Printable View
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.
Eh, 28 days later was horrible. These two films aren't really comparable imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
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. ~;)
Reading for is idiots.
What you gotta b lik dat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
:book:
I know your tongue is planted in your cheek, but let me address this as though it were a serious complaint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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 and ending with the more recent fiasco.
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.
Well, Lemur, I'm pretty sure I can answer that. Two reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The Price version has fallen into public domain and can be viewed online.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
Great movie. I learnt something:
Will Smith + Zombies + Guns + Explosions = Two Hours of Fun.
I'd give the movie 2 out of 5 minus one for the endlng.
spoiler:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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?
I am Legend stopped being scary when the CGI animations started to appear.
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.
What were those deers?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
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:
Well made, very good acting by WS. I haven't read the book so I can't make any comparisons.
However...
WARNING! SPOILERS
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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:)
That's why people who read the book are upset. The book is quite original, even now, almost fifty years after it was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal