...

Henry Gale

12-15-2007, 03:14 AM

Pretty much have to agree with what's already been said here for the most part. Tons of great stuff in the first half (most of it non-vampire related), crappy CG, with ill-conceived final section but all of it with a superb performance by Smith.

**1/2 out of ****

number8

12-15-2007, 03:27 AM

How could you not notice it? The entire audience noticed it.

Did you also notice the Green Lantern poster in the video store?

I didn't see the film.

I did know that Akiva Goldsman went fanboy crazy and came up with all of those fake movie posters in the film.

Ivan Drago

12-15-2007, 03:33 AM

Was The Dark Knight trailer shown before this? Just want to be sure.

Ezee E

12-15-2007, 04:09 AM

Was The Dark Knight trailer shown before this? Just want to be sure.
I think it's in IMAX only.

number8

12-15-2007, 04:10 AM

I think it's in IMAX only.

No the IMAX one doesn't even show the trailer. It shows the first 5 minutes from the movie.

Trailers are playing on regular screenings.

Ezee E

12-15-2007, 04:17 AM

No the IMAX one doesn't even show the trailer. It shows the first 5 minutes from the movie.

Trailers are playing on regular screenings.
Ah okay. It's all clear now.

Fezzik

12-15-2007, 04:17 AM

Was The Dark Knight trailer shown before this? Just want to be sure.

It was shown when I saw it.

Ivan Drago

12-15-2007, 05:01 AM

Trailers are playing on regular screenings.

Most excellent.

Thirdmango

12-15-2007, 07:47 AM

Sxottlan

12-15-2007, 08:08 AM

A brilliant first 80 minutes with a questionable choice in CGI (Blade 2 achieved the same skin effect with prosthetic make-up) that kind of goes belly up when more characters are added to Will Smith's great one-man band. Along with a pretty preachy tone out of the blue there at the ending. It was like the film was doing exactly what I wanted for most of its running time, but then I grew increasingly perplexed on where it was going at the end.

I'm hoping that that ending doesn't kill it for me in retrospect in the coming months. Perhaps I'll consider the film only two-thirds finished until I see a director's cut or alternate ending cut. Never read the book, so I don't know how it originally ended.

Why did they adapt the screenplay of a previous adaptation?

By the way, I really liked I, Robot as well.

megladon8

12-15-2007, 03:35 PM

Saw it last night.

I actually thought it was pretty good. Some brief thoughts:

-I was one of the huge dissenters of the idea of Will Smith playing Neville; however, he's the best part of the movie, and it's an all-round fantastic performance

-it seemed completely unnecessary for the creatures to be CGI, especially considering the fact that the CGI didn't end up too great

-the film is actually at its best when the creatures are nowhere to be seen; scenes involving Neville and Sam scavenging through the city or hunting are surprisingly well done

-some very un-Hollywood scenes are included in the film which kind of steal the whole show

-the ending really didn't fit; pretty much everything after Anna shows up seems a bit tacked on

Overall, it was a surprisingly good film considering how deeply I hated the casting choice.

Admittedly, it does rape one of my favorite books up the ass with a lawnmower covered in anthrax, but as a film in its own right, it has some very tense moments, some great cinematography, and an unexpectedly great lead performance.

Sycophant

12-15-2007, 03:44 PM

Admittedly, it does rape one of my favorite books up the ass with a lawnmower covered in anthraxI'm still waking up. For some reason, this was very easy for me to visualize. :eek:

Watashi

12-15-2007, 04:13 PM

It made 28 million yesterday and is on pace to make around 70 million for the weekend.

Henry Gale

12-15-2007, 08:51 PM

yeah, they changed a lot in the past one and a half months.

Spoilerific Post:

The biggest thing that was changed was the personalization of the zombies. In the edit I saw the butterfly tattoo was actually shown on the female zombie and it was shown earlier in the movie. The Alpha Male puts his head out into the sun and is shown later basically stalking Smith because of him taking his girlfriend. Well then in the scene at the end when the Alpha Male smashes into the glass, the music is building and suddenly Smith sees the butterfly and realizes the zombies do have sentience. He opens the door and allows the Alpha Male to come in and take back his girlfriend and the Alpha Male orders the zombies not to hurt him. Without this fear of them, Smith and what's her face girl leave, they stop off at a church where Smith prays and then they drive out together and the shot of the car driving away is the final shot of the movie. So they re-shot most of the ending stuff as well as the hey look we're in Vermont. There were even some more scenes cut out which helped keep the pace they had near the beginning, like ethan, the girl and smith spending some time in the town, going fishing at the pond, walking through the streets, etc...

The music was almost all but gutted in the film as well, I was there for about 7 or 8 different pieces, only two were in the film itself, and the two orchestral pieces during the end credits were supposed to be played during the evacuation scene and for the ending.

Well... that definately sounds more like the movie I wanted to see. It still doesn't sound perfect, but at least it's a better version of this take on the story in my mind.

I take it that that shot in the trailer of the zombie a couple of inches away from his head (which was one of the images that most stayed with me from the promotional footage) is from the version you saw too. Plus that actually does something with the whole butterfly idea where in the final cut it felt lke it just kept building up to something and then there was suddenly nothing to it. They could have even done so much as to include a shot of a butterfly flying over the last shot or something.

Hopefully Lawrence releases a Director's Cut or something.

megladon8

12-16-2007, 12:58 AM

I thought one of the neatest ideas in the movie was how it was not revealed until just before Sam died that the dog was actually a girl, and named Samantha.

I thought that added a lot more emotional weight to that particular event, and made Neville's search for other survivors seem even more desperate.

Sxottlan

12-16-2007, 07:36 AM

I take it that that shot in the trailer of the zombie a couple of inches away from his head (which was one of the images that most stayed with me from the promotional footage) is from the version you saw too.

I loved that shot too; loved how he looked absolutely bereft of hope.

I was annoyed it wasn't in the theatrical version.

Didn't that particular zombie look like a real person in make-up though? Maybe that was why it was removed?

With this thing making about $75 million this weekend, I wonder if they'll do a director's cut? It seems they only do that when the movie has struggled in theatres.

By the way, did I see "Fred" actually move during that quick cut?

Henry Gale

12-16-2007, 05:49 PM

Well instead of just calling it a "Director's Cut" (which in some way makes it sound like they admit they made a mistake with the theatrical cut), they could always just call it "The Super 'Aw Hell Naw' Extended And Unrated Director's Edition" and have people be all over it.

1408 is a weird recent case where on the DVD the Director's Cut is actually the default option. I doubt that kind of thing will happen with Legend though.

Wryan

12-16-2007, 09:26 PM

Henry Gale

12-16-2007, 09:46 PM

Can we all agree that Smith does an amazing job here? Perhaps better than anyone expected? The dog scene and the video store scene after it are really just staggering.

Agreed. During the weekend, some of my friends who didn't already see it with have asked me if it was at least worth seeing despite me not being too thrilled with it overall, and I couldn't help but be so confident in saying "yes" just for Smith. Just as with The Pursuit Of Happyness he managed to make scenes that may have been typical and tear-jerky on paper and transform them magnificently into pieces of acting that almost save the entire film.

So crappy CG and storytelling aside, he's what makes the movie worth checking out in my mind. Surprisingly, it's one of my favourite performances of the year.

transmogrifier

12-16-2007, 10:21 PM

Can we all agree that Smith does an amazing job here? Perhaps better than anyone expected? The dog scene and the video store scene after it are really just staggering.

So much of this movie worked without adding that damn Mummy Returns-level cgi in there. And of course, everytime a cgi vombie roars, they roar RIGHT IN THE CAMERA'S FACE....you know, so you can see the cgi really well. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see it again, maybe with my dad, but even though I think the good outweighs the bad well enough for a positive grade, I very nearly can't stand the thought of watching all that shitteous cgi again.

Btw, I think physics rules out the possibility that the knife would have entered his leg in that fashion after he cut himself from the snare. He would have had to bring his arm down FASTER than it would have done naturally while he was falling, and I can't see him moving it that fast while he was falling for just that second. Meh. Was fine though.

Yeah, the movie is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies.

