I Am Legend. (A Collection of Thoughts, and Slight Rant)

Ok. Been out fighting my way through life for the past few, so its been awhile since I stuck my head in here - somebody just smack me if this is in the wrong place, or please just move it for me?

This movie sucked the big one. HUGE Disappointment. Not even close to what the book had going.

Here are some major issues:

1. The vampires in IAL were CGI/Animation instead of real people. Unacceptable.

2. The vampires in IAL did not speak. Instead, they were depicted as dumb rageaholic animals with no cognitive understanding beyond the primal instinct to feed. Ok - there was a slight nod to a higher plane of thought when they set the mannequin trap for Neville, but that was still rudimentary, at best. In Omega Man, the vampires were much more true to the book, and were, at least, depicted as real people who had succumbed to the virus (though the idea of "vampirism" in OM was attenuated and vague - on purpose, I think. You did not get the impression that the OM plague victims were eating people - only that they were killing people, or turning people), and who had their own agenda. This is why there was a Ben Cortman in the book and in OM, and why he constantly came to Neville's house with his posse and said Come out, Neville!

3. The vampires in IAL didnt know where Neville lived. This is inaccurate - in both the book and in Omega Man, the vampires knew exactly where to find Neville, and that was half the fun of the movie and the book. One of the major underpinnings of the whole story was the inevitable monotony that Neville faced each night warding them off of his house, and repairing his house in the day.

4. IAL was incredibly serious in its intensity. I suppose they thought they were being more true to the book, but come on - OM was almost humorous to watch, seeing Neville fight with Ben Cortman and the Family (though the Family was also entirely a Hollywood creation in OM, or at least, a meshing of the 2 types of vampires (see point 6)). They relished their battles, and actually, this is true of the book also. Roger Moore was quite convincing as Nevillein OM, and he seemed to even look forward to fighting with Cortman. When they made IAL, they totally changed that and made Will Smith a fearful, scared person, hiding away in his bathtub, tremoring even at his shadow. IAL lost the comedy of the horror.

5.The dog in IAL wasnt at the right time. (Omega Man failed to even have the dog.) The dog was in the book for a short period, and then it died - it was a huge personal issue for Neville to find and save, and ultimately lose the dog in the book. IAL captured a portion of the horror that Neville went through with the dog, though they changed the story. OM left the dog out completely. The dog was a major emotional turning point for Neville, and they should have done it right.

6. Neither IAL or OM deal with the 2nd type of undead - the living vampires. In this they both FAILED TO CORRECTLY DISCUSS THE ENTIRE CRUX OF RICHARD MATHESON'S BOOK. Which is a shame, because the book was far more compelling a story.

7. IAL and OM both changed to story to show that Robert Neville cured the vampires, when, in fact, he didnt. The only thing he did was to discover the truth behind their creation. The vampires discovered their own cure - this of course, ushers you into the "entire crux of the book."

8. IAL totally changes Neville's interaction with the living woman. OM also changed the interaction from that in the book. IAL and OM's women diverge. Also - there was no brother, or son in existence, so there was no "boy" to the be turned to the Family, and turned back human (in OM), nor was there a son accompanying some woman from Maryland (in IAL). The existence of the woman in the book, and his interaction with her was a major point and a doorway for the ending of the book.

9. The ending of the book is simple, and explains the title I Am Legend. The explanation is far better, and more comprehensible than that pat, unexplainable blather of that woman at the end of the IAL movie. Her explanation didnt even logically follow - what are we, stupid? I can remember listening to the narration thinking to myself that even though we all get what they are trying to say, her use of the words I am Legend, didnt even grammatically fit - wasnt even a correct, or shall I say "best" choice of words for poignant impact. I understand poignancy -however, if one wanted to be "poignant" and make an epic statement like "I. Am. Legend.," I could think of better, less unwieldy and phrases to use, like: "I Am the Messiah; or I Am the Savior; or "I Am Humanity."

...but that was the whole problem. The word "Legend" was meant to fit another story, a different ending than the fake, happy ending that the movie provided. "Legend" didnt even fit the Omega Man ending, and he died in that one! No. Legend means something more - it means "I Am Mythological," or "I Am the Ghost Story," or "I Am the Fairy Tale," or "I Am The Tale."


In all of this, I've tried not to give away too much, but I think we all mostly know the story. I am so irritated, and I feel that we were robbed in some way, because the book itself, unadulterated from its original storyline, is epic. I can forgive the creators of Omega Man, because perhaps they were dealing with a time that wouldnt allow for the book ending - but today's media? In a world where we understand things like No Country For Old Men, I think the viewing populace would have been intelligent enough to grasp the point of the book.

I wonder if Richard Matheson feels plundered and pillaged over this bastardization of his work?

__________________
something witty goes here......

The best review yet.

Great post! Good analytical rant!

While I agree with some of what you have said, you need to understand that I AM LEGEND also has to set tiself apart from the two other movies AND the book it was based on.

The one problem people find when movies are based on books are the changes to the storyline....this is inevitable. Face it people, changes are going to happen. Do I care how the fit the dog into the story, or how it differs from the book? No. The fact that he had a dog, was connected to it and it died should be enough, a small detail of how he got it shouldn't ruin a movie for you, if so, then you are way too nit picky to watch any film adapted from a book.

