Saw this in the theatres on Friday. Nothing great, but not horrible. Pretty slow. I wouldn't say it's worth going to the theatre for. There's some religion stuff thrown in at the end for who knows what reason.

I agree 100%. It was entertaining, but nothing close to what I heard it was supposed to be.

I'm looking forward to this. The book was fantastic. It threw in some religion stuff in it as well. I'm sure they made a lot of changes from the book, but I can live with it in this case. There are a lot of different ways you could go with it.

As far as moving slow, it really needs to move slow IMHO. The makeup of the story is a slow one. That's the one single thing that would have pissed me off, so I'm glad they paced it right.

I will wait until I can rent it from Neflix. Of course, with 3 little kids I haven't seen a movie in a theatre in about 4 years......

The religious stuff would've made sense to me if they spent any time at all before the end in actually exploring it. It just shows up, and then disappears. Really weird.

The religious stuff would've made sense to me if they spent any time at all before the end in actually exploring it. It just shows up, and then disappears. Really weird.

There are hints earlier in the movie with posters on walls and things like that. I'm guessing the reason it wasn't more than hints was because the main character didn't believe it so it didn't really fit as a stronger presence. With a movie of this setting, I'd be surprised if it didn't come out at some point.

I'm fairly sure that most of the posters here are intelligent enough NOT to take a small kid to this movie, but when I went to see this yesterday I ended up near a kid who was 8 or so who literally cried out for her mommy during a couple of the scarier parts.

I thought it was a decent movie, though depressing as all hell, but it's pretty psychologically intense for a PG-13.

I'm fairly sure that most of the posters here are intelligent enough NOT to take a small kid to this movie, but when I went to see this yesterday I ended up near a kid who was 8 or so who literally cried out for her mommy during a couple of the scarier parts.

I thought it was a decent movie, though depressing as all hell, but it's pretty psychologically intense for a PG-13.

I am always surprised at the stupid things people do. The ones who bring their 6 year old to a Hellraiser movie are the same ones that let their kids play inside the "broken" refrigerator on the front porch. :eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :(

I'm fairly sure that most of the posters here are intelligent enough NOT to take a small kid to this movie, but when I went to see this yesterday I ended up near a kid who was 8 or so who literally cried out for her mommy during a couple of the scarier parts.

I thought it was a decent movie, though depressing as all hell, but it's pretty psychologically intense for a PG-13.

I'm not sure if this is bad parenting or just lazy parenting, but either way it is pretty sad. This movie scared the crap out of me, so I can't imagine what it would do to an 8-year old. Parents deserve some fun too, but find a sitter. Was it at least a time of day appropriate for a kid that age to still be up, or was it a later show?

When we saw the Bourne Supremacy, there were three young women who had brought a total of 4 kids, none of whom could have been over the age of 8. And that was a relatively violent movie.

Was the ending similar to the book's? :)

this movie was great. a lot scarier than i thought it'd be. pacing was great - any movie with essentially one character will feel slow. didn't know this was based on a book, seems like a topic i would've loved enjoyed reading on. i highly recommend this one.

this movie was great. a lot scarier than i thought it'd be. pacing was great - any movie with essentially one character will feel slow. didn't know this was based on a book, seems like a topic i would've loved enjoyed reading on. i highly recommend this one.

I believe that this is the 3rd or 4th movie based on the book.

Yup. Author is Richard Matheson. The book I have with it has 11 stories in it total. I enjoyed all of them, but I Am Legend was by far my favorite.

I've read the book and seen the original Charlton Heston version (The Omega Man) - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/omega_man/

I'd be interested in hearing what people think on how both movies compare. The Omega Man was a bit campy given it was made in the 70s, but it was a solid movie.

The Omega Man was a bit campy given it was made in the 70s, but it was a solid movie.

One of my all-time favorites, which sort of has me hesitating about seeing this one.

My wife and I both loved it. I can't remember the last time I was so stressed out at a movie. We were tense virtualy the whole time.

I think it was neccesary for it to be slow at times to illustrate the mundainess of his existence.

As far as the CGI goes, it 2007, thats just the way things are now.

The main reason that I thought the pacing was good was the fact that it never felt slow to me. Whatever the speed, it always felt appropriate. And the fact that tension was always there probably helped keep things from feeling slow. I also liked that they didn't try to force too much music into the movie. Nothing is as creepy as silence.

Great book--I'm looking forward to seeing the movie next weekend.

As for the kids in theatres, the worst I have have ever experienced was two young ladies that had a 3 or 4 year old at The Grudge. The Grudge was not a good movie, but it had some terrifying visuals.

Ugh. Kids in theaters. I just hate kids in theaters regardless. If he's not old enough to learn to shut up when watching a movie, then you shouldn't bring him to a theater. Go rent him a DVD, and he can ask you all his ridiculous questions and give you his loud comments in the privacy of your own home.

*end rant*

:)

Ugh. Kids in theaters. I just hate kids in theaters regardless. If he's not old enough to learn to shut up when watching a movie, then you shouldn't bring him to a theater. Go rent him a DVD, and he can ask you all his ridiculous questions and give you his loud comments in the privacy of your own home.

*end rant*

:)

I have 3 children but I have to agree with you. My 6 year old son talks constantly during movies and it drives me apeshit. Not only that, he feels the need to replay every event of the movie right after it happens. So here is how a typical movie will play out for us:

Begin movie (Cars, for example);
Character says/does something funny (at least in the kid's viewpoint);
My son replays that scene out loud, thus missing the next 3 minutes of the movie;
My son then asks what just happened;
I explain it to him, thus we BOTH miss the next 3 minutes of the movie;
I am forced to replay the last 10 minutes of the movie;
Rinse and repeat all of the above.