#1:

If they zombie-things followed the girl driving back to his house, why didn't they do the same thing when his dog got wasted after he stabbed his leg? And why didn't the boss zombie come out and kick some arse right then and there?

#2:

How do the zombies track down people? At first, you think it's because the are sensitive to blood, and thus do it with non-visual means (the trap), but then they never find his house, so it can't be that. Yet for some reason they all suddenly descend on the port at night (why would they mount a full on attack on what is obviously a dummy?), and how would they know that he likes to hang out at the port anyway?

#3:

How did the woman and little kid escape? The basement would have been perfectly dark during the day, so there would have been no reason for any of the zombies to leave.

Ezee E

12-17-2007, 12:04 AM

Yeah, that last third is pretty strange, but I also think the alternate ending is pretty out-of-place as well unless there's a few additional scenes added.

It really does work when it's just Smith and Sam on their own. I was surprised how well New York looked.

Wryan

12-17-2007, 12:18 AM

How did the woman and little kid escape? The basement would have been perfectly dark during the day, so there would have been no reason for any of the zombies to leave.

A basement that explodes may have a few holes in the walls, allowing light in.

Qrazy

12-17-2007, 01:47 AM

One of my very favorite parts of "I Am Legend" is that Matheson blends myth and reality so well.

Vampirism is, in fact, a disease - and an airborne one, at that.

And he explains the crocifixes quite well, and the idea that a Jewish or Muslim vampire does not fear this, but instead would fear a Torah or Qur'an.

He also explains the need for a stake to kill a vampire, and why bullets, knifes, etc. doesn't hurt them.

Hell, he even explains why vampires turn to dust when they're destroyed.

So atheist vampires pretty much rock the house?

Winston*

12-17-2007, 01:54 AM

So atheist vampires pretty much rock the house?
You've got to arm yourself with Flying Spaghetti Monster insignias and Richard Dawkins books.

KK2.0

12-17-2007, 03:57 PM

turning it into a masterpiece of sci-fi?

actually like SchÃ¦ffer, i haven't read asimov's, but proyas's movie is very good, in my book.

Well... I thought the film was a fun blockbuster but "masterpiece of Sci-fi" is such an hyperbole that's even funny.

What i meant is, like I Robot, I Am Legend starts well and disintegrates in the end, and both are quite different from the source.

Legend is about to open here and i have to watch it first to give an opinion, but I Robot annoyed me in a lot of moments, the worst being the convenient underground passage that magically appears when they need to breach the "evil computer" building, not surprisingly, in typical action movie cliche, the villain is in the top of the tower. But Goldsman is hardly what i call a creative writer.

Is there any other book starting with "I" that Smith and Goldsman will be making in te following years?

lovejuice

12-17-2007, 04:27 PM

first of all, i have a question.

there's a scene near the end in which smith witnesses some sorta blood, and he looks distressing. at first i thought the child and the girl are dead. yet they appear right in the next scene. is this some kinda alternative endding thingy here?

Well... I thought the film was a fun blockbuster but "masterpiece of Sci-fi" is such an hyperbole that's even funny.

i credit i, robot for how it answers the philosophical question that it posts quite well: if god wants us human to be good, why he creat free choice blah blah blah. granted, 'tis no kierkegaard, but except for dark city, i can't remember any sci-fi during the last decade that gives me this level of intellectual satisfaction. not even the matrix, or A.I.

but yes, from a purely blockbuster perspective, the movie is quite flawed.

KK2.0

12-17-2007, 05:48 PM

i credit i, robot for how it answers the philosophical question that it posts quite well: if god wants us human to be good, why he creat free choice blah blah blah. granted, 'tis no kierkegaard, but except for dark city, i can't remember any sci-fi during the last decade that gives me this level of intellectual satisfaction. not even the matrix, or A.I.

but yes, from a purely blockbuster perspective, the movie is quite flawed.

I think it's quite the opposite, as a blockbuster it has it all, special effects galore, Will Smith being funny (the scenes with his mother looked like straight out of a sitcom) and kicking ass, a crowd-pleasing ending where he saves the girl and the american way. I guess all the interesting questions you found are pieces of good old Asimov that survived the butchery done to his text.

From all of the sci-fi films done in the past years, the ones that i believe will be hailed as masterpieces are Primer and Children of Men. But The Matrix and A.I. are also damn fine to me and will stand the test of time a lot better than I Robot, in fact they already have.

Sorry for the off topic.

D_Davis

12-17-2007, 06:13 PM

lovejuice

12-17-2007, 07:19 PM

From all of the sci-fi films done in the past years, the ones that i believe will be hailed as masterpieces are Primer and Children of Men. But The Matrix and A.I. are also damn fine to me and will stand the test of time a lot better than I Robot, in fact they already have.

i can't talk about for primer. haven't watched it. but as much as i appreciate cinematic technicalities of children of men -- one of the most beautifully shot and atmospheric sci-fi -- i don't find anything philosophical about it. what sort of question does the movie ask? how does it criticize our society? totalitarian is bad? war is bad? maybe, but don't you think that messages're quite simple. there're internet discussions about humanity's lose of hope as connected to infertility or something, but i think that's stretching.

yes, i know, i'm in a minority.

KK2.0

12-17-2007, 07:30 PM

I, Robot really captures the tone and atmosphere of golden-era science fiction. It is a pulpy adventure story wrapped around an idea of social impact.

I wish Proyas would direct more films, because I tend to like his work.

He could probably do wonders adapting some of the Stainless Steel Rat books. Now this would be awesome.

No problems with Proyas, both The Crow and Dark City are good movies to me and i believe he's an underrated director.

But you can't have much control in a big studio movie anyway, specially with a name like Will Smith involved, he's an extremely narcisistic actor and everything he's involved needs to turn into a vehicle for him, no wonder the best flick he did imo it's still the first Men In Black, where his role does not offuscate Jones, everything after that though... That said, Proyas certainly did the best he could.

KK2.0

12-17-2007, 07:51 PM

i can't talk about for primer. haven't watched it. but as much as i appreciate cinematic technicalities of children of men -- one of the most beautifully shot and atmospheric sci-fi -- i don't find anything philosophical about it. what sort of question does the movie ask? how does it criticize our society? totalitarian is bad? war is bad? maybe, but don't you think that messages're quite simple. there're internet discussions about humanity's lose of hope as connected to infertility or something, but i think that's stretching.

yes, i know, i'm in a minority.

Ok, I didn't want to turn this into another Children of Men debate but I can't help it :P

Maybe you need another watch to let it sink, by asking how does it criticize our society I believe you haven't paid much attention to it, because the entire movie is basically a big reflection of the currently social and political situation, not only by the use of iconic imagery, but the main character of Theo to me represents everyone who's aware of what's wrong but too numb to care, or feeling too powerless to change the future. To me, the film was a very positive and reassuring experience despite all the despair it shows, it sounds corny but it gives us hope and i believe it's the whole point.

Children of Men has plenty of fuel for thought, i suggest you rent the DVD and rewatch it, and if you care, watch the little debate in the extra features, about the themes and inspirations behind it.

number8

12-18-2007, 04:22 AM

Proyas is directing (and writing) a Nic Cage movie next.

lovejuice

12-18-2007, 04:24 PM

Proyas is directing (and writing) a Nic Cage movie next.

damn it, proyas! learn your lesson!

eternity

12-19-2007, 02:32 AM

Surprisingly decent. Didn't make the top ten, but it will make my extended 50 mid next year for sure.

Sxottlan

12-19-2007, 08:15 AM

EvilShoe

12-20-2007, 10:02 AM

Justin

12-21-2007, 04:41 PM

I thought it was pretty entertaining, a lot of the previous flaws everyone has mentioned are mostly true, especially the CGI. However the film was pretty beautiful and the scenes of Smith roaming around the empty city were great. I have a feeling that Lawrence will eventually make one great film.

Derek

12-21-2007, 08:30 PM

I thought this one was fairly mediocre.

Will Smith did a far better than I expected him to, but the rest of the material wasn't up to par.

The villains of the piece were never scary because of the incredibly bad CGI, and it hurts the movie.

The first two thirds aren't bad, but the last third is so awful it nearly ruins the entire movie.

Also: Nice job incorporating Shrek, you could just tell the makers were aiming for a timeless story.

Thanks for saying pretty much all I wanted to say. I liked the first two-thirds a bit more than you, though my score is a bit high considering how terrible the last third is. I love how the woman has to have a kid simply to mirror Smith's previous life, yet they give him no lines and ultimately no reason to be there other than to lend more weight to their preservation. That said, the first hour or so creates a strong atmosphere and avoids most of the cliches and pitfalls that sink these kinda films. I guess they saved them all for the end. :) Also, I know it was mentioned before, but can we please stop it with the CGI villains/monsters screaming into the camera, please?

Ivan Drago

12-22-2007, 05:31 PM

Also: Nice job incorporating Shrek, you could just tell the makers were aiming for a timeless story.

Are you being sarcastic? What do you mean by this?

Wryan

12-22-2007, 06:58 PM

When the Shrek scene started, I hated it. By the time it finished, I liked it a lot.

number8

12-22-2007, 07:52 PM

Heh. Armond White interpreted the Shrek scene as a brotherhood nod of respect from Will Smith to Eddie Murphy, as a show that Smith is now the last black Hollywood powerhouse.

Derek

12-22-2007, 08:10 PM

When the Shrek scene started, I hated it. By the time it finished, I liked it a lot.

I thought it was pretty terrible, but I did like the perplexed/annoyed look the kid gave him when he finished.

Wryan

12-22-2007, 08:41 PM

Heh. Armond White interpreted the Shrek scene as a brotherhood nod of respect from Will Smith to Eddie Murphy, as a show that Smith is now the last black Hollywood powerhouse.

I don't think Smith had anything to do with the writing of that scene, so until Mr. White can prove otherwise, his interpretation is a little weird.

Derek

12-22-2007, 08:48 PM

I don't think Smith had anything to do with the writing of that scene, so until Mr. White can prove otherwise, his interpretation is a little weird.

He probably had his minion, Akiva Goldsman, add it in for him.

megladon8

12-22-2007, 09:46 PM

Heh. Armond White interpreted the Shrek scene as a brotherhood nod of respect from Will Smith to Eddie Murphy, as a show that Smith is now the last black Hollywood powerhouse.

That's...pretty stupid.

Ezee E

12-22-2007, 10:43 PM

Armond is insane, but I love his crazy ideas.

Wryan

12-23-2007, 12:00 AM

Heh. Armond White interpreted the Shrek scene as a brotherhood nod of respect from Will Smith to Eddie Murphy, as a show that Smith is now the last black Hollywood powerhouse.

What did he write exactly? Cause that doesn't seem, to me, like a sign of respect from Smith to Murphy if the scene is meant to indicate that Smith is the last black powerhouse.

Rowland

12-23-2007, 12:07 AM

What did he write exactly? Cause that doesn't seem, to me, like a sign of respect from Smith to Murphy if the scene is meant to indicate that Smith is the last black powerhouse.http://www.nypress.com/20/50/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

Read the review. It's an entertaining read.

Wryan

12-23-2007, 12:24 AM

http://www.nypress.com/20/50/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

Read the review. It's an entertaining read.

Allllllrighty then.

Sycophant

12-23-2007, 06:14 AM

I'm pretty much with EvilShoe on this one. I did like the first two acts pretty well and saw some pretty awesome camera work and acting on display. The CG was probably a poor choice. The entire third act, however, is a steaming pile of ham-fisted bullshit that doesn't call on anything that came before and grated on my nerves like teeth on a chalkboard.

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

12-23-2007, 01:37 PM

Not too fond of the third act either. With the arrival of Braga's character, the film came to a screeching halt, which is ironic considering that it is far more action-packed than everything that came before. The siege of Smith's residence could have been an incredibly tense and prolonged set piece and for a second I thought it was going to be, but the direction and FX are very rushed and it doesn't help that by this time the creatures are more reminiscent of something we might see in a Mummy flick.

Smith was good, and great during one sequence, but ultimately his descent into madness wasn't total and thus all the conversing with mannequin bits, apart from one instance, felt a bit forced. The Shrek sequence was particularly bad. Yes, I groaned. True, almost inaudibly, but it was there. Chalk this up as aspirations the film is unable to reach.

The finale took me somewhat by surprise, I might even call it gutsy, but in the end I really wasn't moved at all by Neville's final act of sacrifice. Shockingly, I cared more about Sam than Neville.

The flashbacks bothered me a little too and I would have preferred it if Lawrence had opted for a 20-min intro followed by a simple "3 years later" so as to ensure that isolation remained absolute for the remainder of the movie. Another example of a director not trusting his audience and feeling a need to insert some exploding choppers and collapsing bridges to keep moviegoers awake?

**

Thirdy

12-24-2007, 10:25 PM

Pretty much agree with the general consensus. First two thirds: really quite decent. Enter the Anna character and it turns into a conventional thing.

Sycophant

12-28-2007, 10:50 PM

Did I mention my favorite of the future-media billboard gags?

Legally Blonde as a Broadway musical.

Henry Gale

12-28-2007, 11:06 PM

Did I mention my favorite of the future-media billboard gags?

Legally Blonde as a Broadway musical.

You know that that's real though... right?

Sycophant

12-28-2007, 11:07 PM

You know that that's real though... right?

:|

...I trust that seeing that in I Am Legend is the only joy I'll ever get from it, then.

megladon8

01-04-2008, 01:43 AM

Hmmm...seeing this a second time I actually liked it quite a bit more.

I still think the ending is bad and generally everything from when Anna appears on needed serious work, but the rest of the film is really, really good.

It's surprisingly anti-Hollywood for the first 2/3's.

megladon8

01-04-2008, 03:32 AM

I Am Legend

a review by Braden Adam

The “last person on Earth” scenario is not exactly new, so it seemed the general feeling with most movie-goers going to see I Am Legend was apathy. Of course, Warner Bros. spilled a lot of money into its production and advertising, since it was their big release of the season - but with the wave of zombie films over the past half decade, coupled with the generally tired “one/few people left alive” plot device, “rehash” was the word on everyone’s minds. And they were partly right.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/iamlegend2.jpg

I Am Legend is the third adaptation of Richard Matheson’s cult classic short novel of the same name. The first version, released in 1964 under the name The Last Man on Earth, starred Vincent Price and was an Italian production. While it remains the most faithful adaptation of the book, it suffers from some needless narration, and a lot of hoakiness due to the dubbing-over of the non-English speaking cast. The second adaptation, released in 1971, was titled The Omega Man and has become somewhat of a “Saturday at Midnight” classic. Stylistically influenced by the emerging blaxploitation scene, it was a cheesy affair but with some great elements. Now 2007's I Am Legend has come around and is arguably the most unfaithful to the source material of all three films, but it’s also the most effective, and upon my second viewing of the film I left the theatre wondering exactly how they managed to do this.

Richard Matheson’s story may be my favorite book. It’s easy to see how Stephen King was inspired by a book like this, as it takes a horrific surface story and creates something more out of it. It’s a story that stands the tests of time, due to its themes of loneliness and isolation which everyone in the world can derive something from. In the story, Robert Neville is the last man left alive on Earth, which is now a wasteland populated by vampires - though the word “vampire” is never used, it’s safe to say that’s what they are, since they have fangs, drink blood, burn up in sunlight, and are allergic to crucifixes and garlic. But despite these horrible conditions, the real depth in the story occurs in the scenes without monsters, when Neville spends his days all alone, searching the city streets for possible survivors. He wrestles with his past and personal demons, and must fight horrible urges, such as the sexual desire he feels when he sees a female vampire’s naked body - though she is rotten and disfigured, Neville has been alone a very, very long time. Neville is the hero of the story, but he is not a knight in shining armor, or some weapon-clad deadshot - he’s just the man who happened to survive. By night, he holds up in his house and listens as the vampires outside call out his name, taunting him to give up his hopeless crusade and just become a vampire like them.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/iamlegend3.jpg

It’s a beautiful story, and for the film, they threw it all out the window. Only the base concept remains - Robert Neville is the last man on Earth, and everyone else is a zombie...er, vampire...er, thing. And I apologize for my digression, but I must ask a question - why on Earth do we have three different adaptations of the same novel about vampires, and not one of these films contains a vampire? In The Last Man on Earth they’re zombies who are allergic to garlic (because THAT makes sense); in The Omega Man they’re freaks leftover from nuclear fallout; and now in I Am Legend they’re...I don’t even know what they are. If you’ve seen the 2005 British horror film The Descent, then imagine those creatures, but without the pointy ears. It really doesn’t make sense to me why vampires would be so hard to create on the screen, since they have so much symbolic value in the story - they suck out the lifeforce of other creatures, and while Neville is the only human left, he lost his humanity and his own lifeforce long ago. But I suppose in the final product we have here, what the creatures are doesn’t make much of a difference.

