I Am Legend [spoilers]

The Grumpy Celt said:
I thought he did a good job.

Quite so. Smith, like many comic actors, is a surprisingly effective dramatic actor. Reviews that favorably compare his depiction of his character's isolation with Tom Hanks in Castaway are on the mark. The movie has real emotional weight and tension basically all the way up until the other two survivors are introduced to the story. Then, the movie quickly becomes just another "let's run from the monsters" film.

Regarding mutant heads versus bulletproof glass: It doesn't strike me as much of an issue. The mutants obviously had superhuman strength and speed. I guess one can be realistic about a virus that turns people into superhuman strong and fast cannibal vampire-zombie-mutants, but if realism were the goal, then the virus would pretty much just kill its victims rather than result in comic-bookish transformations.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Hand of Evil said:
That was Tom Hanks

D'oh! I knew that! My wife was talking at length recently about an unauthorized Tom Cruise biography, and I guess I still haven't managed to purge that "conversation" from my memory. Mea culpa maxima!

:D
 

Mean Eyed Cat said:
Right, I'm not disputing the fact that it can't be broken. It's more about what does one's head look like after said glass is all broken. In the movie, alpha mutant's head is not damaged in the least. With all that banging, it should have been a pulpy mass stumped up on his shoulders.

But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not an expert in this area. Let's just say it was hard for my "Suspension of Disbelief" to kick in at that point.
The bigger question is how did they open the thick metal door to his lab?!

But let's face it, the story of the movie isn't exactly about realistic Vampire/Zombie creatures.
There is basically no chance that a scientist comes up with a cure against cancer that works in 100% of all test cases and shows no side effects that then suddenly turns a part of humanity into monsters.

The real interesting thing was the character Neville. And I thought this character went pretty well.
The "real" mistake of the movie might be that they didn't discuss the implications of the set-trapping and planning Zompire leader. Because clearly Neville doesn't recognize their behavior changes (he speaks of complete social deevolution, while the opposite actually happens at that point!).

By the way, can anyone spoil the real book for me (do it in spoiler tags, in case someone still wants to be surprised by the real ending?) What does happen in the end with Neville?
 

From Wikipedia.

[sblock]The story takes place between January 1976 and January 1979 in Southern California. The novel opens with the monotony and horror of the daily life of the protagonist, Robert Neville. Neville is apparently the only survivor of an apocalypse caused by a pandemic of bacteria, the symptoms of which are similar to vampirism. He spends every day repairing his house, boarding up windows, stringing and hanging garlic, disposing of vampires' corpses on his lawn and going out to gather any additional supplies needed for hunting and killing more vampires.

Much of the story is devoted to Neville's struggles to understand the plague that has infected everyone around him, and the novel details the progress of his discoveries.

One day a dog appears in the neighborhood. Neville spends weeks trying to win its trust and domesticate it. He eventually traps the terrified dog and wins it over, but it dies from the vampire infection a week later.

As the story progresses, it is revealed that some infected people have discovered a means to hold the disease at bay. However, the "still living" people appear no different from the true vampire during the day while both are immobilized in sleep. Thus, along with the vampires, Neville kills the still living people. He becomes a source of terror to the still living, since he can go around in daylight (which they can only do for a short length of time using a special pill) and kill them while they sleep.

They send a still living woman named Ruth to spy on Neville, and they replicate Neville's relationship with the dog. Ruth, terrified of Neville at first sight, goes against her role of spying on him and runs away. Rather than spend weeks trying to win her over, he attacks her and drags her back to his house. Eventually Neville performs a blood test on her, revealing her true nature to him right before she knocks him out with a mallet. Ruth leaves a note telling him about the group of people like her, explaining that she was sent to spy and how monstrous he appears to them. Months later, the still living people attack, injuring Neville, but taking him alive so that he can be executed in front of everyone in the new society (which Neville finds very primitive).

Before he can be executed, Ruth provides him with an envelope of pills. Neville takes the pills to commit suicide before the still living execute him. As he dies he reflects on how the new society of the living infected regards him as a monster. Just as vampires were regarded as legendary monsters that preyed on the vulnerable humans in their beds, Neville has become a mythical figure that kills both vampires and the infected living while they are sleeping. He becomes a legend as the vampires once were, hence the title "I Am Legend".[/sblock]

I thought Smith was great in the movie. It's the writers who should be blamed, or whoever had final script approval. Ugh, how could they do this to the story? It's like ending 300 with Zeus coming down from Olympus to smite the Persian army, saving Leonidas and his men. Totally ruins the point of the story.
 
Last edited:

RangerWickett said:
Ugh, how could they do this to the story? It's like ending 300 with Zeus coming down from Olympus to smite the Persian army, saving Leonidas and his men. Totally ruins the point of the story.
Haha! Indeed.

It was a good movie. But the needless changes they made kept it from being a great movie. IMO, of course.
 

S'mon said:
The protagonist in the book is a tough, indomitable guy like Charlton Heston in Omega Man, or Kris Kristofferson 20 years ago would have been perfect. There's not many current movie stars who could pull off the tough-but-haunted nature of the character; Bruce Willis might give a halfway-decent facsimile. Will Smith is basically a lovable comedian (IMO rather bland), and wholly inappropriate. Remember this character becomes The Legend - and not in a good way... Charlton Heston had the gravitas, pity he had a bad script.

Golden Globe and two-time Academy Award nominated Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "The Pursuit of Happyness" Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "Ali" Will Smith? That's who you think of as a bland lovable comedian without gravitas?

I think you're stuck about 10 years ago. Will Smith is, in my opinion, and the opinion of many people including Academy voters, way beyond "lovable comedian" at this point. He's a top tier actor now.
 

Mistwell said:
Golden Globe and two-time Academy Award nominated Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "The Pursuit of Happyness" Will Smith? Academy-Nominated "Ali" Will Smith? That's who you think of as a bland lovable comedian without gravitas?

Yeah, I think Will Smith is a great actor. The problem with I am Legend was a script that completely pooped all over the original source material. Good source material. They at least could have done the book the service of naming the movie something else.

I think I said this before (probably in this thread) but the stinkin' title of the movie doesn't even make any sense with the changes they did to the story. I think I'm beginning to see why Richard Matheson is so damn bitter.
 


The alternate ending is better. I think Neville needs to die at the end. The best suggestion I've seen is for him to die, and then for the woman to escape with the kid, so her voice-over at the end could be about how to the new people of the world, it is the human who is the bogeyman, the monster, . . . the legend.
 

Remove ads

Top