I Am Legend is a 1954 science fiction novel by Richard Matheson about the last man alive on the planet Earth. It has since been adapted into three films, the most recent of which just premiered and stars will Smith as Robert Neville.

Disclamer: Okay, so before I begin I must absolve Mr. Smith of any wrongdoing in participating in this film. He did the best he could with what he had and his performance made the film halfway decent for the first hour or so.

Review (possible spoilers):

I Am Legend started off as a fantastic novel about the nature of man and monster told in a post-apocalyptic setting. It was one of the first novels to try and explain vampirism using science rather than giving supernatural explanations. It also inspired many now-famous authors, including Stephen King (He just loved the apocalypse-setting).

It has since been made into no less than three shit-tastic films, all of which hate, not because they were necessarily bad, but because each film missed the whole damn point of the book. I had high hopes for this newest incarnation but Smith's I Am Legend is superficial at best, at worst it's like someone took a nice fresh dump all over this masterpiece of fiction.

The first part of the movie actually did try to be somewhat faithful as it captured the loneliness of Neville's character inbetween flashbacks of his dead family. The most interesting element of the film is how he experiments on the diseased mutations in the hopes of finding a cure for the disease.

If you actually do plan on seeing this film, just watch the first hour or so and make up your own damn ending because after that the movie goes downhill like a fat kid on a sled...In the Atlantic.

What starts as a fairly decent film becomes a ripoff of 28 Weeks Later. Literally. Young girl and young boy. Cure found. Hell, the virus is even eventually touted as an infection that increases the victim's aggressiveness. I hate it when films blatantly rip-off of other films, but now we have a new champion.

An adaptation that rips off of a previous film. A film, based on a book that pretends to be another film...There is nothing on planet earth more insidious than that. How about I pretend my drink is a molotov cocktail as I throw it at the damn screen!

Not only did it manage to piss me off in that area but it did the unthinkable. It changed the ending of the book so drastically it became a completely different film.

Let me break it down for my homies: The book's title was referrence to how man had become the stuff of legends like Vampires had been in the past. The movie gave a lame copout, Neville was a legend because he found the damn miracle cure.

You see what I'm getting at about the film being superficial yet?

No?

I'll continue. The book went on to show that Neville had become a monster, in essence like the very thing he was trying to kill. The vampires in the novel had literally created their own society, the only difference being that they couldn't go out in the day. The film takes a more narcissistic approach. Neville is NEVER the bad guy. EVER. And any time he does something deplorable, it's explained away. It feels like you the only thing you can feel for Neville is sympathy. You can never question his motives or actions because in the end they were for the greater good.

The Greater Good...(ahem)

For instance, there is moment when he is saved by two survivors of the plague. They may be the last two human beings on PLANET EARTH. He pulls a gun on them. Then during breakfast they tell him about a sancturary of survivors in Virginnia. He snaps. I mean goes batshit loco. Then makes a funny comment and everything is okay. ( I literally remember the audience breating a sigh and laughing when he cracks the joke)

I Am Legend is legendary in it's amount of bullshit! It couldn't show humanity's ugly side like the book did. I feel it is quite telling about the current generation in that we can't be... Well, bad. We always have to be the good guys.

In the novel, Robert kills the vampires without any real remorse and only at the end does he realize what he has become. In the film, everything he does appears completely justified. No introspection, no horrible realization that the vamp chick he's been experimenting on just MIGHT be the wife of the lead vamp that's been trying to kill him the whole damn movie. Nope nope nope.

Look at the video games of today...Good=Jesus Bad=Hitler. No middle ground, no moral objectivity. Just pure good or pure evil. In this case Neville couldn't be a character of conflicts who does evil for the sake of good. He does mildly questionable things for the sake of ultimate good. You can't sympathize with the vamps in ANY way, especially since they all look like that evil guy from Harry Potter.

It snuffed out all of the tension, conflict, and realism that the novel had been known for.

I give I Am Legend the film 2 out 5.

Read the book. For the love of jesus and dead puppies read the book!

wow, great review. Haven't read the book, but with all the publicity going around I've been meaning to.
And the first thing I thought seeing the trailer was 28 days later. I mean, yes 28 days was no doubt based on the book in the first place, but they use exactly the same logo to advertise this damn film as they did 28.