Which is why it’s a bit of a double-edged sword - they’re not vampires, which is a disappointment to fans of the book (like myself) - but what the movie got right is that the story is not just an action-horror with lots of shooting and blood and guts. It’s the story of a man overrun by loneliness, and the ways he tries to cope with day-to-day life in a world where nature has regained control. By day he hunts deer in the streets of New York, plays golf on an aircraft carrier, and has conversations with mannequins. It’s all done surprisingly well, and director Francis Lawrence showed good self control with these scenes, as he doesn’t fill them with narration or bombastic special effects - this is the world as it has become, and this is how one man is trying to keep living.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/iamlegend1.jpg

It really feels like they had something special here - something beyond the typical Hollywood fare. Will Smith gives a strong performance as the Legend himself, and his friendship with his dog, Sam, feels genuine. In fact, Sam could be argued to be the strongest character in the film. Loyal to a fault but naive, Sam gives added emotional weight to scenes where another human character would no doubt have hammed things up and tried to tug too hard at the heart strings. Simple shots such as Sam curiously eyeing a butterfly while Neville gathers ears of corn had a soft touch in them which made it seem believable that Neville would want to continue living, even if only for the friendship that Sam provides him.

Unfortunately, the film really falls apart about 2/3 of the way through, when the character of Anna appears. Claiming that she heard Neville’s radio broadcasts (which were begging for any survivors to come to New York City to be with him), she says that “God told her” there was a survivor camp in the mountains, and she would like him to accompany her there. But her character raises too many unanswered questions, and by the end of the film it seems kind of pointless for her to have been there in the first place. When you consider that Robert Neville has had trouble surviving - a man with military training and weapons, and who is in physical condition which would make the Spartans feel envious - then how could this young, sickeningly skinny woman armed with a pistol and escorting a young boy possibly have survived this long? It just doesn’t add up. And while her statements about “God’s messages” allude to a new message in the film about faith, it just doesn’t fit with the rest of the film’s substance regarding loneliness. While the rest of the film remains solid despite how untrue it is to the book, the character of Anna and the ending of the story would have benefitted greatly from the material found in Matheson’s story - especially considering the fact that the actual title, “I Am Legend”, completely loses its meaning without these events.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/iamlegend4.jpg

Of course it would be wrong of me not to mention the poor CGI used on the vampiric zombie demon beasts, but anything I could possibly say about it has been covered already by many others. The effects are, quite simply, unconvincing. They fail to evoke much fear of these creatures, especially in the case of the “Alpha Male”, whose monotonous stretchy-mouthed roaring into the camera almost becomes funny by the second or third time it’s used. It was completely unnecessary for these creatures to be created with computer graphics, especially in scenes when they are standing completely still, or simply lumbering around. As I mentioned before, they are almost identical to the beasts from The Descent - they’re basically bald people with sickly-pale flesh. If you ask me, make-up and animatronics will always be better than CGI, until they can create something which is truly photo-realistic.

It’s been a polarizing film, and not without reason. I Am Legend attempts to please fans of the book, fans of the recent zombie craze, and teenagers looking for the next big epic action movie all at once. But these audiences are so, so varied. Considering that the book was written in 1954, many of its greatest fans are surely well into middle-age, and aren’t too keen on seeing Will Smith romp through a bunch of zombies like a stylized music video. Luckily most of the movie isn’t like this, but the last half hour is enough to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. It’s far better than a lot of the stuff being churned out by the Hollywood machine, and the scenes involving Will Smith and Sam are downright inspired and occasionally beautiful. Perhaps a “director’s cut” DVD will allow us to see the ending that was originally in store for us before the rushed re-shoots just a couple of months ago. As it is, it’s worth seeing for Will Smith’s best acting to date.

D_Davis

01-04-2008, 03:53 AM

Great review Meg. Really nicely done. One of the best I've ever read here.

megladon8

01-04-2008, 03:59 AM

Great review Meg. Really nicely done. One of the best I've ever read here.

Wow, thanks very much that means a lot.

It's the longest review I've ever written, yet also the easiest. It just flowed out.

I'm really glad you enjoyed reading it. I appreciate it.

Buffaluffasaurus

01-04-2008, 11:57 PM

Man, this was a missed opportunity. Of course I expected the ending of the book to be changed, but not in favour of such a menial conclusion.

Neville kills himself for no reason whatsoever. Why not just throw the grenade and jump in the closet, which had enough room for him. Surely Anna and the kid have more chance of surviving to reach the colony with him by their side. His sacrifice is stupid, meaningless and a lazy attempt to invest the film with purpose after script changes have stripped it from the film.

Even ignoring the monumental cockup of an ending, the film did little for me. The imagery of New York was amazing, but I don't think the film really milked the emptiness as much as it could've. Similar scenes in 28 Days Later were far more effective and eerie.

Will Smith is ok but miscast. I really don't see how people can overstate his performance as being "great". It's serviceable but I never once connected with his character or felt his sense of loss and isolation. What I loved about the book was how it was mired in the minutiae of Neville's day-to-day routine, which is pretty much the only thing that keeps him going. Here its' not emphasised enough, nor is any important characterisation or thematic elements. The film felt anemic to me.

The creatures were also terrible. It's been said before, but the reason to make them CGI when they could've been perfectly handled by actors in makeup for 90% of the time is ridiculous. How much money would they have sunk into those things? Tens of millions no doubt, and it doesn't even work as well as a $1000/day actor in some cheap latex.

A failure on pretty much every level.

4/10

megladon8

01-31-2008, 09:14 PM

DVD release date is March 18, 2008.

Here's the artwork for the single disc edition -

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/legend1.jpg

And for the double-disc edition -

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/legend2.jpg

I'll be picking up the double-disc, because I am super-uber curious about the original version and ending.

Henry Gale

01-31-2008, 10:01 PM

I don't know if the people who photoshopped the 2-disc cover realized that in trying to make him look darker they just made it look as if Smith has tons more hair on his head and face than before.

Plus they're really milking the fact that there's now both versions available on that second cover (and I honestly am glad that they at least include them in the same package).

D_Davis

01-31-2008, 10:19 PM

"Controversial Ending"

That's a good one.

So it's controversial if a bunch of idiots in a test audience don't like something?

Sycophant

01-31-2008, 10:24 PM

If I can Netflix the alternate version, I will. The one-disc's cover art is surprisingly nice.

Sycophant

01-31-2008, 10:25 PM

"Controversial Ending"

That's a good one.

So it's controversial if a bunch of idiots in a test audience don't like something?Or a bunch of idiots in suits. Either.

Dead & Messed Up

01-31-2008, 10:39 PM

I'm a little interested in the alternate theatrical cut, but it doesn't bode well that the term dances around "director's cut" without saying it. Methinks it's studio-mandated just to ensure enough distinction between the two releases.

Sxottlan

02-02-2008, 03:59 AM

megladon8

02-02-2008, 04:18 AM

I'm glad they're releasing the alternate ending and will most likely pick that up. The ending seen in theatres just didn't do it for me and kept me from really liking the film. Pretty much anything else would be better.

I feel the exact same.

I thought the movie was actually fantastic up until the appearance of Anna. after that it just went downhill.

megladon8

03-07-2008, 04:05 AM

The original ending (http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/03/05/must-watch-i-am-legends-original-ending-this-is-amazing/)

Awww...even vampire zombie monsters need love.

*wretch*

Well, at least I can save $22 by not having to buy that 2-disc DVD.

