View Full Version : I am Legend
Has anyone see this movie?
I saw it last night, and thought it was pretty entertaining. The scenery in New York City was amazing. It was pretty interesting to see what it would look like abandoned for about three years.
I really liked the first half of the movie. You had no idea what the creatures looked like and the first encounter with them made me literally jump out of seat several times.
The second half was a bit meh. I don't think they did a great job at finishing the movie. It kind of appears like they ran out of time. However, it was still very entertaining and fun to watch.
Overall I'd give it a 7.5 out of 10, and I would recommend it to anyone who can tolerate it.
The book (http://www.amazon.com/I-Am-Legend-Richard-Matheson/dp/0765357151/) rocks six kinds of "Oh yeah!" It's a classic. And its ending is perfect, although probably too dark for Hollywood. No doubt they changed it. I may have to skip this one, since I hate to see great books mutilated on the screen.
Didja know this is the third attempt to make this book into a movie? And the first one to bear the same title as the book? The previous versions were Last Man on Earth (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058700/) and Omega Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067525/).
They tried to "improve" on the ending as well. Idiots.
-edit-
I wonder if I Am Legend will go down in history as having as many bad film versions as The Island of Doctor Moreau?
Banquo's Ghost
12-15-2007, 20:18
You took the words right out of my keyboard, Lemur. The book is indeed a classic. :bow:
Mind you, I found The Omega Man to be reasonable fun, and quite dark until the silly ending.
I would hope that this new film is not subject to the same saccharine hatchet job inflicted a few years ago on Matheson's other magnum opus, "What Dreams May Come". Do not watch that movie under pain of psychological trauma, but it's an interesting book.
seireikhaan
12-15-2007, 20:43
I saw it. I thought it was pretty well done for the most part, and indeed, I bet I can guess which part(s) made Ice jump outta his seat, because I know I did at a couple moments. Also, that dog was pretty sweet, that's the kind of dog about any man could ever wish for. The end? Yeah, could've been better, but it wasn't bad by any means, at least in my opinion. Then again, I haven't read the book, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if the book at least ends better. Most books are usually better than their film counter part, in my opinion. Also, I very much liked the oh-so appropriate times when Shrek was on the TV, I liked that quite a bit.
I saw it. I thought it was pretty well done for the most part, and indeed, I bet I can guess which part(s) made Ice jump outta his seat, because I know I did at a couple moments. Also, that dog was pretty sweet, that's the kind of dog about any man could ever wish for. The end? Yeah, could've been better, but it wasn't bad by any means, at least in my opinion. Then again, I haven't read the book, and I wouldn't be all that surprised if the book at least ends better. Most books are usually better than their film counter part, in my opinion. Also, I very much liked the oh-so appropriate times when Shrek was on the TV, I liked that quite a bit.
I wikied the book and apparently it is extremely different than the movie.
It makes sense why the title is "I am Legend" if you would read it.
Yes you are, Ice! (sorry, haven't seen the movie ~D )
Yes you are, Ice! (sorry, haven't seen the movie ~D )
Check out the trailer.
http://iamlegend.warnerbros.com/
Ah, I think I've seen a very early trailer of this one but what the heck is an african lion doing in New York City? :inquisitive:
seireikhaan
12-17-2007, 02:09
I assumed that it/they had broken out of the zoo after, well, I won't say. After the event.
Seeing that trailer, it reminds me of I, Robot: it has Will Smith, he wakes up, he works out, he lives in a small house, he walks in that typical fashion, wears a black coat, it's called I Am Legend, he talks with an animal (a dog, in IR a cat), it's dramatic and grand, and so on. So I think you know what I have to say about. He's a schmuck playing in a schmuck movie! :laugh4:
Alright alright... so he was good in I, Robot, (and IR itself was decent) but in this one too? Looks more like he's playing the same kind of role which wouldn't impress me if true because I've already seen that kind of role played by him (which doesn't necessarily make it worse).
The concept of the movie itself seems nice so I'll probably check it out anyway. At some point I was reminded of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and its cruel nature. Also, the music in the trailer is nice, though the trailer itself was too longwinded and reasonably boring. Still this is a new movie I would rather check than most others which I hardly even pay attention to.
Now someone tell me: on a critical scale of 0 to 10, what is the appropriate grade? Can it reasonably compete with, and defeat, classics?
