Comments on: I Am Legend

By: Buck Vanner

Buck Vanner — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 02:04:10 +0000

I managed to get help with my child support situation at http://www.childsupporthell.com/community , these people have a really good thing taking place by aiming to aid the ones that can not support their selves with this hosed up child support process which we have now-days. I swear some thing should be done about this and if anyone is to make it happen, childsupporthell.com will

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:00:03 +0000

I am legend was so good, you’ll get various opinions but some people are way too absorbed and picky with this movie. It’s just a movie get out of it what you will. But there’s no need to anaylize and compare it and state a bad opinion of it, just go on and write a whole long tale about a movie that you do.

Hey BB, thanks for taking the time to comment. A few thoughts.

First, people express strong opinions when the feel something deeply. Your comment comes from the same place my review did – a need to communicate how you felt about a subject. Essentially, you’ve done the exact same thing I did in my review. I could easily say myself, “It’s just a film review, get out of it what you will, but there’s no need to analyze it and state a bad opinion of it.”

Secondly, have you ever considered that analyzing a film is simply another way to enjoy it? And that forming an opinion and expressing that opinion is also a way to enjoy it? Even if it is a film you didn’t like?

By: BB

BB — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:08:53 +0000

Excuse my spelling errors.
But honestly I’m bored and all other comments on the movie sound quite, well their jerks when describing the emovie. And me having a slightly ignorant opinion to anyone who disagrees on mine I jus want to state mine. Why today does everyone have to be strongly on one side or the other. “I like Pepsi” ‘I like coke, pepsi suck” “I’m a democrat” “Well i’m voting for bloc” “I’m muslim” “Christianity is the only way to the golden gates of heaven” Everybody is either strongly one way or the other. And when I sya strong, they’d probably shave their head to make the point. I know tis is so completly off topic, but it’s been bothering me, and I could get my own blog but I’m home alone right now and when I would normally rant I’d rather do it right now to anybody who will read. I am legend was so good, you’ll get various opinions but some people are way too absorbed and picky with this movie. It’s just a movie get out of it what you will. But there’s no need to anaylize and compare it and state a bad opinion of it, just go on and write a whole long tale about a movie that you do. Will smith as the protagonist was perfect, he captured human nature to a T (A t?) and he was weirdly antisocial to the brink of making you feel uncomfortable. And that was only 3 years of being semi alone. I don’t want to spoil much. But why does their always have to be relgiious themes? Christainity followers are wavering in numbers, Islam is going to stretch much farther than it. And yet, to make this story complete to make it seem like their was a deeper meaning, “God” had it all planned to save everybody. That’s so, so, dumb. You’d think today, 2008 that people would open their eyes up more, especially because everyone is allowed to state their opinions and are getting cruder on television and everywhere. I just wish people would be a little more agnostic. And you know, you can get ideas everywhere. Not just what you think is your beliefs and stuff. The golden compass for example. Relgion is one of those topics you just don’t touch. But everybody just needs to lighten up and open up. I’m done. Nobody needs to reply at all. But it’s nice to get attention, even in a place you would never look. Btw, how can zombie’s find the difference of living people and nonliving? They will still have human charcteristics. So they can’t smell or notice behaviour because they’re supposed to be dumb. The Zombie is a really unorginal character now that I think about it. I don’t know about the book, but I think in a way their both seperate. A person can love this movie and the book, not so much. I didn’t think silent hill 1 the game was good, not much of a story if you ask me, or ending. But the silent hill movie, is one of my favorites and blew me away. I like the golden compass and the movie just didn’t do it for me. So yeah, if there are religious themes in the actual book it just doesn’t sound that appealing. I’m guessing there is. Oh well, I doubt I’ll ever read it. That’s my fill.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:48:56 +0000

I agree with Colleeny…Blade Runner is much better than “Electric Sheep,” although to be fair they are entirely different animals. They might have the same inspiration and general plot points, but the tones are completely different. Scott didn’t even read the book before he directed the film. Said he couldn’t “get through it.”

And James, technically 2001 was a book before it was a movie, although Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke collaborated on the script jointly. The movie and book were designed to complement one another, although the book did come first. Both were based on an earlier short story by Clarke. Your point still stands, however…no one remembers the book anymore, and for all intents and purposes, the film is better than it.

By: Colleeny

Colleeny — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:35:31 +0000

Blade Runner was better than “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”. I love PKD, but seriously the movie was the first I ever saw in the theatre, and remains lodged firmly in my top 5 films ever.

By: Luke Harrington

Luke Harrington — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:08:36 +0000

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (based on Gary Wolf's novel, Who Censored Roger Rabbit?) was an improvement on the book.