Sycophant

03-07-2008, 06:36 PM

I actually liked that ending more. Still a little overtly Christian for my tastes, but not quite so easily/idiotically so. The theatrical cut would've done well to end there instead.

Thirdmango

03-07-2008, 09:07 PM

Now that's much closer to the movie I saw on the set. Did you notice slightly more music? I hope that this scene is not just an extra feature on the dvd but that they have the entire original intact cause there were still a couple of things not in it.

megladon8

03-08-2008, 12:07 AM

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how turning it into a romantic ending where the alpha male just wanted his girlfriend back is a "better" ending.

Watching that made me want to cut my eyes out and feed them to carnivorous dolphins.

Rowland

03-08-2008, 12:11 AM

feed them to carnivorous dolphins.Good luck finding them amidst all the vegetarian dolphins.

:P

megladon8

03-08-2008, 12:12 AM

Good luck finding them amidst all the vegetarian dolphins.

:P

One day when dolphins come on land and start eating everyone around you, you'll crawl to my doorstep and ask my forgiveness for doubting me on this night.

EDIT: Luckily, I'll know that the alpha-male dolphin just wants his hot lady-friend back, and then the whole problem's solved!

MadMan

03-18-2008, 09:44 PM

So last night I finally saw I Am Legend. Even though the 1964 version of Richard Mattheson's novel is the best adaption so far, I thought that the 2007 version was pretty rock solid. The problem with the film (besides some really bad dialogue) is that the second half, particularly the final act, is really weak and even goes into bad terrority at times. Part of the ending sequence had me rolling my eyes, although I have to say that after watching the so called "controversial" alternative ending the ending they went with seems actually not so bad. Seriously the alternative ending is the worst ending to a film I have ever seen. My friends and I were laughing so hard at it and picking it apart all at the same time. We couldn't believe what we were seeing. Anyways, I have to say that Will Smith gives one of his best performances in this, and the set design was excellent-empty NYC looked extremely eerie and very awesome. I wasn't big on the creature CGI, but when they were in the dark and Smith was wandering around, well that was creepy. Overall I'd say you should go in expecting something that with a better script writer and a better last act would have been a great film. I'll have to simply settle for solid, and hope that eventually someone else adapts the book the right way. 80

I have to say that rating is pretty generous, but I can't ignore how good the first half really was.

D_Davis

03-18-2008, 09:49 PM

I'll be buying this and watching it tonight. I can't wait to see it.

megladon8

03-18-2008, 09:53 PM

I'll be buying this and watching it tonight. I can't wait to see it.

I hope you enjoy it.

I did, as you know.

But stay away from the God-awful alternate ending. What a stinking pile of shit that is.

Sycophant

03-18-2008, 10:02 PM

D_Davis

03-18-2008, 10:31 PM

I already watched the alternate ending.

Sycophant

03-18-2008, 10:47 PM

I already watched the alternate ending.
GASP!

megladon8

03-18-2008, 10:55 PM

Actually, D, maybe you don't want to watch the alternate ending right after viewing the theatrical cut, but I'd say you should give it a spin eventually. I still think the film's ultimately retarded... but ever less so with the alternate ending.

The idea of the alternate ending lessening the retardation of anything in the film is totally beyond me.

Honestly, what did you find to like in that ending?

It was a fucking abomination, and it made me angry at the filmmakers for ever having even considered putting that pile of shit on a big screen.

D_Davis

03-18-2008, 10:57 PM

GASP!

I know.

I'm freaking nuts.

megladon8

03-18-2008, 11:01 PM

I know.

I'm freaking nuts.

You're one WILD and CRAZY guy!!!

/Steve Martin

Fezzik

03-19-2008, 12:24 AM

Spoiler Warning:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/03/05/must-watch-i-am-legends-original-ending-this-is-amazing/

This is a mirror of the alternate ending of 'I am Legend' that is on the DVD.

If, like me, you liked it but were totally let down by the ending..take a gander.

I certainly like the alternate ending better.

Henry Gale

03-19-2008, 03:25 AM

The idea of the alternate ending lessening the retardation of anything in the film is totally beyond me.

Honestly, what did you find to like in that ending?

It was a fucking abomination, and it made me angry at the filmmakers for ever having even considered putting that pile of shit on a big screen.

I'm curious, what makes the alternate ending so much worse in your eyes?

To me, the theatrical one seemed to be much more about wrapping up Smith's arc and providing hope in a really easy, last-minute way. The alternate one did that too but it at least bothered to develop and attempt to pay off the "vampires are maybe more intelligent than we first thought" idea that floats around throughout the first two acts (and obviously MUCH more in the original story). I don't think either ending is particularly satisfying, but I like having them both available for tapping into different things in the story rather than them being just two different paths to the same conclusion. Either way, I don't see how the new one could be called a "fucking abomination".

megladon8

03-19-2008, 03:30 AM

I'm curious, what makes the alternate ending so much worse in your eyes?

To me, the theatrical one seemed to be much more about wrapping up Smith's arc and providing hope in a really easy, last-minute way. The alternate one did that too but it at least bothered to develop and attempt to pay off the "vampire are maybe more intelligent than we first thought" idea that floats around throughout the first two acts (and obviously MUCH more in the original story). I don't think either ending is particularly satisfying, but I like having them both available for tapping into different things in the story rather than them being just two different paths to the same conclusion. Either way, I don't see how the new one could be called a "fucking abomination".

What did we see before that gave any impression at all that these creatures were capable of love?

Or that they had girlfriends and boyfriends?

And why the hell would the creatures EVER decide to spare Neville? The second they opened that door, they should have swarmed in and devoured all three of them.

It's not a question of intelligence - humans are their FOOD. Neville has been hunting and killing them for three years now. Why would they ever make a deal with him?

If some cows kidnapped your spouse and tortured them, after having hunted you and other people for years, would you make a deal with them?

Also, this ending makes the character of Anna even more pointless than she was in the ending we saw in theatres. At least in that version, she became Neville's "successor". In this, there is absolutely no reason for her to have been there. They could have easily written in that Neville heard broadcasts over the radio indicating a survivor encampment, and he could then go there himself.

And what a CHEESE-FEST that head rub/kiss was. That made me want to throw up out of my eyes.

It was a terribly melodramatic and nonsensical way of ending the movie, and I'm so, so grateful that the test audiences were smart enough to see how stupid it was.

Henry Gale

03-19-2008, 04:36 AM

What did we see before that gave any impression at all that these creatures were capable of love?

Or that they had girlfriends and boyfriends?

And why the hell would the creatures EVER decide to spare Neville? The second they opened that door, they should have swarmed in and devoured all three of them.

It's not a question of intelligence - humans are their FOOD. Neville has been hunting and killing them for three years now. Why would they ever make a deal with him?

If some cows kidnapped your spouse and tortured them, after having hunted you and other people for years, would you make a deal with them?

Also, this ending makes the character of Anna even more pointless than she was in the ending we saw in theatres. At least in that version, she became Neville's "successor". In this, there is absolutely no reason for her to have been there. They could have easily written in that Neville heard broadcasts over the radio indicating a survivor encampment, and he could then go there himself.

And what a CHEESE-FEST that head rub/kiss was. That made me want to throw up out of my eyes.

It was a terribly melodramatic and nonsensical way of ending the movie, and I'm so, so grateful that the test audiences were smart enough to see how stupid it was.

I'm still not saying the ending was very good, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But I would argue that the only reason they were after Neville was to get his "girlfriend" back. And though I may be remembering it wrong, I think they showed them both having the same butterfly tattoo, so the affection they would have had for eachother would have been feelings they would have had before they were infected trying to break through, not just a characteristic of the vampires themselves. Plus the fact that they made a deal would have all been a result of these more humanistic qualities coming through and showing Neville (though not as strongly as in Matheson's version) that maybe what he's been doing hasn't been as necessary as he once thought. The scene where Frank is moved and the trap is set also felt like it was hinting at some of this, but with the revised ending, none of it leads to anything.

I don't know, I just see it as a bit more of a resolution to everything than him accepting that they're still monsters and deciding to... well... do what he did in the theatrical cut.

lovejuice

03-19-2008, 04:54 AM

i have heard of the alternated ending. haven't seen it so i don't know if i like the execution, but i really like the idea.