It drives me nuts. I usually try and escape the entire episode by finding something else to do during movie time in my house. It doesn't always work though...:(

This was a 2:10 p.m. showing. The thing I can't figure out is that even when she cried "Mommy", I never saw an adult comfort her. She apparently wanted to go see the movie and either sat by herself or parents dropped her off. As sad as I was for her, I was not going to be the creepy adult who said anything to her. Sorry kid, you're on your own.

My attitude, btw, when it comes to PG-13 movies is that either Elaine or I screen them first before we will let Andrew (who's 7) watch them. I'd say he's been able to watch a couple of them this year, but the vast majority of them are simply not appropriate for someone his age.

Was the theater at a Mall or shopping center?

And they left an 8 year old alone in a theater?

Should have called the cops on them.

Seeing the comments here makes me want to see this. I like movies that are willing to slow it down and actually build to something.

Seeing the comments here makes me want to see this. I like movies that are willing to slow it down and actually build to something.

As much as I liked the movie, there were certainly a few things brought up in the movie that I would have liked to see expanded on. I realize that there is only so much you can do over the course of a movie, but there were some developments that I would have loved to see explained. It makes me want to read the book to see what I missed.

As much as I liked the movie, there were certainly a few things brought up in the movie that I would have liked to see expanded on. I realize that there is only so much you can do over the course of a movie, but there were some developments that I would have loved to see explained. It makes me want to read the book to see what I missed.

I agree here. I want to read the book, as the idea was interesting. In the movie though, the most entertaining parts were when Will Smith acted like Will Smith with some goofy/funny stuff.

As much as I liked the movie, there were certainly a few things brought up in the movie that I would have liked to see expanded on. I realize that there is only so much you can do over the course of a movie, but there were some developments that I would have loved to see explained. It makes me want to read the book to see what I missed.

Did the movie suck you in? That's what I'm hoping for.

I agree here. I want to read the book, as the idea was interesting. In the movie though, the most entertaining parts were when Will Smith acted like Will Smith with some goofy/funny stuff.

I couldn't disagree more.

I was so glad there wasn't to much of that. IMO it would have ruined an outstanding performance by Smith

I couldn't disagree more.

I was so glad there wasn't to much of that. IMO it would have ruined an outstanding performance by Smith

I agree with your disagreeing. There were some parts where Will Smith was obviously Will Smith, but there were other parts where he was just a good character. I thought he was excellent in the movie.

It did seem out of place compared to the whole movie, but the rest of the movie was boring without that. IMO of course.

Does the book explain why that one guy was so powerful and smart compared to the rest of the bad guys?

Did the movie suck you in? That's what I'm hoping for.

It sucked me in completely. I jumped in a number of places, and I got rather emotional in a number of places. I thought it was worth the money to see on a big screen.

While out doing some Christmas shopping this afternoon, I picked up a copy of The Omega Man for $12.

I blame this thread.

As a long-time fan of the book, I despised this movie. They changed so much, it's a disgrace that they called it "I Am Legend".

Blech.

I'm another one who will stay away from the movie just because I don't want to mess with my love for the book. The book really isn't very long, but it does such a beautiful job describing everything and feeling the main character's pain. It really got the whole "last man on earth" despair in a psychological instead of zombie-horror way. Unfortunately, the psychology of it just can't translate as well into a visual medium, at least without a ton of voiceover.

But honestly, I never read fiction, but heard about the movie, so I read the book in 1 evening. Then hearing the differences, decided that I just couldn't let the visions the book gave me get knocked out of my head.

I am always surprised at the stupid things people do. The ones who bring their 6 year old to a Hellraiser movie are the same ones that let their kids play inside the "broken" refrigerator on the front porch. :eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :(

I think it should be illegal to allow people to take a kid of a certain age to certain films. You got to love hearing babies cry during scenes that are extremely violent... That can't be healthy for a kid's future to see these things at such a young age, and too many people are too damn selfish to think of their own children so long as they aren't inconvenienced.

I agree with Schmidty, about the name at least. I think it's pretty silly to call it I Am Legend when they took the entire reason the book was called that out.

The book is really tremendous, I am sure the movie will be disappointing, but the woman in my world wants to see it...

While out doing some Christmas shopping this afternoon, I picked up a copy of The Omega Man for $12.

I blame this thread.
I wasn't quite that bold, but I did use my free rental at BB on it.

How long is the book?

Enough reason to see it, IMO...

1. The terrifying hunt for his dog in the dark. I was so tense during that scene.
2. The dog dying.
3. Smith's well-played descent into madness before the woman and b oy show up.

IMO, all that alone makes the movie worth it to see, at least.

CR -- it's the 2nd point in your spoiler that really has me less enthusiastic about the movie. That's just not something I enjoy in film.

CR -- it's the 2nd point in your spoiler that really has me less enthusiastic about the movie. That's just not something I enjoy in film.

IT was horrible. My wife was borderline sobbing. I think CR doesn't mean it in a twisted malicous way, more of a moving way.

CR -- it's the 2nd point in your spoiler that really has me less enthusiastic about the movie. That's just not something I enjoy in film.

Same here. Although I don't generally see scary/suspenseful movies in general, when I went ahead and read the spoilers for the movie (to see how it compared to the book) and read that section, I knew I wouldn't be able to watch the movie.

why does it have to compare to the book? why can't you just go see a good movie? sometimes people on the internet can be total nerds. just take the movie at face-value. I, Robot wasn't anything like the book, but it's still a movie i watch on DVD cuz it's a good action flick. if the movie was completely like the book why would you need to go see it anyway?