Geoffrey S
12-17-2007, 15:23
It's one of those cases where I think a decent film would be a lot better with a far better actor. Will Smith? I seriously doubt he can carry this kind of role, and at least think others could have been superior.
As for I, Robot, even the relevance to the books notwithstanding, I think it was one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Can it reasonably compete with, and defeat, classics?
If you're interested in classics, go see No Country for Old Men. I seriously doubt any other film this year will be in the same league.
Ah, I think I've seen a very early trailer of this one but what the heck is an african lion doing in New York City? :inquisitive:
Was there? I didn't get a good look at it(was only there briefly), but I assumed it was a mountain lion. The idea being that, slowly, the city was returning to nature.
I saw the movie and, simply put, it was good but not great. :yes:
Marshal Murat
12-17-2007, 22:32
I think it's plausible. Considering that the zoos would be open and free, along with weather, it could allow a new species of lion roam the concrete jungle.
I think it's plausible. Considering that the zoos would be open and free, along with weather, it could allow a new species of lion roam the concrete jungle.
I didn't think that Zoos would open when all humans are gone, I'd rather expect the animals there to starve. :inquisitive:
Okay, it's a detail and probably not an important one but it seemed a bit weird to me(about as weird as an SR-71 blackbird on an aircraft carrier). :sweatdrop:
Uesugi Kenshin
12-18-2007, 03:31
I didn't think that Zoos would open when all humans are gone, I'd rather expect the animals there to starve. :inquisitive:
Okay, it's a detail and probably not an important one but it seemed a bit weird to me(about as weird as an SR-71 blackbird on an aircraft carrier). :sweatdrop:
Actually that movie is set in NYC right? Then the SR-71 Blackbird was probably on the deck of an aircraft carrier turned museum that sits in the harbor with a variety of carrier and non-carrier related aircraft such as an SR-71 Blackbird. I believe the ship is the USS Intrepid and I went there on a trip with my 11 AP US History class so it definitely is there.
English assassin
12-18-2007, 14:20
They tried to "improve" on the ending as well. Idiots
What, the ending that is one of the all time great endings of all time?
I think I'll be sticking with the book, then.
It's one of those cases where I think a decent film would be a lot better with a far better actor. Will Smith? I seriously doubt he can carry this kind of role, and at least think others could have been superior.
As for I, Robot, even the relevance to the books notwithstanding, I think it was one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Oh come on, it was a decent movie for its kind. Not necessarily that good, but not awful. Whom do you think would fit the role in I, Robot better than WS? And whom do you think would fit the role better in I am Legend?
Actually that movie is set in NYC right? Then the SR-71 Blackbird was probably on the deck of an aircraft carrier turned museum that sits in the harbor with a variety of carrier and non-carrier related aircraft such as an SR-71 Blackbird. I believe the ship is the USS Intrepid and I went there on a trip with my 11 AP US History class so it definitely is there.
Bolding by me, you are correct its the intrepid.
Actually that movie is set in NYC right? Then the SR-71 Blackbird was probably on the deck of an aircraft carrier turned museum that sits in the harbor with a variety of carrier and non-carrier related aircraft such as an SR-71 Blackbird. I believe the ship is the USS Intrepid and I went there on a trip with my 11 AP US History class so it definitely is there.
Bolding by me, you are correct its the intrepid.
Ah, now that's something cool to remember for when I visit NYC one day. :2thumbsup:
Ah, now that's something cool to remember for when I visit NYC one day. :2thumbsup:
After a lot of thought and my admission that you are in fact my favorite poster from6:45am to 6:53am ( a recent 4 minute increase) I formally withdraw my prior stated position of wishing you to not visit the U.S.
Enjoy your stay. :unitedstates:
Geoffrey S
12-18-2007, 23:49
Oh come on, it was a decent movie for its kind. Not necessarily that good, but not awful. Whom do you think would fit the role in I, Robot better than WS? And whom do you think would fit the role better in I am Legend?
And it's kind of movie is what, exactly? The action was dull, special effects atrocious, supposed depth thrown overboard when it didn't suit the writers, plot utterly unimaginative, and the acting wooden. I'm perfectly happy seeing Will Smith in Men in Black, and I'll certainly admit that I enjoyed Enemy of the State or Independence Day. But he is entirely incapable of carrying a serious film with his acting in a lead role without a strong second main character or very tight direction and writing; and indeed such actors are rare.