James Christopher

03-20-2008, 04:24 PM

I quite enjoyed this film for the most part, and despite all the FX on display, the most effective scene was a simple close-up of Will Smith's face when he had to kill his dog.

But the ending really pÃ*ssed me off. The book's ending is nihilistic, philosophical, ambiguous, thought-provoking, and totally unexpected. Not only is the film's ending ludicrously contrived to give 'closure' to the story, but the religious connotations are a crude bastardization of the original story. It's as if someone had done a cover version of 'Paint It Black', and reworked it into Christian rock.

And was anyone else tempted to stand up in the cinema and shout 'BOOM! SHAKE THE ROOM!' when Will Smith throws the hand grenade?

Erm, thought not.

Sycophant

03-20-2008, 04:31 PM

I simply can't agree with your dismissal of the ending, Meg. The theatrical ending was ridiculously cornball with its perfunctory self-sacrificing, and was kind of shoddily shot, I thought. Neville's sacrifice completes the story that starts out as a stupid Old Testament allegory into full-blown, stupid Jesus myth.

The alternate ending, yes, reveals information about the vampire whatevers that we didn't get before, but it furthers the idea that there's more to the universe we don't understand, leaving things more ambiguous and open-ended.

Admittedly, it's still clumsy. But the whole film kind of was, and I didn't really like it anyway.

D_Davis

03-20-2008, 04:42 PM

The book's ending is nihilistic...

It is?

rocus

03-20-2008, 04:48 PM

What did we see before that gave any impression at all that these creatures were capable of love?

Or that they had girlfriends and boyfriends?

When Smith captured the girlfriend and the creature almost fried himself just to get her back. Smith chalked it up to his lack of intelligence, but it was obvious that he had feeling for her.

I agree with Sycophant that the alt. ending better ties up plot lines suggested throughout the movie. At least it attempts to show that they aren't just bloodthirsty no-brained monsters. Could it have been done better? Sure, but it I feel the theatrical version was worse.

megladon8

03-20-2008, 07:03 PM

When Smith captured the girlfriend and the creature almost fried himself just to get her back. Smith chalked it up to his lack of intelligence, but it was obvious that he had feeling for her.

But we had no reason to think she was his girlfriend.

I don't think it was obvious at all that the female creature was "with" the alpha male.

Sycophant

03-20-2008, 07:14 PM

But we had no reason to think she was his girlfriend.

I don't think it was obvious at all that the female creature was "with" the alpha male.Which, I think, makes clear that the scene is intended as revelation. It recasts the audience's and Neville's understanding (or lack thereof) of them.

megladon8

03-20-2008, 07:21 PM

Which, I think, makes clear that the scene is intended as revelation. It recasts the audience's and Neville's understanding (or lack thereof) of them.

I don't buy it.

I think it was just bad writing and execution.

It's not like I didn't want to like it. I just can't. I think it's horrid.

Sycophant

03-20-2008, 07:24 PM

I don't buy it.

I think it was just bad writing and execution.

It's not like I didn't want to like it. I just can't. I think it's horrid.I still don't understand the extent of your vitriol. But whatevs. I dislike the movie either way. :pritch:

Melville

03-20-2008, 07:53 PM

I just noticed that Heino has a review of this on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=617381

That guy is a genius.

eternity

03-21-2008, 01:03 AM

I quite enjoyed this film for the most part, and despite all the FX on display, the most effective scene was a simple close-up of Will Smith's face when he had to kill his dog.

Not just the only great scene in the film, but the only good one too. Brilliant stuff.

Wryan

03-21-2008, 01:14 AM

I just noticed that Heino has a review of this on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=617381

That guy is a genius.

Heino's a card, alright.

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 04:59 AM

Excellent film.

Will probably be on my top 10 first time viewings this year.

I've always really liked Will Smith as an actor, and this film reinforces my opinion of him. He is awesome.

Besides some dodgy effects, there really isn't anything wrong with it. It's a brilliant adaptation. All of the changes make it a better movie even though it is different than the book.

I loved the quietness of it - the lack of a bombastic score was a good decision.

If all Hollywood genre films were this well made and mature, things would be good.

lovejuice

04-03-2008, 06:07 AM

Excellent film.

i disagree, but the general match-cut reaction doesn't do justice to the film. glad you like it.

MadMan

04-03-2008, 06:33 PM

I just noticed that Heino has a review of this on RT:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=617381

That guy is a genius.Awesome, awesome stuff.

To those who think there's even a small amount of good in the alternative ending, well this sums it up: :crazy: What a stinking pile of dog shit that ending was. I'm sure half of Match-Cut, drunk and hopped up on Mountain Dew could have thought of something far better.

Its really a shame this film wasn't great, as Will Smith's performance deserved greatness.

Sycophant

04-03-2008, 06:51 PM

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 07:00 PM

Its really a shame this film wasn't great, as Will Smith's performance deserved greatness.

It was a great film - excellent even.

We would be lucky if all Hollywood genre films were this good and well made.

One of the better adaptations as well.

Solid directing, great acting, mature, lots of quiet moments, transparent editing, well executed action sequences, great sound design, and a powerful narrative.

The only negative is the less than outstanding CGI effects, but I try to never fault a film for sub-par effects, especially when it doesn't rely on them to tell its story. Some of my favorite films of all time have terrible special effects. It's all about how they are used and the film surrounding them, and I am Legend is an excellent film.

Watashi

04-03-2008, 07:08 PM

Really, D? Even the Shrek scene?

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 07:10 PM

Really, D? Even the Shrek scene?

What was wrong with it?

Watashi

04-03-2008, 07:14 PM

What was wrong with it?
I went on and on and on.

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 07:21 PM

I went on and on and on.

I didn't notice.

I saw it as a key moment in which Neville needed something from his past to draw him back into his immediate surroundings. He had just suffered an extreme loss, lost control of his temper, and needed something to bring him back into reality, or he could have been lost forever.

Granted, I can't stand Shrek, but it makes sense that Neville would know this film by heart.

I remember when I was in high school, and my little sister watched The Little Mermaid every single freaking day. It's one of my all time least favorite films of all time, but at one time I knew most of it by heart, simply because it was on so much.

Given the age of Neville's character and the age of his kid, the Shrek quoting felt genuine, like something his character would really do given the situations.

megladon8

04-03-2008, 07:22 PM

MadMan

04-03-2008, 07:22 PM

I was about to ask MadMan for a reason why the alternative ending can be written off as shit (the only one whose dismissals of things as "shit" I accept is Bella Tarr, anyway), for some explanation of his opinion, particularly in contrast to the theatrical ending, or in response to my own defenses of hte ending. Instead, I'm leaving this thread and never opening it again, because I'm feeling melodramatic.The extremely corny, overbearing melodrama? The whole vampire love thing that quite lame and had no previous basis for existing? Now I don't think that the theatrical ending was actually great either, and both featured out of the blue, nauseating Christian symbolism as well. While it is usually folly to assume, I imagine that the director and everyone involved realized that it was best to go with the theatrical ending. The only other film I can think of that has an ending as terrible as that is Manos and that ending is more plain unexplainable weirdness than anything particularly bad.

PS: I may have to watch the scene again but I can't help but wonder if the use of Shrek was more than just product placement.

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 07:27 PM

I'm glad you enjoyed it, D.

I, too, think it was an almost-great movie. And I agree that more Hollywood movies should be made with this level of poignancy, and the *daring* to have some quiet moments and subtlety.

I absolutely loved how quiet much of the film was. And that first night sequence with Neville and Sam in the bath tub with the sounds of the creatures coming from all around was amazing - totally haunting and incredibly well done.

I also like how short it was; it never felt too long. And final action sequence was short and to the point. It never crossed over into silly Matrix-land. It was chaotic and yet you could still tell what was going on. They didn't make Neville into some uber super soldier either.

I would have liked a few more establishing shots of his house though to really sell the setting. This is the only thing that bugged me about the final sequence.

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 07:32 PM

The extremely corny, overbearing melodrama? The whole vampire love thing that quite lame and had no previous basis for existing?