Lathum -- yeah, I didn't think CR meant it in any wrong way or anything, that's just not something I enjoy on film. Plenty of sadness in my life already, no sense paying for more, y'know.

The religious stuff would've made sense to me if they spent any time at all before the end in actually exploring it. It just shows up, and then disappears. Really weird.

After reading this comment, I went and watched the movie. I discovered several instances where intentional forshadowing set us up for the movie's religious conclusion.


1. The butterfly poster at the beginning that says, rather prominently, "God still loves us."
2. The Time magazine cover on the fridge, which asks, "Is (Will Smith's character, was it Nevin?) the Savior?"
3. The wife praying for him and his safety before they leave on the helicopter.
4. With sunlight streaming in the window as he awakens, a crucifix is silouhetted in the window. Not just a cross hanging on the wall (which could easily be a casual set decoration), but a crucifix propped up against the window (a clearly intentional prop).
5. Anna's reference to the survivors camp, naming it Bethel - which in Hebrew means "House of God"
6. The little girl, Marley, twice showing her Dad the butterfly, for no apparent reason.

Through the end, once Anna gives us the "God told me" speech, the allegorical references continued:
1. Most notably, when she asks him "What are you doing?", he answers "Listening (to God)."
2. His line "The cure is in the blood"
3. Her voiceover at the end about Him giving his life to save others, a common Messianic theme in hero movies, but here he's made into a literary Christ figure again.

Now, I don't know how much of that was the author (haven't read it), or how much was even intentional (Messianic themes, like I mentioned, are common in hero movies), but it was more than just a fleeting or pop-up element. It was there throughout if you're looking for it.

IT was horrible. My wife was borderline sobbing. I think CR doesn't mean it in a twisted malicous way, more of a moving way.

Yup, Lathum hit it on the head. It's actually quite horrible, but it is very moving and sad. It doesn't always have to be happy emotional to be meanigful and powerful (in fact, the most powerful moments usually aren't).

why does it have to compare to the book? why can't you just go see a good movie? sometimes people on the internet can be total nerds. just take the movie at face-value. I, Robot wasn't anything like the book, but it's still a movie i watch on DVD cuz it's a good action flick. if the movie was completely like the book why would you need to go see it anyway?

I get what you are saying, but then why use the title of the story. "Last Man on Earth" and "Omega Man" both took from the story and made it their own?

Your argument on why you we see the movie? How bout the Lord of the Ring series?

Was the movie enjoyable, I thought so. Especially the scenes in the dark, absolutely frightening and tense.

The problem I have is that they wrapped it up too much...too fast.


so it's been three years and now someone finally comes to seek him out? Right when he's about to commit suicide no less.

Neville goes on to explain that the affected are de-evolving...yet the alpha-vamp seems to be doing the opposite.

The dog death was heart wrenching...so he can capture a vampire, drug it for the entire movie, and he couldn't do that for Sam?!?

I'm unsure of "Last Man" but in the book and "Omega Man", the vampires/ghouls already know where Neville lives and try to raid and cajole him out of his house. In the novella, women try to tempt him out, which given his situation along with the isolation increases his paranoia and madness.

Now I knew Neville was going to die, but in the movies it's always been Christlike, in the novella, it's a suicide/execution. The story is about the perception of who is really the monster...in the movies, it's always been about being the savior with the cure (finding the cure). What I really liked about "Omega Man" is that Charlton Heston is actually going and saving the counter-culture, Mr NRA himself, dating a black woman, and leading the hippie kids to building a new future...in Will Smith's "I am Legend", Smith is just the be all, end all hero, "my work is not yet done". I think it's frustrating to learn that Smith in his grief and obsession has blotted out that there are survivors like him, the start of the movie seems to indicate he is the "only" one who is not infected and thus the last man alive.

The only new twist is reggae music...now that doesn't mean it was entertaining, like I said, the darkness scenes were scary, but the movie seems to feed on lulls and then blasting you with loud music.

I would have also liked to have seen a little more of Neville being stuck in at night, and perhaps looking out into the night...I think it would have been better served to keep the vamps hidden with brief glimpses in the darkness until say the very end.

Finally, being a biologist, I would hope that the blood sample was kept in refridgeration somehow from the time it left NYC to Vermont, I would think that would greatly affect potency.

By the way, the Dark Knight looks good...

I get what you are saying, but then why use the title of the story. "Last Man on Earth" and "Omega Man" both took from the story and made it their own?

Your argument on why you we see the movie? How bout the Lord of the Ring series?

Was the movie enjoyable, I thought so. Especially the scenes in the dark, absolutely frightening and tense.

The problem I have is that they wrapped it up too much...too fast.


so it's been three years and now someone finally comes to seek him out? Right when he's about to commit suicide no less.

Neville goes on to explain that the affected are de-evolving...yet the alpha-vamp seems to be doing the opposite.

The dog death was heart wrenching...so he can capture a vampire, drug it for the entire movie, and he couldn't do that for Sam?!?

I'm unsure of "Last Man" but in the book and "Omega Man", the vampires/ghouls already know where Neville lives and try to raid and cajole him out of his house. In the novella, women try to tempt him out, which given his situation along with the isolation increases his paranoia and madness.

Now I knew Neville was going to die, but in the movies it's always been Christlike, in the novella, it's a suicide/execution. The story is about the perception of who is really the monster...in the movies, it's always been about being the savior with the cure (finding the cure). What I really liked about "Omega Man" is that Charlton Heston is actually going and saving the counter-culture, Mr NRA himself, dating a black woman, and leading the hippie kids to building a new future...in Will Smith's "I am Legend", Smith is just the be all, end all hero, "my work is not yet done". I think it's frustrating to learn that Smith in his grief and obsession has blotted out that there are survivors like him, the start of the movie seems to indicate he is the "only" one who is not infected and thus the last man alive.