By: James

James — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:14:30 +0000

Aloha,

First, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with Evan’s review. I just saw the movie on DVD, and then I took a look at the original novel’s plot synopsis on Wikipedia… My, what a letdown. I have always been a bit skeptical of movie adaptations based on novels, but in this instance, I was unquestionably blindsided as to how BAD the movie is compared to its source material.

Truth be told, I’m kinda glad that it happened in that order. It’s even more hurtful that the storyline in the original book is exactly the kind of movie that I’d pay money to see. I look at this movie as yet another lame attempt to cash in, with Will Smith (talented though he may be) being used as bait to lure in a mainstream audience.

Don’t misunderstand me. As per Evan’s review, I agree that there are things that the movie does quite well. They nailed Neville’s isolation in New York, and I also agree that the scene with Neville and Sam in the lab is the best in the entire film. But overall, I wanted to see more of the book’s storyline on screen.

To me, it’s apparent that if you read the book and then saw the movie, then the movie will prove to be a disappointment (other examples include ALL the “Harry Potter” movies and “The Golden Compass”, which is now a personal favorite.) However, I pose the following question to you:

“When has a movie adaptation of a novel exceeds the quality of its original source material?”

I know I’m splitting hairs here, but I think my point is still pretty valid. (Incidentally, the only answer I can come up with is 2001: A Space Odyssey, but that’s immediately disqualified because the novel was written AFTER the movie was released, just like the novelizations for the Star Wars prequels.)

Why do we expect that this trend will reverse itself? Why are we somehow keeping the vain hope that a movie will come along that blows whatever it’s based on out of the water? I am always skeptical of movie adaptations, but in this instance, I was blindsided. Rest assured, I am not going to subscribe to such delusion again.

If you’ve read down this far, thanks for reading my rant. It’s nice to get stuff off of one’s chest.

Mahalo,
James

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:41:13 +0000

Ah Owen, a man after my own heart. Glad to see that someone else had the exact same reaction that I did. The movie by itself really isn’t that bad, but in light of the amazing source material, they really botched it, big time, all in the name of safety and money.

By: owen

owen — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:55:27 +0000

I was prompted to read the book after seeing the film and even before I read it I thought the ending was weak and saccharine. However, after reading what I now realize is an absolute classic, I am that much more horrified by the denouement of the movie. It’s like they shoehorned the title to fit their happy ending almost as an after-thought. The title makes sense of the whole book, but in the context of the movie’s storyline, it is totally incongruous.

Hollywood scum.

By: James Turner

James Turner — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:58:48 +0000

What is Ryan talking about!?

“Anyone else play Robinson Neville would have been garbage.”

There are a large number of very talented actors in this world. Not merely the big Hollywood names but many foreign actors and independent film actors too.
Don’t be so foolish as to over state your apparent idolisation for Mr. Smith by insulting the acting ability of so many others who would all bring their own style to the part of Robert Neville.

It would be a sad world if there were really such a small number brilliant actors as Ryan Walker believes. As a person who works in Film and has been on a number of sets now, I personally don’t see Will Smith as being one of the best but he is a well developed actor, i’ll give him that.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:41:52 +0000

I understand what you’re saying Ryan – I think I mentioned in the review that my prejudices were quite subjective on this one. Here was a case where having read the book before hand ruined the film for me. That’s not always true, but the book represented such an important time in my life that it was impossible for me to divorce myself from it.

Will Smith is great. The ending, however, was a missed opportunity. If you haven’t read the book you’re left with an enjoyable, above average popcorn thriller.

As I said in the review, “For the blissfully ignorant, it’s a 3 1/2 star apocalyptic thriller, easy.”

By: Ryan Walker

Ryan Walker — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:24:31 +0000

I thought the movie was just fine ending and all. You guys are too judgemental and picky. Every movie will smith is in he makes the movie so much better. Anyone else play Robinson Neville would have been garbage.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:58:24 +0000

Mike, its a deep meditation on human loneliness. It really resonated with me when I read it given where I was in my life at that time. Its certainly not a happy book – but it is a powerful one.

By: Mike Phelps

Mike Phelps — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:27:33 +0000

Evan, I want to read the book now. Sounds like a good read.

The book aside, for it to have been a good movie, I think more story development at the beginning and more investment in Anna was needed.

Will Smith did a great job, but the ending really sucked. There was 30 secs of sappiness between Neville eating a grenade and the credits rolling.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:46:36 +0000

Subjective drama queen!

Actually, you can’t separate your reaction to one thing — such as a movie — from the rest of your context. You can try, but it’s not possible. Anybody who says you can is itchin’ for a fight …

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:37:43 +0000

I haven’t read the book yet, but loved the alternate ending. It’s much better than what we got in the theatrical version.

By: Marc Hall

Marc Hall — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:16:21 +0000

Personally , I thought the movie was pretty good . I’ve never read the book so I really cant compare it to anything else . I wasnt to crazy about the ending though . I would give it 2 1/2 to 3 stars