I, Robot I believe was flawed from the start; I've yet to see I Am Legend, but going on the trailer I'd say it's a film that could be okay but needs a better actor than Smith to prevent tedium. From what I've heard, maybe not even that.
Haven't seen the film yet, but I'd hesitate to blame its flaws on the actor. I suspect the writers are at fault. If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.
Geoffrey S
12-18-2007, 23:53
I'll grant it that. It's probably the kind of middling movie which the lead can make (such as Depp in Pirates) or break.
Some people are really critical of actors, as long as it's not a soap opera I usually don't notice any difference in the acting. :laugh4:
AggonyDuck
12-19-2007, 01:41
And it's kind of movie is what, exactly? The action was dull, special effects atrocious, supposed depth thrown overboard when it didn't suit the writers, plot utterly unimaginative, and the acting wooden. I'm perfectly happy seeing Will Smith in Men in Black, and I'll certainly admit that I enjoyed Enemy of the State or Independence Day. But he is entirely incapable of carrying a serious film with his acting in a lead role without a strong second main character or very tight direction and writing; and indeed such actors are rare.
He did a wonderful role in The Pursuit of Happiness, so I'd say he is definately capable of carrying a serious film with his acting.
Something I found funny
The mutated men could scale a 20 story apartment building and humans last outpost was a mere 10 foot wall and somehow it protected them
seireikhaan
12-20-2007, 17:31
Is that in the book, or the movie, CR?
Because those walls at the outpost in the movie sure seemed like a lot more than 20 feet to me, or perhaps my memories getting a tad fuzzy.:sweatdrop: Plus, I believe they did have guards posted as well.
Will Smith may not be superior to certain others, but he is decent for an actor these days. By the way, Geoff, you didn't really answer my questions :P
Whom do you think would fit the role in I, Robot better than WS? And whom do you think would fit the role better in I am Legend?
Geoffrey S
12-20-2007, 19:09
He did a wonderful role in The Pursuit of Happiness, so I'd say he is definately capable of carrying a serious film with his acting.
Fair point; that's a movie I've yet to see.
Will Smith may not be superior to certain others, but he is decent for an actor these days. By the way, Geoff, you didn't really answer my questions :P
It's a big question, and there are a lot of actors. As with so many films I think the branding of the title with a big star damages the quality of the film, and a relatively unknown actor is more suitable. 28 Days Later springs to mind.
Watch I Am Legend and then Castaway. Very similar.
As for the movie itself. I'd have to say Will Smith fit the role perfectly. I like the way they did NYC, and portrayed his loneliness state even though he had a dog (which was one dog that every man/women would want in that situation), and I wish it was longer so it could get fleshed out the story a little more. I think it was a good 'ole horror movie, and it reminded me of S.T.A.L.K.E.R..
And I personally look forward to Cloverfield.
Fair point; that's a movie I've yet to see.
It's a big question, and there are a lot of actors. As with so many films I think the branding of the title with a big star damages the quality of the film, and a relatively unknown actor is more suitable. 28 Days Later springs to mind.
Eh, 28 days later was horrible. These two films aren't really comparable imho.
Marshal Murat
12-22-2007, 05:51
I just watched it and I have to say it was awesome.
While the digital effects were a little obvious, and some elements weren't explained to fully, I loved the movie. The shocking parts, the emotional parts, everything.
Finally saw it. I'm going to give it two hairy thumbs down, plus a prehensile tail down. Not only does it destroy everything good from the book, it doesn't make sense on its own terms. I'd say more, but I'd have to get into spoiler territory.
I can say this without giving away plot: the CGI looked terrible to me. Very cartoony, very noticeable. Toward the end I felt a bit like I was watching someone else play a videogame.
Ugh. That's ten dollars and two hours I will never get back.
-edit-
Thinking about it, I guess I Am Legend really is the film equivalent of The Island of Doctor Moreau. Both masterpieces, both doomed to multiple film versions, none of which capture the magic of the books, all of which suck in their own special way.
I am getting the impression that people who read a lot of books are almost never satisfied by movies, especially movies about books they read. :dizzy2:
Another reason not to start reading books. ~;)
Marshal Murat
12-23-2007, 01:42
Reading for is idiots.
Reading for is idiots.
What you gotta b lik dat?
:book:
I am getting the impression that people who read a lot of books are almost never satisfied by movies, especially movies about books they read.
I know your tongue is planted in your cheek, but let me address this as though it were a serious complaint.