The only new twist is reggae music...now that doesn't mean it was entertaining, like I said, the darkness scenes were scary, but the movie seems to feed on lulls and then blasting you with loud music.

I would have also liked to have seen a little more of Neville being stuck in at night, and perhaps looking out into the night...I think it would have been better served to keep the vamps hidden with brief glimpses in the darkness until say the very end.

Finally, being a biologist, I would hope that the blood sample was kept in refridgeration somehow from the time it left NYC to Vermont, I would think that would greatly affect potency.

By the way, the Dark Knight looks good...


You can have a slow movie not be boring by making the scenes interesting in some way. I just found this movie not doing enough to keep me interested in the many slow parts.

I had a big issue with the leader bad guy. How was he so smart all of a sudden? And he could resist the sunlight a bit? He set up that trap for Neville, trained dogs to go after him, found out about that mannequin that Neville would talk to when renting movies... it was odd.

I'm remembering a couple of scenes I liked though. The part where the dogs were waiting for the two dark areas to be joined by the sun going down was cool. Like a countdown to an attack, but without a timer. I also thought it was freaky when Neville was in the dark warehouse and saw that group of vamps all huddled for a brief second.

I also thought it was really stupid for Neville to not be using a UV light on his gun! He had access to UV light, and UV light hurt the monsters... wouldn't you want that with you JUST in case you go in a dark area??

i'm not doing spoiler tags. this is a thread about a movie, assume people will be talking about it. in fact, skip over my posts in this thread to be safe.


the alpha-vampire was able to be exposed to the light because neville pointed out they fully devolved from humanity. they had no drive to preserve their life. neville mentioned that was the last trace of human character in them, and it was now gone.

um, how bout the fact that the other 2 survivors picked up neville's am radio distress call in maryland, but the colony of survivors in NH hadnt done so in THREE YEARS??


sloppy.

i'm not doing spoiler tags. this is a thread about a movie, assume people will be talking about it. in fact, skip over my posts in this thread to be safe.


the alpha-vampire was able to be exposed to the light because neville pointed out they fully devolved from humanity. they had no drive to preserve their life. neville mentioned that was the last trace of human character in them, and it was now gone.


See, now I'm skipping the spoiler tags, too, because I want to talk about what HA put in his spoiler tag. So, if you don't want it spoiled, skip to next post.


I interpreted what went on with alpha-vamp completely the opposite, as though Neville got it wrong. I saw alpha's emergence into the light and the pained look on his face as evidence that the captured female was unique to him (mate or daughter). I saw his continued pursuit of Neville as a personal vendetta based on that relationship, an attempt at rescuing her. I saw his mimicry of the foot trap as further evidence that alpha-vamp had recaptured human characteristics -- loyalty, revenge, advanced strategic planning, etc. I left the theater wondering if Neville had gotten it wrong...or if I had.

See, now I'm skipping the spoiler tags, too, because I want to talk about what HA put in his spoiler tag. So, if you don't want it spoiled, skip to next post.


I interpreted what went on with alpha-vamp completely the opposite, as though Neville got it wrong. I saw alpha's emergence into the light and the pained look on his face as evidence that the captured female was unique to him (mate or daughter). I saw his continued pursuit of Neville as a personal vendetta based on that relationship, an attempt at rescuing her. I saw his mimicry of the foot trap as further evidence that alpha-vamp had recaptured human characteristics -- loyalty, revenge, advanced strategic planning, etc. I left the theater wondering if Neville had gotten it wrong...or if I had.

Actually, it was my assumption as the activities of the DarkSeekers became clearer that Neville did get this wrong. The Dark Seekers were in fact evolving into an intelligence with a different focus from what they had as human beings. One of my main disappointments with the film was that they didn't follow up on this further.

Neville didn't get it wrong. The movie was just horribly inconsistent and badly written. If he was simply wrong he would have reflected on some of the glaring exceptions to his rules, but he didn't. Things that didn't add up happened and were never expanded on.

Saw it at the iMax, even that couldn't save it. Just made the bad CGI more glaring.

The Batman trailer was fantastic though.

What a pile of shit.

What a pile of shit.

Did you read the book and not like the movie?

Did you read the book and not like the movie?

Yes.

Where did the elk hide at night?

Stop trying to ruin this movie for me you bastards. It looks so good in previews.....maybe I shouldn't see it so I won't be disappointed.

It was alright, I might have to watch it again to fully appreciate it though.

For whoever asked, the book is 320 pages.

I am always surprised at the stupid things people do. The ones who bring their 6 year old to a Hellraiser movie are the same ones that let their kids play inside the "broken" refrigerator on the front porch. :eek: :confused: :rolleyes: :(

I think it's more that the ones that bring their children to these types of movies are the same ones that let their precious child run amok and scream when out to dinner...

My problem with the movie was, the premise BEGS for a logical exploration. Where did all the dead bodies go, for example? There were dozens of potential questions that weren't even addressed, or worse, were deliberately ignored.

Also the CGI sucked.

My problem with the movie was, the premise BEGS for a logical exploration. Where did all the dead bodies go, for example? There were dozens of potential questions that weren't even addressed, or worse, were deliberately ignored.

Also the CGI sucked.

But if it dwelled on these types of things people would be bitching even more then they already are that the move was slow. I didn't need to have everything explained to me, I think the simplistic approach of just telling a story and not explaining every detail made it a pretty good flick. I give it a 4 out of 5 and will probably be getting it in DVD because it's a fun intense movie to watch.

