Will Smith movies aren’t generally what you’d call master pieces. Some of them actually suck quite a lot (i.e”Wild, Wild West”, “Bad Boys 2″), but they always manage to entertain me as a viewer, and that’s more than what I can of some other Big Movie Stars (yes, I’m looking at you, Tom Cruise, you big freak of a religious nut).
“I Am Legend” is no different in that regard, ’cause it’s entertaining to a very shallow extent. The action is super actiony, the scary bits are extra frightening and it features a quite feasible scenario which tinges it with something very similar to a realistic feel. I really wanted to like this movie, and I think I wouldn’t abhor it if I’d been a few years younger and hadn’t watched Danny Boyle’s original take on the same concept.

The year is 2009 and the 90% of the human population is dead and 9% are ZombieVampires(tm). Goddamn! How did this shit happen, you might ask, and I’ll tell you how, too. You see, there was this scientist that claimed she’d cured cancer by enlisting a genetically altered virus in the good fight against it. Things went as they’re wont to do; things backfired something fierce and… suffice to say that hilarity did not ensue. The virus infected everyone alive, killed the most of them, made the majority of the rest into aggravated, dumb, literally blood-thirsty, pasty-looking fellows who only come out at night because of their sun allergy, and the last percent got to lose a fun game called “Brainzz”. New York was ground zero for the outbreak and Robert Neville (Will Smith) decides to take up residence in this undoubtedly lovely neighbourhood while he searches for a cure. It’s been three years now and still no results, but he won’t give up; this is after all his Legend…
This film is a prime example of what happens when Hollywood execs sees how much dough Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later” franchise has been bringing in and decides that they too want a piece of that cake. Now, I haven’t read Richard Matheson’s classic novel that this movie’s supposedly based on, but my sources tell me that Will Smith & Co haven’t paid much attention to the source material. I’m inclined to believe that now, since this movie fails in every area other then classic American departments; action and the fail-safe creep-out effect you get from having bloody zombies jump out at you in the dark.
“I Am Legend” is also rife with logical errors. For example, this entire deal has been going on for three years now, right? Well, then how the hell have hundreds (or thousands for that matter) of zombies managed to survive on such a small island as Manhattan? Clearly they crave blood or at least human flesh to survive, and they’d need a shitload of it since their metabolism is three times as high as regular person’s.
Neville tells us that the creature’s have gone back to their most primal instincts. Okay, that sounds nifty and good, but how come they’re capable of deducing Neville’s psyche and setting elaborate traps for him if they’re so basic? And if they learned how to do that by observing Will Smith’s character do it first, then how come they can’t figure out how to drive a car? It really isn’t that hard, and chances are that they’d remember it from when they weren’t undead.
And why are the deer running around in packs? And why are there PACKS of DEER on Manhattan only three years after human civilization collapsed? I’d give you that there could be ten or twenty of them roaming the streets of NYC, but hundreds of them? Uh-oh. That’s not right at all.
I could go on and on about these errors. Like how the hell a pack of lions survived three winters in NYC without heating. Have you seen how much snow there is over there? But this is getting boring - there’s only so much time you care to use on reviewing what’s clearly a poor movie.
So to sum up: “I Am Legend” equals a cheap Hollywood knock-off of “28 Days Later”, Will Smith does a poor job of portraying how his characters spirals into madness, the themes are laid on so thick that anorectics could clot their arteries with ‘em and the ending is predictable (so is the rest of the plot).
But, you know, it was still quite fun…
…yay?
3,5 /10

Posts
Have to totally disagree here. Not only did I really like this film, I thought it was superb and full of tension. I did not think the scenario so implausible. Also, a lot of the points that bother you are actually not that unlikely. Lions can definitly survive in more northern hemispheres ( did you know that in the Ice Age there were American Lions, now extinct, but closely related to African Lions?). Deer in New York a couple of years after the disaster first started, I can live with that. Animals do return to areas when people are no longer around after all. As for why deer run around in packs, that is what deer do my friend, they travel in groups for safety;)
Also, the film explicitly states that the zombies are learning as we go. At first, they do not learn, and are merely primal. But at one point Neville sets a trap for a zombie and captures her. The Alfa male sees what is done and has figured out a trap for Nevile, which kills his dog. So they do learn.
14. March 2008 @ 13:25 ( Permalink )
I knew I’d get a response from you one this one, Cali. We can’t agree on everything, now can we? I seem to remember that we differed in our views on “the Book of Joby”, too… But that’s a sidenote.