Books, by definition, are different from movies. So a film is not really a version of the book, it's a translation. Sometimes a good translation, sometimes a terrible one, and sometimes a completely different animal.
The real question is how the film stands up as a film. Does it have a coherent vision? Does it do anything surprising or interesting? Do the characters make sense? Do the scenes make sense?
I can reel off many, many successful book adaptations. Just to pick some recent ones, there's No Country for Old Men, Lord of the Rings (hate them if you like, but they succeed on their own terms), 300 (a silly movie, but a very faithful adaptation), Stardust, Zodiac, Children of Men, Flags of Our Fathers and Notes on a Scandal. All of them succeeded in being decent films. All were based on books.
There was even A Scanner Darkly, which came out a year ago, which is probably the most faithful and true-to-the-spirit adaptation I have ever seen. Watching it evoked exactly the same emotions I felt reading the book, even though it came at the subject from some very different directions.
So blowing off the literate underclass as impossible to satisfy is just a dodge, and a silly dodge at that. Some books can be made into good films.
There are structural problems in Island of Doctor Moreau that make it hard to fit into any sort of screenplay model. I don't know if there will ever be a watchable version of that story. I think there have been four attempts, starting with The Island of Lost Souls (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024188/) and ending with the more recent fiasco (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116654/).
I Am Legend, on the other hand, doesn't have any serious structural problems. You could slap in on screen as easily as Silence of the Lambs (which was pretty much a screenplay pretending to be a novel), and it would work just fine. So pardon the book-reading ninnies for being upset that the most recent attempt to put it onscreen managed to lose everything worthwhile from the novel, while adding all sorts of nonsense that was neither original, surprising, or even logical. (How did the girl and the boy get onto the island after the destruction of the bridges? How did they rig up a rescue for Mr. Smith? What on earth was meant by that weird monologue about the absence of God? What was with the prominent use of Shrek, for pete's sake? Why did Smith hunt like a crackhead on Ritalin, and had anyone connected to that movie ever been on a hunt in their lives?)
And let me state again, the CGI looked terrible. Narnia showed that a CGI lion can look believable, so there was no excuse for the shoddy, fake-looking animals. Oh, and how did the "infected" gain superpowers? Didja notice that their human bodies were somehow able to smash down iron doors, and to scramble up buildings like spiders? Didja notice how much they looked like the CGI from the Mummy films?
No, this version of I Am Legend is a giant, steaming, stinking pile of missed opportunities. With the money they had and the talent on hand, they could have made a masterpiece. Instead they made an average piece of cable-filler, the sort of thing you'll watch at 2 a.m. ten years from now because you can't bear to watch the Home Shopping Network.
seireikhaan
12-23-2007, 09:37
What was with the prominent use of Shrek, for pete's sake
Well, Lemur, I'm pretty sure I can answer that. Two reasons:
1. Shrek is awesome.:yes:
2. Compare the scenes they showed from Shrek to where they were in the movie, and you'll see the connection. Now, whether or not that was neccessary is up for debate, but I thought it was a nice touch.
Saw it yesterday. An entertaining film. I can't criticize it properly because I sat on the edge of the theatre and there were some other factors, and in any case it is difficult for me to criticize a movie when seeing it in the cinema. All these effects, all this surround (hmmm, from which I didn't notice much, by the way), all these dynamics in the room... they all make it appear better than it really is. I will just have to get it on DVD, watch it at home on a normal TV, and then criticize it.
Veho Nex
12-23-2007, 22:36
the ending was horrid it seems they rapped it up to fast but over all it was pretty good and the monsters ability to adapt to his moves was pretty entertaining
Saw this a few days a ago and though I haven't seen any of the previous attempts nor read the book, I have to agree with Lemur in part. It started well, with the hunting, the barricaded home etc. The whole thing went bad once the CGI zombies (not to mention their dogs) turned up, after which it seemed to rush to a frenzied conclusion and the "plot" fell apart.
The biggest problem with this type of movie these days is that they seem to get totally wrapped up in "effect" and rely on that to carry the film - it's almost as if the effects are made first and then the plot put together around them. "I want zombies that move with lightning speed, can scale walls and only come out at night in a post apocalyptic city to feed (on what if everyone is dead?) now go and write me plot to fit!".
Yes in the early stages the scenes of isolation and dereliction combined with the effect of the "return to nature" in an urban environment were well conveyed well so during the opening scenes (before the dog died and the woman and her child turned up) it did look quite promising. But this is merely setting the scene, which is all well and good if there is a plot to go with it.
