This is topic I Am Legend (2007) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001348

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-13-2007, 05:00 PM:
 
I listened to the sound for the film while I was assembling the print. The speaking moments are sparse, with lots of drawn out, ambient passages, and bursts of action thrown in. Of course, I knew, going in to view the film itself, it would be much more engaging.

The arranging of the story made a lot of sense, and the direction of the unfolding events were inevitable. I didn't know the story beforehand, and I didn't predict anything (successfully or unsuccessfully) during the film ... but after it was all over, it just seemed unsurprising; as if, HAD I tried to predict and lay out what should happen, just knowing the premise, I could have been pretty much on target.

However, that's not to say I didn't enjoy it. I liked it. It wasn't too slow, it wasn't too long. Probably not one to draw repeat business. Once the "whats" and "hows" are known, suspense and curiosity aren't there to bring you into the story anymore, and the action isn't particularly cinematically phenomenal (as in, say, a Transformers freeway chase).

I won't get into any spoilers here, but I was sparked by some ideas/gripes/philosophies, etc. that come from the ending. Good coffee talk ... but no one I know has seen it yet, or probably will see it. Oh, well.

By the way, if you see this in IMAX, you'll be treated to a 6:48 "trailer" for Dark Knight. Essentially, the prologue of the film, shot in native IMAX format, full frame. It looks awesome!
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-14-2007, 02:29 AM:
 
Yea, I recommend those, with this movie, to see the originals - the Vincent Price's "Last Man on Earth", and Charton Heston's "the Omega Man" ... all based from Richard Matheson's short story "I am Legend"

Yes, it was kind of odd to find the 101 minutes to be the length of the movie when the first three reels were decently full, but you hit the last three and being short as they are-about half full or 10 to 12min reels, I was putting down that the flik was only 91 minutes long...but could be mistaken ..

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2007, 03:32 AM:
 
I have only seen a commercial for this movie during the Superbowl or World Series (same thing). I predict that Will Smith will NOT be the only person left on the planet. I also predict that he will, at least at one point, talk to an animal. Hmmmm, what else? I bet he sees that someplace is empty and makes some kind of remark about how crowded it used to be or how different it is now or something along those lines. I'm not banking on this one I'm about to type, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was all some sort of huge experiment of some sort.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 12-14-2007, 03:41 AM:
 
The poster depicts Will Smith with a dog. The tagline is "The last man on Earth is not alone." To which I recall immediately quipping, "Yeah, 'cause he's got a dog, see? No big suspense there."
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2007, 03:45 PM:
 
I know nothing about this movie but I would bet just about anything on one thing: The dog survives.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-14-2007, 06:00 PM:
 
Wrong Mike:

The dog dies. In a scene which gives new meaning to attempting to manipulate the audience.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-14-2007, 06:20 PM:
 
I realize that that is not a huge spoiler, but none the less. Please Spoiler tag it. Some people are not as perceptive to trailers as others.

Thanks
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2007, 06:41 PM:
 
I will rent this on DVD when it comes out.

PS - I never saw the poster to this movie, so I didn't see the dog.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2007, 06:48 PM:
 
I was very disappointed that they edited out Will Smith's line "awwwwww hell no!" as he is about to be attacked. I mean, it's in every other Will Smith movie ever, so they MUST have shot it and the editor screwed up.

Overall it was much better than I expected and it held my attention. Not a great movie by any means, but considering the shit that has been released this year, not too bad.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2007, 11:11 PM:
 
I'll bet the dog will be back in the sequel. He's just missing!
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 12-15-2007, 02:52 AM:
 
Having seen it, I'll bet she (the dog) isn't in the sequel.

As far as actual reviewing goes... Generally up to both Will Smith's and Ridley Scott's standards; nothing revolutionary, but above-average quality ponderous fare.

As an aside- we had to add extra shows on the fly (thank you digital!) because this movie sold out both of our largest houses. (alvin did it too, 2 houses) Tomorrow should be even worse! Good for business.
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 12-15-2007, 08:38 AM:
 
***SPOILER ALERT***

quote: Jonathan M. Crist

---

The dog dies. In a scene which gives new meaning to attempting to manipulate the audience.

---

Unlike OLD YELLER I guess....
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2007, 09:53 AM:
 
Thank you digital??? Just interlock those film prints, you silly boy.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 12-15-2007, 02:37 PM:
 
Heh we added the show after the first had already started, and we don't ahve interlock hardware anywho ( too bad imo ).
 