But what I'm really surprised about is that NO ONE has mentioned the Batman/Superman movie advertisement that was up in the background of one of the scenes, that was sweet.

I agree with Cronin. And I'm not speaking for others, just myself. Let the masses bitch if it means I am more entertained!!! If they wanted to gloss over the more interesting stuff then the questions should not have been asked. Speaking of Batman, the bank robbery extended trailer they showed for it was better than I Am Legend.

For those that didn't notice it.

http://www.dangarion.com/gallery/albums/misc/batman-vs-superman.jpg

And the talk is that one of the producers had pitched it to the studio before and they didn't want to do it at the time so it was his thing to put the banner in this movie.

loved the build up
hated the release

My problem with the movie was, the premise BEGS for a logical exploration. Where did all the dead bodies go, for example? There were dozens of potential questions that weren't even addressed, or worse, were deliberately ignored.

Also the CGI sucked.

Not to say there weren't logical fallacies in this one, but your example is poorly chosen. The Dark Seekers were feeders (according to the movie). They ate the bodies.

Overall, it was a decent movie. Didn't blow me away, yet I wasn't disappointed when I left it. Fortunately I didn't read the book and didn't even realize there was one until after I had seen the movie. So that is possibly why I didn't feel disappointed.

And as far as the ending, it didn't feel rushed, it just felt those characters were introduced too late. However, I would bet that this movie was probably going to be longer originally and was cut down dramatically in the editing process. So I would be interested to see Extended Version/Director's Cut when it comes out on DVD.

And Will Smith did a really good job with the character. Can't really understand these "Will Smith" moments you guys are talking about since it seemed to fit the character well. At the beginning, I think most people were thinking that these were comedic moments only to later find out he was just losing it after being alone for some time.

Not to say there weren't logical fallacies in this one, but your example is poorly chosen. The Dark Seekers were feeders (according to the movie). They ate the bodies.

While I agree that is a plausible answer, this was never implied, or directly stated, to my knowledge. The problem is that any of the questions COULD be answered by the viewer, but the movie did not attempt to deal with the questions at all.

While I agree that is a plausible answer, this was never implied, or directly stated, to my knowledge. The problem is that any of the questions COULD be answered by the viewer, but the movie did not attempt to deal with the questions at all.

Will Smith's character talked about the Dark Seekers need to feed. And he broke down the numbers for the woman and child later on when he talked about 12 M immune survivors versus 588 M hungry Dark Seekers, or something to that effect.

Really, I don't think that was much of a reach. If they weren't hungry, why would they bother to go after him and others?

Like I said, I am not saying there weren't huge logical issues with this film. But I just think you chose poorly here. I mean, sometimes, you need to make the leap that the character isn't going to stop mid-scene, look right at the camera, at you, and say, "Cronin, the Dark Seekers ate the bodies."

If a movie explained every little thing in exquisite detail and didn't just allow the viewer to make inferences, the viewing experience would be excruciating. No one would ever watch movies.

Will Smith's character talked about the Dark Seekers need to feed. And he broke down the numbers for the woman and child later on when he talked about 12 M immune survivors versus 588 M hungry Dark Seekers, or something to that effect.

Really, I don't think that was much of a reach. If they weren't hungry, why would they bother to go after him and others?

Like I said, I am not saying there weren't huge logical issues with this film. But I just think you chose poorly here. I mean, sometimes, you need to make the leap that the character isn't going to stop mid-scene, look right at the camera, at you, and say, "Cronin, the Dark Seekers ate the bodies."

If a movie explained every little thing in exquisite detail and didn't just allow the viewer to make inferences, the viewing experience would be excruciating. No one would ever watch movies.

That's not my point at all. I do not care what the answer to the question is, or even that there is an answer: I was disappointed that the movie didn't even acknowledge that it was a question.

That's not my point at all. I do not care what the answer to the question is, or even that there is an answer: I was disappointed that the movie didn't even acknowledge that it was a question.

Why would they further "acknowledge" a question they felt they answered? Every second in a movie is valuable running time. Why would they waste it dropping further clues if the ones provided were already enough (for most anyway)?

Why would they further "acknowledge" a question they felt they answered? Every second in a movie is valuable running time. Why would they waste it dropping further clues if the ones provided were already enough (for most anyway)?

I don't think you remotely understand what I'm trying to say, but I'm quite sure that's my fault, and not yours. If I can think of a better way to explain it, I'll give it a try, but for now I'm at a loss.

dola: I'll just point out that I never said, nor would I, that the movie had "logical inconsistencies". The movie was not even operating in the arena of logic, so therefore it could not have logical inconsistencies.

I'm a sucker for zombie movies, so I really enjoyed this movie. May have to read the book to see what people felt was left out.

Just saw the movie today and liked it, it was good.

But a couple of lets call them "plot flaws"..

1. The dog Sam did not have to die, Nevielle tried that cure, let me be mistaken but its the the same compound 6 that had WORKED in the the rat yes?

2. I gotta think 12 million people with access to heavy weapons like nevielle had could do a nice job of defending against these "zombies" whose only offensive weapons are advanced strength and cannibilism.

It was a movie that kept you on the edge of your seat if you had no recollection of the book or previous versions of the movie. Reminds me of say King Kong, those of us who saw the original tend to prefer that vs. the newer cgi improved version. The difficult part of I am legend is the suspense that made it a decent movie would be gone if you watched it again, & that would lead to more breaking the flaws down. Still feel its a good movie , but wont go down as a classic.

I saw this over the Christmas break, as well.