No, this version of I Am Legend is a giant, steaming, stinking pile of missed opportunities. With the money they had and the talent on hand, they could have made a masterpiece. Instead they made an average piece of cable-filler, the sort of thing you'll watch at 2 a.m. ten years from now because you can't bear to watch the Home Shopping Network.
That's pretty accurate. I'd sum it up by saying it was a good movie, but far from great. I think, as films, both Vincent Price and Charleton Heston did better jobs in their respective versions(Price in particular).
The Price version has fallen into public domain and can be viewed online (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-51739690186335997&q=vincent+price+last+man+on+earth&total=62&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).
I have finally seen it but I must say I was not that impressed. Its one guy with a death wish who cannot control his dog.
Highlight of the film: I would love that dog, why did it have to go and get bit by a zombie dog anyway.
Oh and why didn't he give the dog that cure? It worked so why didn't he try it afterall it was better to try that than kill her.
The Stranger
01-04-2008, 22:38
there is a book already? damnit... i though i'd write a book about the movie... i mean they make movies outa books and comics movies outa games movies outa rollercoasterrides, they make rides outa movies, games outa movies so i thought whattehek... i can make a book out of a movie... but noooooooooo it someone beat me to it...
It was a serious stroke of deep marketing. They released the novelization in 1954, hoping to build a grassroots campaign for the film. I guess it kinda worked.
Mikeus Caesar
01-05-2008, 04:38
Saw it last night (finally) - pretty damn cool. Smith proved himself to be a good actor, especially playing the whole 'gone insane from lack of social interaction' kind of thing. I really felt for him as he looked at the empty seat next to him in the car.
The Stranger
01-05-2008, 19:08
yeah... smith is on his top now...
Saw the film this afternoon an really enjoyed it, although as usual it wasn't as good as the book, which is excellent, although maybe better if viewed separately from the book.
:2thumbsup:
TevashSzat
01-06-2008, 12:23
Just say it just night and I would say like many, the first half of the movie was very nice with the shots of New York when its starting to revert back to nature. However, I feel that it focused too much on the eye candy rather than the story so the second half and especially the ending was a bit of a letdown
CountArach
01-07-2008, 06:26
Great movie. I learnt something:
Will Smith + Zombies + Guns + Explosions = Two Hours of Fun.
Papewaio
01-07-2008, 07:45
I'd give the movie 2 out of 5 minus one for the endlng.
spoiler: for the religious overtones coming in at the last few minutes, it felt like they ran out of time and had to add in a deus ex machina ending because they ran out of ideas and money to pull something more meaningful off and wanted a feel good ending... I would prefer a scare the pants off you ending and really put the fear of god/GE or whatever into people.
It would have been better if the relgious side was in it at the start. It felt very inconsistent and needy.
Mikeus Caesar
01-07-2008, 09:12
Have to agree with you there Pape about the 'feel good' ending. I'd also like to add onto my previous comments about how Will Smith has certainly shown himself to be a brilliant actor through not only this but also Pursuit of Happiness.
Anyone else agree with me that he has left behind his 'welcum tuh urf' days, for the better?
Shaka_Khan
01-08-2008, 02:51
I am Legend stopped being scary when the CGI animations started to appear.
Papewaio
01-08-2008, 03:20
The lions didn't look quite right, either they were CGI or the lighting made them look artificial.
As for the superfast zombies... they still need energy for their metabolism... given that they on the whole were supposed to be poor with tools (low caloric creation) and would chew up more energy then untainted humans (athletes use twice as much joules as non-athletes and olympic level ones even more... so super-zombies would be burning up calories in no time)...they must have been eating a fair few of each other to sustain themselves.
I am getting the impression that people who read a lot of books are almost never satisfied by movies, especially movies about books they read. :dizzy2:
Another reason not to start reading books. ~;)
Interestingly, I have recently decided that the Bourne series of movies is actually better than the books. The books are entertaining enough, particularly the first one, but the sequels lose much of that spark. I actually prefer the movie version of Jason Bourne to the book version now and I hope they keep making new movies that ignore the plotline of the books. I remember thinking similarly about The Hunt for Red October. I was a big Clancy fan back then and I really liked (and still like) the book. The movie was very different from the book, but was great fun anyway, so much so that I didn't care that it diverged from the book plotline so much.