I always thought 28 Days Later was supposed to be an alternative to the zombie movies like "night of, dawn of, etc...".
The book does sound incredibly interesting, and I do hate the way most movie versions of good, if depressing, novels become hollywood-ized into happy endings where the good-guy always wins, always gets the girl, always stays good, and his friends always miraculously survive. But, truthfully, I hate to say it, Hollywood has a point; I'm certain that focus groups have shown conclusively that people prefer movies that have happy endings. They earn far more money that way.

True, and what is Hollywood if not a money machine?

I have never read the novel, so I really don't know how it compares to the movie. However, I must disagree, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. This is most likely because I have nothing to compare it to, but I thought it was fantastic. The art direction is very well done and I thought this was the best acting I have ever seen from Will Smith. The scene where Sam ran into the dark building was probably the most intense, edge of my seat experience in the movies this year. I was also not expecting it to be so emotional at times. I haven't felt so moved by an animals death since Bambi. Sure, the CGI was a little dated and the ending was a little lame, but I am willing to forgive that.

I loved the book, and despite the unwarranted changes which completely made the movie miss the point of the book I like the movie too. I simply judged the movie on its own merits instead of hoping it would live up to the book. It is kind of like the difference between Blade Runner, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I liked both of those as well, but they really don't have much in common.

Let me start by saying that I loved the book, it was one of my favorites since I read it and it still is. I went to this movie hoping beyond all hope that they would have it resemble the book. It didn't plain and simple, will smith did do a good job for his role and overall the movie was entertaining to a degree but if you rate it against the book it is horrid, but as just another movie it is ok. 3/5.

I seen this film on opening day, I didn't read the book but found the film pretty good. I don't think its better then 1970's The Omega Man but few modern movies are better then their earlier adoptions but it wasn't bad. Here's hoping "I am legend" will inspire Hollywood to make less movies about super human mind freak girls fighting zombies hordes and start making... well anything else... I'm not saying the entire resident evil series was bad... no wait... thats exactly what I'm saying, but thats not here nor there.

I rather liked it, even if the ending was rushed and the flashbacks were completely unneeded. It had some good acting and fun scary bits as well as incredibe FX.

Did the little boy get any lines? I don't remember...

Not to mention that 28 Days Later was a total rip off of Day of the Triffids... And Independence Day was the early War of the Worlds, right down to the "flying wing" plane and the church scene.

MrCrun:
Not to mention that 28 Days Later was a total rip off of Day of the Triffids... And Independence Day was the early War of the Worlds, right down to the "flying wing" plane and the church scene.

War of the Worlds was written in 1898, about 100 years before Independence Day.

I just read your review. I disagree on a lot of points.

It's made so obvious that the lead blue-eyed monster has a deep connection to the female Neville captures. It's displayed that Neville isn't perfect when he pretends he didn't catch on to this and he refuses to accept that these monsters aren't so monsterous even though you'd think as a scientist he'd have a better grasp on reality. Also, even though he's the best hope for a cure, he tries to kill himself. He'd rather be eaten than save the world. Doesn't sound very saintly. Also, he pulls the gun on the survivors because he's crazy (as well as the whole fiasco with the mannequin). He's not flawed to the point of an anti-hero, but he's crazy and neglectful and foolish. I think the best parts of his character development is subtle, and is therefore drowned out by the lack of subtlety in the 'message'.

Great movie overall. Are there things in character development that could have been changed? Sure! It happens. I put myself in the shoes of a guy that is alone in New York, has lost almost everything (good old Samantha) and no idea when/if he'll see another person ever again, not to mention zombie type creatures that come out at night to try and eat you. I think the character held it together pretty well.

Which brings me to Cast Away with Tom Hanks. This guy was only messed up in the beginning of the movie and actually seemed to get more focused. After 3-4 years (I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I think it was that long)and coming back into society, I don't think I would have been as calm and collective. 3-4 years with only talking to a volleyball! I don't think people really grasp what being alone for that long can possibly do to you, although the stereotypical gamer that locks himself in the basement could be considered the same I guess...unless he plays MMOs.

Captain Planet:

MrCrun:
Not to mention that 28 Days Later was a total rip off of Day of the Triffids... And Independence Day was the early War of the Worlds, right down to the "flying wing" plane and the church scene.

War of the Worlds was written in 1898, about 100 years before Independence Day.

Exactly that's my point, but I was talking about the 1953 movie. It had a "flying wing" of the same B2 bomber design that Independence Day used. Almost the only thing ID4 changed was turning the end into a flag waving patriotism-athon. With Brits with the silliest accents ever.