I thought it was okay, but not great. I thought Will Smith was very good (and this is the third or fourth straight movie that he has impressed me in, after I had been critical of him putting too much Fresh Prince into every role I had ever seen him in). I think they changed the entire spirit of the plot from the book and that is why people are so critical of the movie, but if you consider that it was just source material and not a strict interpretation, then it makes the movie a little better.

I think they could have made the movie much better by sticking to the plot of the book a little better (particularly why he is a legend, which I thought was an awesome part of the book), but it was a decent movie.

While I agree that is a plausible answer, this was never implied, or directly stated, to my knowledge. The problem is that any of the questions COULD be answered by the viewer, but the movie did not attempt to deal with the questions at all.

the next time you want to poke fun at a movie for logical inconsistencies - make sure its about something a kid couldn't have figured out themselves. come on, we're not talking about the ending of the final episodes of the Sopranos, i hardly think anyone else needed to have their hand held regarding what happened to the bodies.


i love it when people do this, trying to act all smart and intelligent and try to tear a movie down just to attempt to make themselves look good, and it turns out they just fall flat on their face doing so.

nice try, though.


actually, not.

Meh. I haven't read any posts in this thread. I think discussion of this abortion of a movie is pointless.

Read the novella. If you've seen the movie it won't be the same experience as I had in '91, but still do it.

the next time you want to poke fun at a movie for logical inconsistencies - make sure its about something a kid couldn't have figured out themselves. come on, we're not talking about the ending of the final episodes of the Sopranos, i hardly think anyone else needed to have their hand held regarding what happened to the bodies.


i love it when people do this, trying to act all smart and intelligent and try to tear a movie down just to attempt to make themselves look good, and it turns out they just fall flat on their face doing so.

nice try, though.


actually, not.

That's two people who think I was attacking the movie for "logical inconsistencies" despite the fact that I explicitly said I wasn't. Is it just me or has this board gotten stupider?

no, it's you.

either you're too dumb to clearly express your thoughts in a coherent manner or you're too dumb to comprehend a particular instance in the film that was understood by virtually 99% of the viewing public.

either way it's you. thanks for playing.

Lol!!! HA is laying the smack down.

I'm still wondering how they were smart enough to bait and set up a trap. Amongst the mountain of idiocy in that flick, that's the one that sticks. And the whole Alpha zombie thing was stupid. Especially since neither of those were explored at all, if I was Smith's character I'd find them both mighty interesting.

the only thing i can think of was it was exactly the same kind of trap that Neville (Will Smith's character) had set up. so it's not like they invented the trap. but i agree one of the weaker points about the movie was the Alpha creature. if you take him out of the equation you really don't lose much. a basic rule of moviemaking is that anything you can take out that doesn't affect the movie is not necessary anyway.

George Lucas forgot that rule when inventing Jar Jar Binks.

Yeah but didn't Jar Jar Binks call for the vote that elected the Emporer to the head of the Galatic Senate thingy? Anyone but him would have realized it was a set up so he in fact was so stupid he was vital to the story.

it could have been any random Senator, it didn't need to be Jar Jar. also, any of the Sith Lord's could have simply did a mindtrick on any of the Senators to make them call for the vote. in fact, that would have been more awesome.

they should have mindtricked everyone then. would have really sped things up.

I'm still wondering how they were smart enough to bait and set up a trap. Amongst the mountain of idiocy in that flick, that's the one that sticks. And the whole Alpha zombie thing was stupid. Especially since neither of those were explored at all, if I was Smith's character I'd find them both mighty interesting.

One of my friends just could not accept the fact that this one creature was so superior to the rest. Why was he? Was something triggered when his companion was taken away? They should have mentioned something.

they should have mindtricked everyone then. would have really sped things up.

or quite simply, just introduce Senator Jar Jar in the scene where he starts to ramble and Padme interrupts him saying "Jar Jar, i'm sure you're time is valuable..". that would've shown him to be a bumbling nincompoop of a Senator and still serve to set up a dumb Senator calling for that bad vote. but again, if that was the purpose it could've been any random Senator. picture this scene:

[after Palpatine assumes his position as Emperor]
location: conference room of a Trade Federation fleet ship, various Trade Federation members, Emperor Palpatine and a Senator sit at a table.

Senator Ran Dumb (random senator who called for the vote): "Emperor Palpatine, I trust you can be expected to hold up your end of the bargain."
Emperor Palpatine: "Trust me, Senator Ran Dumb, you will be most rewarded - as we discussed."
Senator Ran Dumb: "I would hope not to have the entire Senate get word of our "arrangement" should you fail to properly compensate me.
Emperor Palpatine (grinning menacingly): "I assure you, Senator, your compensation will be quick.

[Senator Ran Dumb leaves the room]

Emperor Palpatine (motioning to Dooku): Dispose of him at once. We can not afford to have our plan compromised.
Dooku: "As you wish, my Lord."

now wouldn't that have been cooler than Jar Jar? stupid Lucas.

the only thing i can think of was it was exactly the same kind of trap that Neville (Will Smith's character) had set up. so it's not like they invented the trap. but i agree one of the weaker points about the movie was the Alpha creature. if you take him out of the equation you really don't lose much. a basic rule of moviemaking is that anything you can take out that doesn't affect the movie is not necessary anyway.

Haven't seen the Will Smith version, so I don't know if this is in the finished film, but in an early version of the script (back when Ah-nuld was attached to the project), the Alpha creature was Patient Zero -- the first to be treated with the "wonder" drug and one of the first to become a zombie.

I enjoyed the novella, but felt it had its own set of problems. If you're looking for the most faithful film adaptation, that would be "The Last Man on Earth" starring Vincent Price. From what I've read and heard about the film, Will Smith's "I Am Legend" is more of an "update" of Heston's "Omega Man."