I agre about the ending though and the boy, both were pretty bad. The kid doesn't even say one word throughout the entire film. As well as the CGI monsters, pretty bad stuff.

but the bit with the house, I like how it was different. If they knew where he lived, then it would be another Omega Man, with updated special effects. Here they made it their own and it actually added to the suspense of when they finally did know where he lived. Now the audience is watching and thinking, oh no, how is he going to get out of this one. Instead of another, oh they are at his house again....big deal.

The big difference for me was the vampires not speaking, I don't know if I liked it or not. Having them speak, makes them seem more menacing because they are actually intelligent. Here, that is all gone (aside from one scene you mentioned) But when they don't speak and are going on animalistic rage, you don't know what to expect, they are not predictable. I would have liked them to speak though.....

In the end, i wouldn't call it a horrible movie, but more along the lines of instant entertainment. I guess you were looking for something deeper.

Sorry.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I thought I Am Legend was a great movie.

Thanks guys. Usual Suspect, I get what you're saying and even where youre coming from. I respect that. Im not ususally one of those people who care about book adaptations, and it may surprise you to know that I

1. Watched Omega Man for the first time last year
2. Watched I Am Legend last weekend
3. Read I Am Legend on Monday of last week.

I read the book because I was so disgusted with the IAL movie, and I hoped the book vindicated it. No. It didnt. But let's get beyond that. Here's the thing, I actually dont like IAL as a movie in its own right. I actually talked my sister into watching it with me (vampire movies are not her thing, she's more of a Anglophile, brit crime mystery chick), because she had also seen Omega Man with me last year.

Even she was clueless. Half of the things they put in the IAL movie, you wouldnt even understand why they were there unless you had (1) seen Omega Man, or (2) read the book. To borrow a phrase from another line of work, they seem to presume facts not in evidence. Half of the stuff they did in IAL, we only "got" because we had already seen Omega Man.

So yes, you are correct. They attempted to divorce IAL from both the book and OM and make it its own little post-apocalyptic movie. And failed miserably.

But, if we say we dont really care, and this is a common issue that comes up in Hollywood when adapting book - fair enough. I only say in this instance that the book and Omega Man were good, and I would not have minded if they had simply re-made either of them. I find it a little disingenuous and completely ironic to boot that a Hollywood studio or director changed an already existing story into something unrecognizable because they needed to make his/her/its mark on the world.

Make your mark by coming up with an original story. Anyone that has to borrow someone else's story is already behind the 8 ball. The fact alone that the studio wants to use someone else's story is either saying they are incapable of original thought, or that they have such a high regard for the material and they'd like to use it.

And if they have a high regard for the material, I guess the question becomes, if they ARE going to change the story, how much change is too much change? And they'll get their answer when/if a previously well-liked movie/book/concept totally flops on its "new" release.

Well, there is a rather lengthy thread already in the review section that has dealt with this flick. I would be interested in what you think of mark's review of it. I have to run some errands now so I'll check in with you later.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

If the studio didn't want it to be "another Omega Man," seems to me they should have written their own original script that was totally separate and different from both the earlier movies and book. What's the point of using some parts of a well-known book and earlier movies but eliminating other main parts of the story? Certainly doesn't make the remake "their own" story--just a truncated version of the earlier story.

You pooh-pooh someone else's complaint about the misuse of the dog and dwelling place, but then you complain when the vampires don't talk as they do in almost every other vampire movie. The undead don't breathe--how can they talk?

I really think you miss the main point about the vampires knowing where the "Legend" resides. He's like the spooky old woman living in the creepy old house who is thought to be a witch. But in this case, he's really a living threat to the vampire community as well as a potential feast. He's the monster lurking in Frankenstein's castle on the high mountain; they all know where he is and what he is doing, and they're the peasants with their pitchforks and torches storming the castle night after night.

I read the book and saw the two earlier films long ago. One point that I liked in the book was when he captured a female vampire and kept her for a few days to see if he oould get her to talk or react in any human manner that would ease his lonliness. She had no human qualities left, however, and he finally killed her, too. I don't guess that part was in the current remake.

Very interesting post Mack. Thanks for that. I think I'll pick the book up now to compare with the films.

It's called a business. People change things to create better money marketing schemes. Hollywood is more business then film. The point of using something old like the movie and book and updating it has been done for years....they needed something more to draw people in....change the story a bit, cause new special effects doesn't cut it anymore. Besides, it isn't a remake, it's a revision. Look at the two Chocolate Factory movies, how many people love Willy Wonka....yet it is drastically different from the book, Charlie is closer. Both films are from one source, one has changed material....one doesn't. This is the same case with I Am Legend, only they are switched.

There is a vast difference between a complaint and an opinion.

I Am Legend is a terrible film. The hype built this film up to be something that i really was not. I agree with all of your complaints.

__________________
Definitive UK Cinema Release Film Review Database

DVD Releases

Not unless it's adequately differentiated in your original statement. Sounded like a complaint to me.

a more knowledgeable individual kindly pointed out to me that

A. It was Charlton Heston that played Neville in OM, not Roger Moore.

B. The main vamp was called Mathais in OM, not Ben Cortman (as in the book).

Thanks for the correction!

lol nice work

LOL. Well, that's good that someone was paying close attention like that.

the last 30 minutes or so were disgraceful