On the lion issue, I have to say that I think you’re outright wrong. The film takes place three years after the outbreak. That’s three years where somewhat tamed zoo lions have had to make it on their own in a city that’s as far from their natural habitat as Mars is the perfect breeding ground for penguins. There couldn’t have been much wild game in the city to start with (or in the end, either, but I’ll get to that later), and lions, while known for taking a human or two if threathened, would have to really on other food resources. What would that be? Stray dogs? Nope, those died out or got infected. Cats? Yeah, that might work for a while, but no way in hell that a pack of lions could live off of cats and some few zoo-animals for three whole years. Add that the climate in New York can be as harsh as it can be here in Norway (and trust me; no lion would survive in the wild over here), and you’ve pretty much acknowledged that the lions were there to just because they were kinda cool even if they’re completely illogical.
How many deer did you see in that first pack? I counted nearly a hundred, and I know for a fact that deer do not travel in packs of hundreds for safety. The majority of the pack was stags, and stags tend to break off to form groups of their own when they grow that old. Besides, it’s no way that a little island like Manhattan could support a that many deers even if it was all forest and no city. I’d guess that an island of that size should have a stock of about forty-sixty animals, if even that… And how did they get there, and why? Did they swim across the river to an island that smells of nothing but humans and has nearly no greenery whatsoever? I can’t see that happening at all.
You say that the film explicitly states that the zombies are learning as we go. Well, if that’s the case, then why the hell haven’t they learned anything else besides the tricks of Robert Neville? Surely there were some humans around when they first got infected? And why are they suddenly becoming super-attentionate and increasinlgy intelligent while Neville’s telling us that they’re growing ever more primal and savage? The trap they set for Neville is so sophistacated that it bears witness of a strong understanding of a crazed human mind. Where did they pick that thing up, huh? All they saw was Neville throwing a little container of blood to lure them out - the logical thing for them to try would be to use something Neville would want,;something they know he wants… And the answer to that thought-chain is a manekeng doll that symbolizes Neville’s failing connection with humanity? Savage creatures wouldn’t go there. They’d throw a slab of meat in the loop and wait for Neville to coming a-jumping into it.
And again, a question: If they do learn, then why don’t they learn how to drive?
14. March 2008 @ 15:07 ( Permalink )
hello
2. May 2008 @ 00:39 ( Permalink )
hello to you too
2. May 2008 @ 02:01 ( Permalink )
Greetings, Earthling!
The funny thing is that this review is currently my most visited page aside from the main url.
2. May 2008 @ 09:19 ( Permalink )
I thought this was Will Smith’s best movie yet. I guess you could call me gullible because I buy into everything they say in the movie for entertainment purposes and the reason I do that is so I can enjoy the movie, not see inaccuracies. What’s the point of seeing a movie if you’re going to just focus on what’s wrong with it? The graphics were very well done and the acting, I thought, was excellent. Maybe there were a few small problems but overall, it was good. You remind me of my dad- he points out everything thats wrong and it kind of ruins it for those he tells.
16. May 2008 @ 08:48 ( Permalink )
Not having seen the movie, I’ll try to explain this to you anyway, see if I can’t explain how we see this differently.
I think in general, people who see problems like that don’t LOOK for them. Some might. I know I don’t, though. I just automatically see them - my mind works like that, I think critically, I understand thing critically, and I process things critically. This is an asset in most situations, however, it’s not when watching movies with inconsistancies and small holes in them. When you can’t help but notice them, they make it impossible to buy into the story as completely as you’re supposed to, want or not. To turn a phrase, they’re not managing, then, to suspend my disbelief. I’m assuming something of the same goes for Amras. And while that might be a failing of our brains, it’s also a failing of the movies that do so for not catering to its audience - other movies DO manage to suspend our disbelief, so it’s clearly a problem with the movie more than a problem with us if one doesn’t. Thus it gets penalized in the grade we’d give it, as a grade signifies our subjective and personal experience of it.
16. May 2008 @ 09:53 ( Permalink )
This is kind of funny, ’cause I was just thinking how incredibly positive I’ve been with my reviews lately and how I need to sharpen my critical Knife o’ Judgement in the future. As it is, I don’t so much ‘review’ stuff as I ‘rant’ or ‘rave’.