---

Posted by Christopher Meredith (Member # 3767) on 12-15-2007, 03:04 PM:
 
If you have a MUT, you have interlock hardware.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 12-15-2007, 05:30 PM:
 
Perhaps.. but we also don't have film anything anymore ( except for CC prints and random independent films) - actually it would have been a problem since half our houses don't even have 35mm anymore.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-15-2007, 07:14 PM:
 
Early showing today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #8. Looked and sounded very good. Nice looking 35mm print.

I have to lump this in with Golden Compass: It's pretty good, definitely not horrible, but at the same time it didn't knock my socks off. Will Smith is very good with the material he has to work with. The 2nd half seems to start meandering and the payoff wasn't as satisfying as it should have been.

Some of the CG is very good, some, not so much.

3.125 out of 5 stars after factoring in a 0.125 point deduction for the dumb title. Yes I know it's based on the book. It's still a dumb movie title.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-15-2007, 07:47 PM:
 
Yea, you can interlock without hardware esp with Christie platters. Both operators hit the start button at the same time when one operater hollers 'go' after a countdown.
 

---

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 12-17-2007, 01:16 PM:
 
we (in the UK) are showing this on boxing day for the first time. im running that showing, so..... ill be out of the booth for a bit while i watch it.

what appeals to me in this film (from the trailers i can tell) is that it looks very well filmed and perhaps will turn out to be more of an arty piece for will smith to be in, and a more relaxed project for the director (for once!). i hope the fun they had making it comes across in the film. with the lighting and cg and acting in particular.

High hopes for this film it seems!
... thoughts from a lonely projectionist!

peter
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-18-2007, 02:18 AM:
 
Well checked this out tonight...I wasn't overly impressed with it. I like Will Smith and can't wait for Hancock next year. Something with this movie just falls flat. ###SPOILERS AHEAD### It really is just missing something. I don't like the ending and the introduction of the girl and boy. You spend and hour and 15 min getting to know Will's character then bam, two more people who your supposed to care about.

Worth seeing once in the theatre but not worth buying.

3/5 for this one

and 10/5 for the Dark Knight trailer
 

---

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 12-21-2007, 08:19 PM:
 
It's almost exactly as I imagined it to be from the trailer. I did like it, but my suspicions were confirmed that it's badly marketed. Well perhaps not badly, It's a bit of a strange one, It's more a character study, with a huge budget. I'm not sure how it's going to play to the usual crowd expecting a 'zombie' movie. Sure, it had a few thrills, but they are few and far between.

I enjoyed it immensely though!
 

---

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 12-21-2007, 09:11 PM:
 
Overall I really liked this; I agree there's room for improvement, I wasn't completely blown away but also wasn't bored and thought the story was pretty good and well paced. Special effects looked solid, especially the run down version of NYC, but doesn't it seem like New York was rather dilapidated for having been abandoned for only three years? I would have imagined more time passing before that much change happened...

I saw this in cinema 15 at the Majestic 20 in Silver Spring; the picture looked rather soft and out of focus to me, I complained about it but no (visible) change was made. Still I'm guessing this was a problem at this theater (which has a track record of inconsistent presentation on my visits) and not a fault of the movie itself.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-28-2007, 11:10 AM:
 
A fascinating (albeit implausible) first half hour then degenerates into yet another standard CGI gore fest. And mediocre CGI at that.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 12-29-2007, 01:41 AM:
 
I really enjoyed this movie; my only gripe is that the story was sometimes hard to follow - as if someone had edited out scenes between the main scenes. For example, when Will finds the mannequin on the bridge - how did Will get there? Also, the introduction of the girl and boy was too 'sudden', as if they'd always been there but lurking out of shot!

Overall, I'd give the movie 4 out of 5.

I won't say much more here because other people have already said a lot of what I would have said . I will say, however, the presentation I saw was rather poor - slight focus and framing error, with a sort of 'hissing' from the front 3 sound channels that was very noticeable during the quiet parts of the movie! While not bad enough to complain, it's one of the worst presentations I've ever seen in this cinema
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-29-2007, 09:36 AM:
 
I finally caught up with this movie this last week, and the thing that I couldn’t get over about it was the incredibly obvious Ford product placement. The movie was shot last summer in Manhattan, and on the mornings that I had to be in early (around 3:00 am) I would occasionally run into the area where they were shooting. During the photography, the Will Smith character was zipping around in a bright orange Camero, I would see it on the back of an insert car going up and down Broadway. In the movie, though, I see it’s been replaced by a very obviously digitally generated Saleen Mustang. The things they go through to generate some extra income . . .
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-30-2007, 03:47 AM:
 
Happy Holidays to all.

SPOILERS -- BUT I HOPE YOU HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN TO SEE THIS MOVIE

This will make me seem like a huge prick, but this movie was a HUGE disappointment. I'm not even exaggerating when I tell you it felt like I was watching a bad actor's demo reel: Here's my action scene. Here's my sad/serious scene. Here's a sampling of my madd comedy skills.