Yeah, the movie was pretty lame. It gets average from me for coming close to almost doing something cool before flipping out with random bad vampire action BS that *hints* at having possibly maybe a deeper meaning, but doesn't really, and ends with a nonsensical sacrifice. The World is saved. God Bless America. Amen.

AmoDman:
Yeah, the movie was pretty lame. It gets average from me for coming close to almost doing something cool before flipping out with random bad vampire action BS that *hints* at having possibly maybe a deeper meaning, but doesn't really, and ends with a nonsensical sacrifice. The World is saved. God Bless America. Amen.

The vampire action was awesome! What are you talking about?
And it doesn't hint, it stuffs the message in your face!

hey did anyone else notice...

28 days + 28 weeks + 28 months = 36 months(3 Years)

3 years since infection at the start of i am legend... 28 months later...

I went to see it last night (Haven't read the books) and I thought it wss pretty good, even if the ending was a huge cop-out. Then, because I was feeling curious I looked up a synopsis of the book, and noticed the differences, I pretty much geussed that they wanted to cop-out and have a standard Heros-Journey story rather than present some kind of interesting and unique message.

It was still an enjoyable movie, even if it was kinda mindless, and the early parts (Namely, once he captures the vampire chick and starts having flashbacks) were well done and interesting. It's a real shame that they couldn't of lived up to the source material.

InsanityManifest:

Let me break it down for my homies: The book's title was referrence to how man had become the stuff of legends like Vampires had been in the past. The movie gave a lame copout, Neville was a legend because he found the damn miracle cure.

You see what I'm getting at about the film being superficial yet?

I've read the book, read the graphic novel (loved them), and seen the Will Smith movie. I agree that the movie is more superficial than the book, but it has to be. It's Hollywood. On the one hand I was grateful that the movie was different than the book, that way I didn't know what to expect when I was watching it. I thought the character work done by Mr. Smith was great, especially in the moments where we see how the loneliness has eaten his sanity.

Whenever I see a movie that's based off of a book I make it a point to see it as it's own work apart from the original. That way I'm not getting my knickers in a twist when something is changed or flat out molested. Theatre audiences are not prepared to see the true translation of the book. 28 weeks was successful. Why rock the boat with something different when you can do what's been done and do it better than your predecessors. It sucks, but that is how producers think. Why take a chance and lose money when they can do what they know works. Indie films are for thinkers, for people who want to think outside the box. When you work for Hollywood, you HAVE to conform otherwise you will flop.

Someday someone will make an accurate translation of the book to a movie and it will be a cult classic, but it will not make huge bank because nobody will produce and hype it up. Until then, enjoy the acting, enjoy the special effects, enjoy the sacrifice and hardships Will Smith goes through, stop thinking and enjoy the movie.

I haven't read the book, though I'd heard of the books ending before seeing the movie.

Personally, great film. Better than the last two recent films I've seen (Beowulf and Golden Compass) and one of the better films this year--though not the best. I have to admit, the acting is intense in this movie. You need an actor who can carry an entire movie, and Will Smith has that charisma.

I also agree that, really, as soon as the woman and the son came on, the movie sort of went downhill. The ending was very contrived and rather unrealistic (so, we have the cure. Woo. Now how the FUCK are we supposed to inject millions of crazy vampires with it, eh?) It's all exceptionally contrived, but hey. Fine. Movies aren't really meant to be smart anymore, and if they are, they are overlooked classics like 3:10 to Yuma.

Besides the last half-hour's plot twists, I found the movie exceptionally emotional and very touching, even if teh poignancy of the book was lost, it's still a great character drama and another very good choice for Will Smith. He deserves as much praise as he can for this role. I would've preferred a darker ending, but frankly, the movie WAS released around Christmas, and it is REALLY depressing almost all the way through, it kind of demanded a happy ending,despite its cheesiness, in order to complete the film.

Personally, I feel that Hollywood no longer knows how to fucking end a movie. Look at Beowulf and look at I Am Legend. They end TERRIBLY--the mood is completely switched for both films, and it derails them, though not I am Legend so much as it did Beowulf. I am Legend at least builds up to the ending--Beowulf's is just far too weak, clutching at weak attempts of true artistic depth in a movie that has already deviated so much from the original book that...hm...I'm ranting. Anyway, they should have given Beowulf a cheesy happy ending and this one an ambiguous, darker ending, and that's all I'm gonna say.

MrCrun:

Captain Planet:

MrCrun:
Not to mention that 28 Days Later was a total rip off of Day of the Triffids... And Independence Day was the early War of the Worlds, right down to the "flying wing" plane and the church scene.