I think Loki pretty much spelled it out for me here, though .I’ll add that I’m much more likely to gloss over the “picking of nits”, as it were, if the film manages to keep me intrigued and enthralled with its storytelling abilities. I Am Legend clearly didn’t do that for me, so I was left lagging behind, and everyone knows that the tourists at the back always take more pictures then the one who’s upfront listening to the guide…
16. May 2008 @ 12:34 ( Permalink )
Just watched it AND read the book (graphic novel) before I watched it. So the main difference though’s that Neville, in the book, is white. And it took much longer than 3 years. I think it was closer to 10 because when he died he was 52 and the woman narrator said in the end…which to me was THE most unbelievable part of the movie! Did Will Smith look anything past 41 in that movie?
Look, I get the whole critiquing bit but like someone said, lions will survive and aren’t all that ‘tamed’ just because you can pay money and see them behind bars getting fed instead of hunting. Trust me, a couple of days without regular meals and even a tabby cat will go feral. I’m not too sure about the size of the herd of deer but I was rather surprised he hadn’t learned in 3 years to hunt with an automatic rifle…no need to aim, just point in the general direction and squeeze :D. I also couldn’t help wondering why his house never got attacked by rabid rats, those fvckers get everywhere right?!
My best part of the movie was watching him freak out at “Fred”. That was the moment in the movie for me. Plus his head to head with the main vampire at the end…that made me want to smash something.
On the whole, I think it was a pretty decent movie, deserving of more credit than you give it. Especially since you didn’t even read the book!! Haha j/k.
19. May 2008 @ 16:46 ( Permalink )
One shouldn’t need to read the what a film is based upon before you watch it. If it requires that, then it’s not a real film; it’s just pleasing the fans. “Serenity”, to snatch a random example out of the air, suffered from not standing too well on its feet without having seen “Firefly”.
Besides, I’ve read other people’s opinions on this matter, and there were a lot of other differences, too. The zombies were actually vampires in the actual book, if memory serves me right.
Okay, let’s say that the lions could feed themselves during the summer, even though I seriously doubt that there’d be that much wild game available on such a small island after three years. But in the harsh NY winter? I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, there aren’t any African Lions in North America, nor would they stand much a chance.
I didn’t buy Will Smith’s psychological breakdown at all. Sorry.
Glad you liked it, though. That’s always more fun than the other way around.
21. May 2008 @ 06:04 ( Permalink )
““Serenity”, to snatch a random example out of the air, suffered from not standing too well on its feet without having seen “Firefly”.”
I’m not arguing with that, however, I feel like it’s a very bad example for your point. “Serenity” isn’t based off of “Firefly”, it’s a _continuation_ of it. That’s completely different from a film being based off of a book. Especially as knowing part 1 of the story to get the full experience of part 2 is usually deemed necessary, and it’d be odd if that changed just because of a change of medium between the two. With a movie based off of a book, however, they’re both the same chunk of story, just told in different ways - a completely different situation entirely.
About the lions, I have no idea whether or not they’d survive in NY, but it IS about as far south as Italy or the southernmost of France, and southern Europe did use to have lions a couple of thousand years back or so.
21. May 2008 @ 09:10 ( Permalink )
*Hides from the wrath o’ the Browncoats.*
Sure, it was probably a poor example. I was just trying to think of something that required backstory to fully be enjoyed. “Serenity” was the first thing that came into my mind.
I’m going to have to contact a zoologist about the lion issue if this continues. We demand answers!
21. May 2008 @ 10:30 ( Permalink )
As long as you don’t get linked on Whedonesque, the wrath of the browncoats is unlikely to find you. If they do, though, be afraid, be very afraid.
21. May 2008 @ 12:32 ( Permalink )
If I got a whedonesque link, I’m quite convinced this server would break down under the stampeding hordes.
22. May 2008 @ 01:12 ( Permalink )
Quite likely.
I’m a member there, you know. I’ve never actually posted a link, but…
22. May 2008 @ 12:03 ( Permalink )
That would smack of nepotism, wouldn’t it? Ever so slightly?
23. May 2008 @ 04:11 ( Permalink )
So? Nepotism has an unfairly bed rep, if you ask me. Without some element of nepotism, there’s next to no motivation for anyone to acquire influence ever - the finality of human life makes the ability to ensure cumulative goods and priviligies over the course of generations vital for the motivation of anyone to contribute to society. Nobody will ever build anything, everybody will just reap what short-term benefit hey can and move somewhere to spend the rest of their lives burning through as many resources as they can.
23. May 2008 @ 04:59 ( Permalink )
True, but I highly doubt I’ll ever post anything worthy of whedonesque anyway, so this will probably never become relevant. But if I ever did, then I think it’d be a bit more special if the link was posted by someone else, who I don’t consider the closest thing to my biggest blog-fan/follower.
25. May 2008 @ 14:03 ( Permalink )