This is a rare thing, to be sure, and most movies do not end up being as good as the books they are based on, but every once in a while it does happen.
Galain_Ironhide
01-10-2008, 22:37
I Seen the Movie Wednesday night and I gotta say I was impressed with the first 3/4 of the film. Though I was a little dissappointed with the ending. It just felt a little rushed.
It was almost like the producers/director capped the movie length and realised at the end they had to finish the movie quickly. Plus also they must have spent all their money closing down New York City because the CGI was terrible!! :inquisitive:
I would give it about a 7 out of 10. Would have been 8 or 9 had it finished better. :2thumbsup:
Myrddraal
01-11-2008, 05:00
Well made, very good acting by WS. I haven't read the book so I can't make any comparisons.
However...
WARNING! SPOILERS
The plot was basically 100% unoriginal. Post apocalyptic world, men turned to zombieesque creatures by strange virus. Strange virus created by mankind in a act of self destruction. Gah!
The only plot development that was truely good was the scene where the creatures trap him his own trick, but better.
As for the defence of his house, cmon even I could have done better. He has about 20 UV lights around his house right? But the creatures just smash them. WHY doesn't he have UV lights in his house? If I had 20 high powered UV lights like that, I'd set them all up in the largest room of the house, in a corner, prepare a barricade, and sit with my arsenal. These creatures burn in UV light, I'd like to any of them get close.
It also seems a little stupid how if these creatures are intelligent enough to set up that trap, why are they too thick to use guns? After all, they've seen him do it?
Overall, it was good fun and had some serious shock scare tactics which had me leaping out of my seat too, but if you were looking for a plot, it wasn't the film to watch.
PS, to anyone wanting a good post-apocalyptic book to read, read the Day of the Triffids (if you haven't already :book:)
Well made, very good acting by WS. I haven't read the book so I can't make any comparisons.
However...
The plot was basically 100% unoriginal.
That's why people who read the book are upset. The book is quite original, even now, almost fifty years after it was written.
Hah! I was extremely calm when I watched it. All these people around me were scared and fearful of what might happen next. Pffffff :P Some even covered their eyes.
CountArach
01-11-2008, 08:12
Hah! I was extremely calm when I watched it. All these people around me were scared and fearful of what might happen next. Pffffff :P Some even covered their eyes.
Yeah, I wasn't scared at all.It was always obvious when something was going to jump out, or at least that is what I thought.
Ja'chyra
01-11-2008, 15:08
Not sure if anyone else has mentioned it but why was the doctor English? Seems to me to be another Hollywood the US is better then you story. Made me laugh anyway.
So who's going to spill and tell me what the book ending was like? Or is it really worth buying it to find out?
The book is entirely different, from beginning to end. And yeah, it's worth it to check it out from the library and find out for yourself.
A few differences:
Neville is not a super-soldier
Neville is not a super-scientist
Neville does not have a kickin' pad in Manhattan
The infected do not have super-strength or spider-powers
The loss of Neville's family actually means something
The title "I Am Legend" actually means something
Is it worth seeing just for the extended Batman trailer at the beginning ?
The Stranger
01-12-2008, 20:53
cmon... batman sux as well...
Papewaio
01-13-2008, 21:56
However...
WARNING! SPOILERS
The plot was basically 100% unoriginal. Post apocalyptic world, men turned to zombieesque creatures by strange virus. Strange virus created by mankind in a act of self destruction. Gah!
Read wiki and you will find that the book that it was based on was the original source of that.
Spoilers about the book from wiki:
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.
...I Am Legend influenced the vampire genre and popularized the fictional concept of a worldwide apocalypse due to a disease. Although classified as a vampire story and referred to as "the first modern vampire novel",[1] Legend made an impression on the zombie genre by way of film director George A. Romero. Romero has acknowledged the influence of the novel and its 1964 adaptation on his 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.[2][3][4] Critics have also picked up on similarities between Night and Last Man on Earth.[5][6]
Stephen King said, "without Richard Matheson I wouldn’t be around."[7] Some film critics have noted that the 2002 British film 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later, which feature a rabies-like plague that ravages Great Britain, are similar to the scenario in I Am Legend.[8] The recasting of undead creatures as disease victims is also comparable to recent zombie media such as the Resident Evil series, the Blade trilogy, and the 1984 B movie Night of the Comet.
cmon... batman sux as well...
Ummm... no. K thnx bye ~:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.