War of the Worlds was written in 1898, about 100 years before Independence Day.

Exactly that's my point, but I was talking about the 1953 movie. It had a "flying wing" of the same B2 bomber design that Independence Day used. Almost the only thing ID4 changed was turning the end into a flag waving patriotism-athon. With Brits with the silliest accents ever.

I see your point, they may have been some similarities but I wouldn't say one ripped off the other. It's difficult to find anything in modern sci-fi that is entirely original.

Good Movie, Horrible Adaption.
That's pretty much my opinion aboot it.

MrCrun:
Not to mention that 28 Days Later was a total rip off of Day of the Triffids... And Independence Day was the early War of the Worlds, right down to the "flying wing" plane and the church scene.

How in the World was 28 days latter a Rip off from Day of The triffids. I mean sure they guy woke up to find England screwed but thats it. And wasent The War of the Worlds originally a radio prgram based on a novel.

Since when does anyone remake a movie of a book to be competely true to the book? never. because they dont want to advertise the book they want to advertise the movie. Also i dont recall them EVER making a refrence to the books when talking about the movie. They never even wanted people to compair the movie to the book because they didnt even try to follow the story line im sure. no i havent read the books or seen the movie yet but whenever you go into a book to movie showing you should always go in half heartingly and not let it fog the overall point of view of the movie. just have fun with it. and dont get too serious about book to flim titles. it will wreck all movies for you.

and arent we supposed to be talking about videogames?....not movies....

You went into it expecting too much. Movies of books are very rarely any good. You make up the world inside your head while reading a book, and movies demolish the way you saw those things.

myself:

I Am Legend is a post-apocalyptic tale set in a virus-ravaged New York City and stars Will Smith as U.S Army Colonel Robert Neville. Neville is the sole human inhabitant of the ruined city and has stayed behind to find a cure for the virus.

Without giving too much more away about the story: I Am Legend is a fantastic story of a man who has slowly turned a little on the insane side. Not a dangerous sort of insane, more a very odd / quirky but he does not realise it - or refuses to admit it. Carrying out entire conversations with his dog Sam and talking to mannequins as if they are real are but a couple of signs he's not quite right. Although there is evidence that he does understand that these strange things that he does aren't normal, he seems to prefer to live in a world where the dummies are real and his dog is his best friend. I can't blame him.

The post-apocalypse theme serves as a good setting and a reason for Neville's bizarre and tragic life for most of the film. Unfortunately near the end the film descends into typical Will Smith "gotta be the hero" fashion. Throughout the first part of the film his reason for being in New York on his own seems rather noble, but towards the end the story borders on silly. It's a shame because the clever character building scenes early on in the film are let down by the more dialogue-full and action-packed sequences of the latter part. This isn't Smith's fault, it's just bad writing really.

The reason for and the result of the apocalypse are shown in short flashback sequences that aren't as distracting as the ones in Lost and much more time is spent in the movie-world present (sometime around 2010). They give a good sense of what he's lost and why he's how he is, while also adding more to the background of the virus without it just being narrated or shown at the beginning of the film. It drip-feeds you who he was before, so that as the movie goes on you get who he is now.

Will Smith's acting throughout the film is brilliant. I've never seen him in a serious film before (not as serious as this. Even I, Robot, was much lighter in comparison,) and it's refreshing to not have him be the brave, wise-cracking soldier or government secret agent. He plays a character with huge flaws that could easily have been done in a more comedic or exaggerated way, but they're all done very believably. A lot of movies I see I don't believe that the character actually feels the things their actor is trying to portray, but throughout I Am Legend Smith has this "everyone's dead and I'm not quite sane" look in his eyes. I can't fault him.

I Am Legend employs a lot of CG for the various animals and creatures that inhabit New York City. It's all done extremely well, and interactions between human actors and the CG are probably the best I've seen in a movie so far.

Overall I would say this is a movie that needs to be watched by just about everyone. Yes there's probably a little less action than a lot of people would have hoped for and it ends a little abruptly, but this is Will Smith playing a quirky but deeply troubled character that is completely believable. This movie works. Watch it.

You're never going to get a straight adaptation of a character and story from a book either. So much life is breathed into characters in a book that there just isn't time to do in your average movie.

The movie is worth watching for Smith's acting alone. It's brilliant. The story does get stupid at the end and I honestly did not expect it to turn out like that. It did not fit.