...and none of them particularly compelling...

I'm sure Richard Matheson's original did NOT contain a 4-minute recital of a scene from SHREK. Yuck!

And all those friggin' Bob Marley references!

And the introduction of key characters so late in the film?

And he offs himself??? I don't understand why he thought that was necessary. There was room for him in the chamber.

As for the dog-killing scene, I think in the book it was his **wife** that he had to kill.

MY CONDOLENCES TO WHOEVER HAS TO RUN THIS TRASH ON CHANGEOVERS COZ THAT MEANS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO WATCH A LOT OF IT....OVER AND OVER!
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 12-30-2007, 11:32 AM:
 
BOOK SPOLIERS:

In the book: he kills his wife because she has come back as a vampire. The dog becomes infected and dies on his own. He is captured by the vampires (who have formed a rudimentary society), and is taken to a place where he can be publicly executed, but is given poison pills by the sympathetic woman vampire who was previously sent to spy on him. He takes 'em. He is legend, in the sense that he was the last pre-plague human, NOT because he cured the plague. NO village of survivors at the end, which is the kind of infuriating bullshit whack-off feel-good there-is-still-hope happy ending that the movies feel compelled to provide.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 01-06-2008, 08:21 PM:
 
2 out of 5 for me.

I thought the Dog was a she not a he??
I found the running length a little short for this one. It needed a little more stretching out in my opinion.

Saw this in 70mm at the IMAX Melbourne Theatre. I was not impressed with the image quality. It was quite dull and not all that sharp. Does anyone know if this was shot in anamorphic or Super 35?
It did not have the brilliance to it that I thought it would.
 

---

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 01-07-2008, 12:01 PM:
 
I'd give it a 2.5/5, mostly for the nifty scenes of a deserted Manhattan and a few good CGI shots. The plot had a few gaping holes, especially near the end. SPOILER ALERT!! So after Manhattan is quarantined, and the bridges blown up, here comes this car with the obligatory surviving woman and child, and...wait a minute, how did they get to Manhattan? And how are they able to get to that Hollywood happy ending in Vermont with no bridges? The writers must have forgotten that Manhattan is an island.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2008, 08:44 PM:
 
I wonder why these movie directors keep picking on New York to have the shit blasted out of it? Why not L.A. or Chicago? I guess Cloverfield will be the next movie to destroy NYC.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-11-2008, 08:57 PM:
 

quote: John Koutsoumis

---

Does anyone know if ["I Am Legend"] was shot in anamorphic or Super 35?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I wonder why these movie directors keep picking on New York to have the shit blasted out of it? Why not L.A. or Chicago? I guess Cloverfield will be the next movie to destroy NYC.

---

I've detected that lots of movies throw in these "familiar" settings in different circumstances because it's neat to see places we know in new ways. I'm sure seeing these streets in NY all deserted are really cool for people who can say, "Hey, I know that corner!" Unfortunately, for me, never having been to NY (and not really caring to go), this aspect is completely lost on me.

There are a couple movies with LA being blown up or otherwise dealt with. I think Day After Tomorrow had a sequence of places I've actually been. No, wait, I think that was NY, too. The Core? I don't even remember.

But unless someone really gets down to blowing up or having aliens destroy Disneyland, the Orange Crush, or Huntington Pier, I'm not going to be invested too heavily in watching cinematic urban/suburban destruction and caring. And just think of how many filmgoers live nowhere near any "populated" popular cities depicted in these disaster films? Like they care that we get squashed, shaken, burned, blown around, frozen, infected, etc. They ain't never been here! They'll never see their favorite coffee-shop in a quick blink-and-you-miss-it explosion.
 

---

Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 01-12-2008, 05:50 PM:
 
I don't care what city they place the action in, but I do like a movie that has some ACTION. This movie just stood there. Every now and then they'd flash back to the evacuation, and that was a little exciting, but then everything in the present was dull. There was no build up to keep you hanging on to the end. Yawn.
 

---

Posted by Jim Perry (Member # 4619) on 01-13-2008, 05:57 PM:
 
Hi - new member here. Saw the "IMAX Experience" version at the Regal Red Rock multiplex on X-mas Eve. In a nutshell: Will Smith was good. But with that said, "The Omega Man", the 1971 version of the story with Charlton Heston, WAS WAY WAY BETTER (and sorry Will - the "Reciting 'Shrek'/home-theatre" scene DOESN'T COME CLOSE to the "Chuck watching/reciting 'Woodstock' in a REAL MOVIE THEATRE" one (snicker-snicker)! As for the so-called IMAX "experience" (which cost $28.50 - or $14.25 for myself & a friend), can we say MAJOR RIP-OFF here??!!!