Oh but it did. When Neville captures the female, the male is clearly upset, and even ventures out into the sun. You can clearly tell that it is more than an instinctual, animal-like desire. At this moment, I felt a little sorry for the creatures. I totally thought that the assault on Neville's house was done in part to rescue the female creature.

But what's wrong with the theatrical ending? It seems perfectly in line to me.

MadMan

04-03-2008, 07:39 PM

Oh but it did. When Neville captures the female, the male is clearly upset, and even ventures out into the sun. You can clearly tell that it is more than an instinctual, animal-like desire. At this moment, I felt a little sorry for the creatures. I totally thought that the assault on Neville's house was done in part to rescue the female creature.Eh, I didn't feel that what you describe was even conveyed. And I thought that they assaulted the house to finally get Neville, seeing as he had killed some of them and such and that they had followed the woman to his hideaway.

But what's wrong with the theatrical ending? It seems perfectly in line to me.The Christ symbolism is my main bone of contention with the ending. I think the theatrical ending is decent, however I wonder why Neville had to sacrifice himself. Was he just tired of living without his dead wife? Or was the hideaway spot too small for him, the woman and her daughter to fit in? Plus the part with the base was clearly a way for the creators to make a sequel. I just feel that the woman and her daughter spoiled the second half of the film, and they were completely unnecessary. Smith was doing a fine job of carrying the film by himself.

I have to note that Neville's house was pretty badass, and should be held up as the perfect way to withstand and outlast an undead invasion. Well until they decide to finally storm the place.

lovejuice

04-03-2008, 09:42 PM

Neville had to sacrifice himself. Was he just tired of living without his dead wife? Or was the hideaway spot too small for him, the woman and her daughter to fit in? Plus the part with the base was clearly a way for the creators to make a sequel. I just feel that the woman and her daughter spoiled the second half of the film, and they were completely unnecessary. Smith was doing a fine job of carrying the film by himself.

haven't read the novel, but i really like this part of the movie. everything before, including the promo pic, leads us to believe smith is the only survival of the apocalypse. regardless of his constant broadcasting, he somehow even believes that himself. it's a big surprise for both the character and the audience. the moment he tries to build back connection to other human being is momentous. granted it's not handled in a satisfying manner, but at least they keep it short enough.

SirNewt

04-03-2008, 10:10 PM

The extremely corny, overbearing melodrama? The whole vampire love thing that quite lame and had no previous basis for existing? Now I don't think that the theatrical ending was actually great either, and both featured out of the blue, nauseating Christian symbolism as well. While it is usually folly to assume, I imagine that the director and everyone involved realized that it was best to go with the theatrical ending. The only other film I can think of that has an ending as terrible as that is Manos and that ending is more plain unexplainable weirdness than anything particularly bad.

PS: I may have to watch the scene again but I can't help but wonder if the use of Shrek was more than just product placement.

I completely agree. My friend and I hadn't seen the flick and we watched the "controversial alternate version" first. We both felt the ending was a very poor attempt to tack some meaning onto the film. The idea that we should feel bad about him curing her because at the same time it killed her animal side was ludicrous. It merely begs the question of Plato's allegory of the cave all over again. Should those who are in darkness not be brought back into the light of day? At that point the male creature was in pain and seeking his beloved and didn't know why. If, Smith's, character had spread the cure among the infected, and so cured the angry male leader, the emotional pain he was enduring then would've been just a memory. Smith would've prolonged his life and given him the power to know his pain.

Also, the idea that Smith was an evil murderer for killing creatures that were unnaturally violent and that threatened his life is without any philosophic merit.

I have not read the book but from what I've been told about it, the filmmakers cut their ties to it at all the wrong places, if they were trying to develop meaning.

From what I've been told the book ends with the main character being captured by the creatures. They, however, fear killing them because his exploits have made him a legend. To me, this concept is far more exciting than anything in the film. The creatures simplified culture could provide a fantastic microchasm for thinking about the way myths are born and spread in our culture.

The film touched on nothing so interesting to me, though, I did enjoy the film.

D_Davis

04-03-2008, 10:19 PM

From what I've been told the book ends with the main character being captured by the creatures. They, however, fear killing them because his exploits have made him a legend. To me, this concept is far more exciting than anything in the film. The creatures simplified culture could provide a fantastic microchasm for thinking about the way myths are born and spread in our culture.

This is not how I read the ending.

To me, he became legend just like Dracula and the vampires did. That is, he became the monster in the world filled with monsters because he was different.

In the book, there are evolved vampires that have established a semi-normal life in addition to the more zombie like, monstrous ones.

[ETM]

04-03-2008, 10:42 PM

Eh, I didn't feel that what you describe was even conveyed.

I felt it was strongly conveyed, and that it was obvious that they had cut or misdirected a lot of material in order to fabricate the theatrical ending. It all pointed to a book-like ending, everything up to the still nonsensical appearance of other humans.

SirNewt

04-04-2008, 12:37 AM

This is not how I read the ending.

To me, he became legend just like Dracula and the vampires did. That is, he became the monster in the world filled with monsters because he was different.

In the book, there are evolved vampires that have established a semi-normal life in addition to the more zombie like, monstrous ones.

Well, I'll concede that since you've read it and I only know what I've been told. I still maintain that what you've described is still more interesting than anything the movie conveyed.

I may have to read this, considering it has been adapted three times already.

D_Davis

04-04-2008, 01:24 AM

I may have to read this, considering it has been adapted three times already.

Well, that and it is also considered a seminal work of genre fiction. Matheson is a fantastic writer.

SirNewt

04-04-2008, 05:08 AM

Well, that and it is also considered a seminal work of genre fiction. Matheson is a fantastic writer.

Not to be a snob but I don't often read genre fiction.

MadMan

04-04-2008, 05:36 AM

;52451']I felt it was strongly conveyed, and that it was obvious that they had cut or misdirected a lot of material in order to fabricate the theatrical ending. It all pointed to a book-like ending, everything up to the still nonsensical appearance of other humans.If that is the case then that certainly explains a good deal. Either Lawrence didn't have enough control over the picture or him and the screen writer didn't trust themselves enough to come up with a satisfying, far superior conclusion. It could be a combination of the two however.

D_Davis

04-04-2008, 01:04 PM

Not to be a snob but I don't often read genre fiction.

It's never to late to start.

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

04-04-2008, 03:45 PM

What was wrong with it?

Why Shrek though? Do filmmakers believe that by inserting something that really exists, they render their (fictional) movie more realistic? Believable? I found it a little distracting and Murphy's motormouth donkey immediately sprang to mind. I recall imagery of Tom Skerrit spliced together with footage of Bill Clinton in Zemeckis' Contact and felt the same way, but this was worse. Nonetheless, Smith puts in a fine performance, but despite all the noble intentions, I couldn't help but feel that, like Lawrence's Constantine, this one overreaches for dramatic power. I also would have preferred it if the location of this movie hadn't looked so obviously like New York, but instead something a bit more anonymous, like in Fincher's Se7en. Bad call also to not stick with just one flashback at the beginning. I reckon that would have made the desolation and loneliness more pervasive. Poor call also that he meets other humans. He's so fucked up that he starts talking to mannequin dolls and him meeting others almost felt a little cheap. Might as well go for broke with the loneliness aspect of it. The action's terrible in the third part.

D_Davis

04-04-2008, 04:58 PM

Why Shrek though?

Because it's a film that is popular with families and so it makes sense that Neville's kid would have been into it at the time, and therefor Neville would have also seen it dozens of times.

How would an anonymous setting make it better?

MadMan

04-04-2008, 05:37 PM

SirNewt

04-04-2008, 06:41 PM

Why Shrek though? Do filmmakers believe that by inserting something that really exists, they render their (fictional) movie more realistic? Believable? I found it a little distracting and Murphy's motormouth donkey immediately sprang to mind. I recall imagery of Tom Skerrit spliced together with footage of Bill Clinton in Zemeckis' Contact and felt the same way, but this was worse. Nonetheless, Smith puts in a fine performance, but despite all the noble intentions, I couldn't help but feel that, like Lawrence's Constantine, this one overreaches for dramatic power. I also would have preferred it if the location of this movie hadn't looked so obviously like New York, but instead something a bit more anonymous, like in Fincher's Se7en. Bad call also to not stick with just one flashback at the beginning. I reckon that would have made the desolation and loneliness more pervasive. Poor call also that he meets other humans. He's so fucked up that he starts talking to mannequin dolls and him meeting others almost felt a little cheap. Might as well go for broke with the loneliness aspect of it. The action's terrible in the third part.