I'm still wondering how they were smart enough to bait and set up a trap. Amongst the mountain of idiocy in that flick, that's the one that sticks. And the whole Alpha zombie thing was stupid. Especially since neither of those were explored at all, if I was Smith's character I'd find them both mighty interesting.

I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it was, but I agree that the trap and the Alpha zombie only made sense if there was some explanation. I seem to remember a discussion about how the zombies had lost their last bit of humanity AFTER we saw the trap. That seemed especially odd since clever planning seems pretty human. It may have gone to show just how out of touch Smith's character had become, but that doesn't really fit either. He was clearly a sharp guy even if he didn't know how to interact with people any more. The Alpha zombie was probably in the movie just to give a face to the bad guys. That was a bad movie-making decision.

Both items needed to be explained (to add to the story) or left out completely.

The Alpha zombie was probably in the movie just to give a face to the bad guys. That was a bad movie-making decision.


Another friend said the same thing, and hated that about the movie.

or quite simply, just introduce Senator Jar Jar in the scene where he starts to ramble and Padme interrupts him saying "Jar Jar, i'm sure you're time is valuable..". that would've shown him to be a bumbling nincompoop of a Senator and still serve to set up a dumb Senator calling for that bad vote. but again, if that was the purpose it could've been any random Senator. picture this scene:

[after Palpatine assumes his position as Emperor]
location: conference room of a Trade Federation fleet ship, various Trade Federation members, Emperor Palpatine and a Senator sit at a table.

Senator Ran Dumb (random senator who called for the vote): "Emperor Palpatine, I trust you can be expected to hold up your end of the bargain."
Emperor Palpatine: "Trust me, Senator Ran Dumb, you will be most rewarded - as we discussed."
Senator Ran Dumb: "I would hope not to have the entire Senate get word of our "arrangement" should you fail to properly compensate me.
Emperor Palpatine (grinning menacingly): "I assure you, Senator, your compensation will be quick.

[Senator Ran Dumb leaves the room]

Emperor Palpatine (motioning to Dooku): Dispose of him at once. We can not afford to have our plan compromised.
Dooku: "As you wish, my Lord."

now wouldn't that have been cooler than Jar Jar? stupid Lucas.

Thank you. My issue of MAD magazine didn't come this month.

also, how would the zombies have known he talked to that mannequin (Fred i think Neville called him) to use that as bait? Neville went to the store during the daytime.

Another friend said the same thing, and hated that about the movie.

I didn't necessarily hate it, but it did take me out of the movie enough to realize that it was a bad decision. I'm not super-sensitive to the movie making process (unless I watch a movie with that intention), but some things are jarring enough to break through the normal immersion.

also, how would the zombies have known he talked to that mannequin (Fred i think Neville called him) to use that as bait? Neville went to the store during the daytime.

Sewers, dark back-rooms, dark warehouse across the street...plenty of options to make this at least possible.

I didn't necessarily hate it, but it did take me out of the movie enough to realize that it was a bad decision. I'm not super-sensitive to the movie making process (unless I watch a movie with that intention), but some things are jarring enough to break through the normal immersion.

I didn't hate it either, just didn't think it was good. Wasn't bad, but wasn't good.

HA brings up another good point. That was something I didn't like at all. I might have mentioned that I didn't like the fact that he was going around with a normal flashlight too... but it's further up in the thread.

Sewers, dark back-rooms, dark warehouse across the street...plenty of options to make this at least possible.

Then there should be some kind of revealing to the audience. If you want to keep it a surprise, then show how they found out after it happened.

they clearly showed Neville setting his routine so that he was outside when the sun was at its strongest (noon time). they also insinuated the zombies stayed away from the light. if we're to believe that Neville stuck to his routnine (going to the movie store at the same time), the zombies should've been in full hibernation mode. the only reason we see the Alpha zombie during the daylight (when Neville was caught in the trap) was cuz it was dusk out. but there's no reason to think they all were observing him from the darkness during the day, the humans devolved into nocturnal zombies.

i don't have a problem with this movie, but yes, there are certain parts that couldv'e been presented better.

Then there should be some kind of revealing to the audience. If you want to keep it a surprise, then show how they found out after it happened.

I guess I don't see this particular reveal as very important. What was important (or would have been if it was expanded) was the thought and planning behind the trap - or at least the recognition and reproduction of a good trap. How they knew where to set the trap seems less important to me. If they are smart enough to create and set a trap, doing some observation during the day (from the shadows) doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. Others, obviously, may disagree.

Finally saw this over the weekend. I enjoyed it... not a masterpiece by any stretch but worth the two hours. I never read the book so I had no expectations going in (probably a good thing... has any movie other than LOTR ever satisfied the fans of a book?)

Any thoughts on the original ending that was scrapped, as detailed here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/alternateversions)?

Finally saw this over the weekend. I enjoyed it... not a masterpiece by any stretch but worth the two hours. I never read the book so I had no expectations going in (probably a good thing... has any movie other than LOTR ever satisfied the fans of a book?)

Any thoughts on the original ending that was scrapped, as detailed here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480249/alternateversions)?

Stephen King's Misery was as great on film as it was in book form...but that is the only one I can think of off the top of my head...

I would have liked the alt ending better. The actual ending was too cliche IMO.

I too had never read the book so I had no expectations. I thought it was a good movie but a tad on the slow side.

Stephen King's Misery was as great on film as it was in book form...but that is the only one I can think of off the top of my head...

Carrie is another example. King himself considers it better than the book.

The Shining?

Vision Quest?