It's now Jan. 13th, '08, so in conclusion, for those of you who might still be interested in seeing "I Am Legend", either go to a bargain matinee at a theatre that's showing it in digital projection (I bet 2-to-1 most of the 35mm prints out there ARE THRASHED by now!), or perhaps wait for the DVD (which will probably be out within a couple of months - give or take!).

My rating: 2.5 (out of 5) stars.

[ 01-27-2008, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Jim Perry ]
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-14-2008, 06:27 AM:
 
Sorry to go off topic here, I will take that bet Jim. You can come take a look at my print of Legend and tell me if its Trashed. I think everyone on these boards will take that bet. You realize you are on a board with a bunch of Film Nuts, right? People who take their profession seriously!

EDITED FOR Michael Coate

[ 01-14-2008, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Kurt Zupin ]
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-14-2008, 06:38 AM:
 

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

You realize your [you're OR you are] on a board with a bunch of Film Nuts [missing comma] right? People who take there [their] profession seriously!

---

quote:

---

(I bet 2-to-1 most, if not all, of the 35mm prints out there ARE THRASHED by now!),

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

As for "what would really happen in 3 years:" A few months ago the magazine "The Week" ran an article about that exact subject. According to some scientific dudes, it would be a surprisingly short time before "nature" took the land over again if humans were somehow wiped out of there.

---

Just based on what happens to cracks in the driveway or patio if I get behind on roundup I'd think it is definitely possible for that type of growth to happen in 3 years.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-15-2008, 08:44 PM:
 
Did anyone else notice that during the opening headline crawl at the bottom of the screen, the word "SECRATARY" appears -- then when the word is about 1/3 of the way across the screen, the spelling corrects itself.

What's up with that? I wonder if it was done on purpose.
 

---

Posted by Jim Perry (Member # 4619) on 01-27-2008, 03:20 PM:
 
I see I ruffled a few feathers here (Kurt & Mike B.). Ok, my apologies to you both, as well as anyone else who works in a projection booth..... THAT TAKES THE JOB SERIOUSLY!!! It's nice to know there's still SOME of you out there who do.

For the record, I did a slight re-edit on my personal comment/opinion above ("I'll bet 2-to-1...") - the "if not all" was removed. HOWEVER (and this is NOT directed towards those of you who, again, take the job of film projection SERIOUSLY!), I still stand by my statement that MOST (let's say 75%, or 3 out of 5) prints ARE THRASHED by now. Let's not kid ourselves folks - for every theatre that has responsible people up in the booth, it's a no-brainer there's several out there with those WHO SHOULDN'T RUN BE IN ONE, PERIOD
(A.K.A. "Button-pushers")! And that's just my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-06-2008, 01:31 AM:
 
Just the other day, I was thinking about how this movie could have potentially been one of the year's best if they had stuck to the book's ending. Now it's been revealed that the home video release will have an alternate cut with a new ending.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-06-2008, 04:13 PM:
 
I actually caught this new ending over at Aintitcool.com last night before I went to bed, (it has been taken down now) they really should have stuck with this ending for the movie. It was so much better, its not like the book. But it is so much better, explained what the "creatures" were really like.

I amend my original score of 3/5 to 4/5 with the new ending.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2008, 12:07 AM:
 
Rented the Blu-ray version of I Am Legend. Watched the "alternate" version of it first and then watched the "theatrical" cut ending.

I think the alternate version plays better. It seems to underline the idea that Robert Neville (Smith's character) hasn't drawn the right conclusions and that those years of isolation has caused him to really start losing his marbles.

Still, that doesn't really explain some of the implausibilities in the movie.

If the infected zombie like people are so aggressive and mindless, why don't they kill (and eat) each other? What makes healthy humans so special? Quite a few living things will kill others of the same species, with people being the most notable for it. Why aren't the infected ones starving for lack of healthy people to eat? Guess they must be taking care of themselves somehow. Why is a scientist like Neville so stupid he can't ask those same questions? So it seems really silly when he gets caught in a trap.

The audio mix gets pretty good and loud in various parts. Bass out the wazoo on the opening title and when Neville locks up his doors for the night. Picture quality looks great in some places and a little soft in others.

The disc has some decent extras (in high definition as well). The semi-animated comics are worth a look, but I wouldn't watch them more than a couple times. Overall, the disc is worth a rental, but I'm not sure I'd recommend buying it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-23-2008, 10:50 PM:
 
I watched the alternate cut last week, and it's definitely an improvement. I wish they would have taken it further, but it's nice that the movie at least has a point now.
 

---