AnGeL.SLayer:
Since when does anyone remake a movie of a book to be competely true to the book? never. because they dont want to advertise the book they want to advertise the movie. Also i dont recall them EVER making a refrence to the books when talking about the movie. They never even wanted people to compair the movie to the book because they didnt even try to follow the story line im sure. no i havent read the books or seen the movie yet but whenever you go into a book to movie showing you should always go in half heartingly and not let it fog the overall point of view of the movie. just have fun with it. and dont get too serious about book to flim titles. it will wreck all movies for you.

and arent we supposed to be talking about videogames?....not movies....

*Slaps forhead

Of course. Just like how the Lord of the Rings films changed the storyline so that they wouldn't reference the book. And the same with Harry Potter,the Golden Compass, The Godfather...

Actually Lotr was pretty true to the original books, and the films were far more than just an advert. What people are complaining about here is the fact that the themes and subtleties from the book were jettisoned in exchange for Hollywood cliche. If you actually read the whole posts, you would have picked that up.

And if you look at the top, you can see this thread is in the 'Off-Topic' forum, ie- we can talk about anything non-game related.

I read the book but I didnt find the movie bad at all for the same reason I was able to stand Doom, I Robot, and EVERY OTHER ADAPTATION EVER MADE. I mean, all I Robot the book was, was a collection of short stories about robots. If something is different, that doesnt make it bad. If they called it something else and kept the movie the same, not only would people get mad they'd get sued so this is the only way they can make a story similar to the book, by "adapting it". It's stupid but so is the number of words we're not allowed to use that mean stupid.

i havent readed the book but i saw the movie, begining was ok and all that but by the end it becomes dumb, compared to the book or not, like if the writers of the script became lazy after that will smith is rescued.

note: i just readed the fellowship of the ring and i coulnt find the other books, buti readed the harry potter ones and they have made quite decent adaptations if you ask to me.

I enjoyed the film but I felt that it moved way too fast and was a little jerky at times. The flashback moments were well done but the ending seemed a bit...off. By the way I haven't read the book but am looking for a copy so I can see how they compare.

I still prefer The Omega Man. The Family had a creepy, organised quality to them. I Am Legend, the film, made me jump more than anything. That's film wise.

I don't think that the films really quite up to the novel though.

I also personally found it God damn horrible.

I liked it. Rather than consider it a sub-par adaptation of the book, try to think of it as a zombie flick that actually tried to be at least quasi-scientific.

If I had to pick two words to describe this movie, those words would be "Wasted Potential".

Here is a book that they've made into a movie three times, and they have never, ever gotten it right. The second half of this movie was not so much a case of them getting the book "wrong" as it was "the exact opposite of the book". It bothered me that they had an actor like Will Smith, who did a great job with what he was given and could have done the real role justice, and they had rights to do the story, and instead they did.... this. Why even bother?

But what bothered me the most is that I went to see it with my younger brother, who told me about all the "subtle" things the movie did that made it great. Like how the vampire was trying to get his woman back, and how Will Smith was glancing at the empty car seat and such, and it occurred to me:

1) He thinks those things were subtle, and not slapping you in the face.
2) Many people in the theater would agree with him. Many more probably DID NOT PICK UP ON THESE THINGS AT ALL.

That's what bothered me the most about this. You had this chance to take something I loved and bring it to life and instead you just have.... nothing. And one more thing (WARNING: SPOILER COMING!) why, at the end, didn't he just pull the pin, throw the grenade, and get into the bunker with them before it went off? His sacrifice was meaningless. Especially since this version of Robert Neville was pretty much an utterly swell guy.

AvP:Requiem was better. At least I got what I paid for with that.

- J

I liked the movie, and as i watched it i realized that there was something odd about the infected guy that exposed himself. It wasnt untill i saw it a second time (yes i saw it twice, mainly because i feel like i missed something, and i did) I was able to put it together that the female infected had some kind of relation to the male that exposed itself to light in anger. I also picked up on Neville's some what arrogant aproach to the infected. He looked down on them, and didnt try to explore what they were. Instead he just tried to fix what was wrong, even after he fell victim to the infected male's trap he didnt take a second to think "hmm he set up a trap to capture and kill me, that shows a high level of thought", nope he just goes on a killing spree...which i cant blame him, i almost cried when the dog died. All in all i thought it was a good movie and that Will Smith's acting was a major high light. I knew this was a remake or a book to film movie but i couldnt place it. Thank you for the info about the book its based on, im omw to mall in a bit as is and will probably pick up the bookand read it. The book is always better then the movie.

Personally I thought it was terrible, one of the worst films I saw last year.