Harry Potter and the sorcerors stone. Pretty much a scene for scene port from the book. (And pretty much the only one of the series that is like that)

The Shining?

The ending disqualifies this one for me. Almost though.

Here's the alternate ending for I Am Legend, if anybody interested hasn't seen it yet:

<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:400px;height:326px" flashvars="" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=9069194438158569730&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

OK, so having seen that I'd say they made the right call. That would be a bit of an eye-roller after everything that had come before it.

(Although I guess if you're a fan of the book, the scene of him looking at the wall of the photos may seem more true to the spirit of the story.)

Harry Potter and the sorcerors stone. Pretty much a scene for scene port from the book. (And pretty much the only one of the series that is like that)
Yeah, this is the obvious one that I missed. LOTR, Harry Potter and the bible. Other than that, you should assume that fans of the book will hate whatever you do.

OK, so having seen that I'd say they made the right call. That would be a bit of an eye-roller after everything that had come before it.

(Although I guess if you're a fan of the book, the scene of him looking at the wall of the photos may seem more true to the spirit of the story.)

My biggest gripe with I Am Legend is that the last 30 minutes or so felt very rushed compared to the first hour or so - like a lot had been cut from it.

For some reason I feel I would have enjoyed the end of the movie a lot more if the alt ending had been the actual ending.

Carrie is another example. King himself considers it better than the book.

I haven't read the book, but I have seen the movie and it's really good. I think most of that is because of Sissy Spacek though, she had that "creepy possessed teenager" look about her...wild eyes, pale skin. I may have to add that book to my summer reading list now.

I've been disappointed in so many other King movies - Pet Semetary (and to think they made a second one!), Christine, etc. There have been a couple of decent made for TV ones though...The Stand is what really sticks out in my head, and Storm of the Century was ok as well. I know they did Salem's Lot a few years ago, but I didn't watch it.

My biggest gripe with I Am Legend is that the last 30 minutes or so felt very rushed compared to the first hour or so - like a lot had been cut from it.

For some reason I feel I would have enjoyed the end of the movie a lot more if the alt ending had been the actual ending.

I feel pretty much the same way. I liked the alternate ending more, but even if it had been used it still would've felt like they were in the middle of the movie and just tacked on the ending without making a good transition to it.

I've never read 'The Stand', but I really liked the mini-series.

Shawshank Redemption. Movie > Book (and I really liked the book).

The alternate ending on the DVD and shown in this thread is the one that SHOULD have been in the release dammit.

Matter of fact, I read on a couple diff blogs that in fact the alt ending was in, but a couple of those wacky test hollywood audiences didnt like it, and they had to reshoot the ending that was in the release.

yet another reason for me to despise hollywood. grr!!!

i prefer the alt ending.

I haven't read the book, but I have seen the movie and it's really good. I think most of that is because of Sissy Spacek though, she had that "creepy possessed teenager" look about her...wild eyes, pale skin. I may have to add that book to my summer reading list now.

I've been disappointed in so many other King movies - Pet Semetary (and to think they made a second one!), Christine, etc. There have been a couple of decent made for TV ones though...The Stand is what really sticks out in my head, and Storm of the Century was ok as well. I know they did Salem's Lot a few years ago, but I didn't watch it.

Carrie is a good book but it's not as well written as his later books. Still a very good read.

As for The Stand, it's one of my favorite books ever and I didn't like the miniseries at all. I really, really wanted too but it is a TV miniseries and somehow it didn't work for me. Merging characters was one of the most annoying parts in that one.

Storm of the Century was pretty good and I agree Pet Semetary was horrid but I kinda liked Christine. Maybe because I saw the movie first but the actor to me played his part well.

My biggest gripe with I Am Legend is that the last 30 minutes or so felt very rushed compared to the first hour or so - like a lot had been cut from it.

For some reason I feel I would have enjoyed the end of the movie a lot more if the alt ending had been the actual ending.

My problem is that we saw them destroy all the bridges to quarantine the island but this woman and kid drove there and then drove away. I couldn't figure that one out myself.

Lets not forget she travelled around just fine at night with all the seekers around and even found time and ability to wade through hordes of them to save Neville.

I've never read 'The Stand', but I really liked the mini-series.

I've read the book, and I agree that the movie series is great; especially because my true love, Molly is in it. No offense to my wife. :)

I'm not sure about the alt-ending. I like that it seems to have more meaning than the one they chose to go with, but as someone who hasn't read the book I would have been totally confused by that ending in the theatre. If they did go with that ending they would have needed to make some minor adjustments to clear things up a little bit, I think.

That said, the entire movie was a disappointment, but I do think I might try to read the book at some point as it sounds interesting.

I'm not sure about the alt-ending. I like that it seems to have more meaning than the one they chose to go with, but as someone who hasn't read the book I would have been totally confused by that ending in the theatre. If they did go with that ending they would have needed to make some minor adjustments to clear things up a little bit, I think.

That said, the entire movie was a disappointment, but I do think I might try to read the book at some point as it sounds interesting.

Wow. I walked out of the theater with a buzz after this movie. I really liked it. Plotholes, sure, but I expected to find them. The movie watching experience was superb, though. I really gave a shit about Neville's character. That's not generally the case, especially in this genre.

Wow. I walked out of the theater with a buzz after this movie. I really liked it. Plotholes, sure, but I expected to find them. The movie watching experience was superb, though. I really gave a shit about Neville's character. That's not generally the case, especially in this genre.

Yeah I agree for the most part. Didn't like the pacing of the last half hour nor the ending, but Will Smith did an outstanding job, and like you say, I gave a shit about his character. And the dog. :(

I just didn't expect a zombie movie. I hate zombie movies.