I think an anonymous city would be a fairly irrelevant change. But yes, the action is terrible in the end. It didn't even make much sense to me. If the creatures could just rocket themselves against his metal shutters and bash their way into his house, what was the point of having them in the first place?

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

04-04-2008, 06:44 PM

Because it's a film that is popular with families and so it makes sense that Neville's kid would have been into it at the time, and therefor Neville would have also seen it dozens of times.

It's popular with families in the real world.

Why not just some unknown cartoon footage? Would we not have made the connection that it must be something popular? Espesh if Neville starts to get into the whole thing. Meh, I know this is nitpicking.:lol:

number8

04-05-2008, 12:12 AM

SirNewt

04-05-2008, 01:10 AM

MadMan

04-05-2008, 03:00 AM

I've decided that I will never see this film.

Not unless someone cuts one of my balls and threatens to cut the other.

From all the positive and negative comments I've read, I'm pretty certain I will hate it with my bleeding loins.Heh. Give it a chance man. You never know...

But hey this is coming from someone who likes The Omega Man the best out of the three adaptions. Note I didn't say it was the best; I just said I like it the most. Although I'm a huge fan of The Last Man On Earth as well.

megladon8

04-05-2008, 03:32 AM

I'd say The Last Man on Earth is definitely the most faithful adaptation.

But of the three, I liked I Am Legend best, as a movie unto itself.

MadMan

04-05-2008, 04:45 AM

Just because I feel like it:

The Last Man On Earth(1964)-90
The Omega Man(1971)-75
I Am Legend(2007)-80

Bosco B Thug

04-05-2008, 08:14 AM

Very meh. Directing was bleh. Lawrence doesn't impress at all until a suspense/action sequence (the climactic siege was pretty cool). I was thoroughly uninvolved a good deal into the film. It finally begins to maybe get interesting with Neville showing himself to be socially starved and the mutants showing themselves to have intelligence, but neither of those go anywhere. Well, Neville's diminishing social instincts are further developed what with his erratic behavior when Anna and Ethan come in... but then it's resolved by that awful, egregiously dramatically evasive Shrek scene. Then I thought it was gonna start becoming interesting again with Neville's emphatic need to remain and "fix" his Ground Zero counterpointed with Anna's (kinda scary, I thought) willingness to ramble about God. Then I thought the film resolutely decided to kill both the new characters off in a ballsy turn toward darker territory!! But no. And then the film proved to be one big fake-out towards meaning with the terrible ending. Please tell me the title "I Am Legend" has a much more interesting meaning in the Matheson story (which I will try to read in the near future).

Ugh, and the CGI. The use of CGI here is just lazy lazy filmmaking. Creatures were silly looking and not scary (and definitely not vampires).

Morris SchÃ¦ffer

04-05-2008, 08:42 AM

I think the fact that we know its NYC, only its empty and everyone's dead only makes the whole setting of the movie more creepy and eerie. It adds to the film's overall atmosphere. Since we all know what NYC looks like (even those who haven't been there) seeing it as a dead city works extremely well. Why make it some anonymous city? If it had been some random city I wouldn't have connected so well with the setting, and besides much of NYC works well anyways, as it contains many aspects of other cities.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose even an entirely vacated NY feels comfortably familiar to me. I had the impression that while watching this movie, I could see grumpy New Yorkers behind their windows and behind barricades cursing the film crew for shutting down entire sections of street. Perhaps the problem resides with me then and I couldn't suspend disbelief enough.

DrewG

04-05-2008, 08:28 PM

I like one thing about this movie: in it Will Smith lives on Washington Square North. I currently reside on Washington Square West. It was just cool to see it and be like "woah, I walk by that shit on the way to class."

However apart from some seriously "how'd they do that?" empty New York City street sequences I really think the film just crumbles all over. I hate to nitpick CGI and I'm sure it has been done to death in this thread but wow, it nearly destroyed the movie for me. The thing I don't get is that if you're willing to shell out the insane amount of millions for Will Smith and then even more millions of dollars in order to empty New York's busiest areas for filming, then you really can't invest in better special effects or hey, get this, use extras? Good makeup? Imagine The Descent "creatures" were running around in I Am Legend? I really think that would work 100x better, along with eliminating the cartoonish super-human villain that seems to really hate Neville. Clearly becoming a monster doesn't effect your ability to work on your pull up's when you're stuck inside the whole day when it's sunny.

I also found Smith's performance to not be terrible, that might be too harsh a word considering he really does most of in isolation, but just far too inconsistent to really sell me that he was this brilliant scientist slowly fading mentally. In reality his whole performance unhinges on his delivery of terrible dialogue by Goldsman, the prime example being one that brought the audience I saw it in theaters with into an uproar:

"Everyone is dead...DEEEEEAAAAAAD!"

Now that was bad.

MadMan

04-05-2008, 11:33 PM

Honestly I think that Goldsman is one of the worst screen writers ever. His dialogue makes the worst of Lucus look Oscar worthy. If I recall Goldsmith actually won an Oscar. That's just sad.

Sycophant

04-06-2008, 07:21 AM

Honestly I think that Goldsman is one of the worst screen writers ever. His dialogue makes the worst of Lucus look Oscar worthy. If I recall Goldsmith actually won an Oscar. That's just sad.
I'll ignore the overstated criticism, but will say that Juno's win last year renders this entire sentiment meaningless.

Ezee E

04-06-2008, 04:19 PM

I could've seen this on the plane, but I got a 767 plane and Freedom Writers again.

Oi.

MadMan

04-07-2008, 03:37 AM

I'll ignore the overstated criticism, but will say that Juno's win last year renders this entire sentiment meaningless.I haven't seen Juno yet. I highly doubt the script for it is worse than say Lost in Space or Batman and Robin. I'll still give A Beautiful Mind a chance as I don't hate Ron Howard as much as others here do, despite the fact that Goldsman wrote the screenplay for the film.

Dukefrukem

12-16-2011, 07:34 PM

Sorry for bumping this. But I found this make up test in the comments after I found the make up test for Raimi's fist Spider-man movie. Why the hell wasn't this used over the CGI crap we ended up with? This is infinitely better.

j22RthvabUM

megladon8

12-16-2011, 10:36 PM

MadMan

12-16-2011, 10:40 PM

Not only would that make-up be infinitely better than the horrible CGI, I also wish they had been freaking vampires.

Why oh why do we keep remaking this VAMPIRE BOOK into a movie about ZOMBIES.

There hasn't been a good vampire movie in years. This could be the one! Just adapt the freaking book as a movie and you've got yourself a winner.I fully agree with all of this.

What's even more disappointing about the Will Smith one is that Smith did a really good, maybe even great, acting job. His performance deserved a great movie, not a merely solid/decent one at best.

Derek

12-16-2011, 10:51 PM

There hasn't been a good vampire movie in years. This could be the one!

What about Let the Right One In? Or its remake? Or, to a lesser extent, Thirst?

MadMan

12-17-2011, 05:03 AM

I actually forgot about Let The Right One In, which I have seen. Thirst and Let Me In both look solid, but I'm not as high on Let The Right One In as many others are. I've encountered people who think its the best vampire movie ever, which is just silly, really. Its a really good movie, however, despite the hyperbole.

Grouchy

12-17-2011, 07:37 AM

I've encountered people who think its the best vampire movie ever, which is just silly, really.
It is.

Dead & Messed Up

12-17-2011, 04:14 PM

If someone told me they thought Let the Right One In was the best vampire movie ever, I'd take that as a sign of good taste, because I think it's probably in the top five. So, no, I don't think it's silly at all.

megladon8

12-17-2011, 06:41 PM

What about Let the Right One In? Or its remake? Or, to a lesser extent, Thirst?

I completely forgot about Let the Right One In. I haven't seen the other two.