I Am Legend (Will Smith)

[sastark]

SPOILER

Does the title "I am Legend" make sense for the movie? In the book, "I am Legend" referred to the lead character's (an untainted human) role reversal with the classic vampire of legend. The last remaining human becomes as unique and feared as vampires of stories. In the book, some infected people had retained normal thinking ability. The human Neville would go around every day finding them and driving stakes through their hearts. The vampires were terrorized by him. In a role reversal, Neville had achieved the status of a count dracula, with a reputation for killing everyone else not like him. There is nothing like this in the movie.

There is a strong pro-religious (even christian) message in the movie. In a time of desperation, Neville's wife offers what sounds like a evangelical prayer and it is portrayed positively. The woman who enters the picture later (Anna) receives messages from God about a colony. Although, Neville disbelieves her, her messages are proved true at the end. She providentially rescues a suicidal Robert Neville (Will Smith) and the movie uses this providential action (what puritabs would call a "special providence") as evidence of God. The end of the movie has a pure colony and as the camera pans out the central image of the colony is a traditional church. Overall, theistic religion is portrayed positively, and the presence of a church even subtly makes it Christian. Neville is atheistic until right before end, when he comes to believe in God and actually makes the supreme heroic sacrifice.

Scott

Well, I haven't read the book but I did recently watch the movie. But, from you description of the book, it sounds to me like it would have been more interesting (when is the book not better than the movie, right?). I like the reverse vampire idea. That certainly did not come out in the movie.

As for Neville (Will Smith) coming to believe in God: When did that happen? I must have missed it.

 

[tdowns]

DVD new ending?

I don't think I'll ever buy or rent it, since I saw the movie in the theater, so, anybody see the "new" ending on the DVD?

Spoil away, what is the new ending...he lives...or everybody dies?

 

[Scott]

SPOILER

Does the title "I am Legend" make sense for the movie? In the book, "I am Legend" referred to the lead character's (an untainted human) role reversal with the classic vampire of legend. The last remaining human becomes as unique and feared as vampires of stories. In the book, some infected people had retained normal thinking ability. The human Neville would go around every day finding them and driving stakes through their hearts. The vampires were terrorized by him. In a role reversal, Neville had achieved the status of a count dracula, with a reputation for killing everyone else not like him. There is nothing like this in the movie.

There is a strong pro-religious (even christian) message in the movie. In a time of desperation, Neville's wife offers what sounds like a evangelical prayer and it is portrayed positively. The woman who enters the picture later (Anna) receives messages from God about a colony. Although, Neville disbelieves her, her messages are proved true at the end. She providentially rescues a suicidal Robert Neville (Will Smith) and the movie uses this providential action (what puritabs would call a "special providence") as evidence of God. The end of the movie has a pure colony and as the camera pans out the central image of the colony is a traditional church. Overall, theistic religion is portrayed positively, and the presence of a church even subtly makes it Christian. Neville is atheistic until right before end, when he comes to believe in God and actually makes the supreme heroic sacrifice.

Scott

Well, I haven't read the book but I did recently watch the movie. But, from you description of the book, it sounds to me like it would have been more interesting (when is the book not better than the movie, right?). I like the reverse vampire idea. That certainly did not come out in the movie.

As for Neville (Will Smith) coming to believe in God: When did that happen? I must have missed it.

It was at the end before he sacrificed himself for the sake of humanity. Anna asked him why he was not going into the safe area. He said "Because I am now listening" or something to that effect. Anna had earlier spoken of listening to God tell her about the location of a pure colony. In the earlier scene, Neville had shouted that there is no God. By the end, the atheist Neville was gone. Now there was the Neville who "listens," like virtuous and pious Anna. Again, it is subtle, but most moral issues (good or bad) in movies are.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

To me, it was one of those movies that could have been legendary (pun?), but came up just short. It's great, but it's just missing something to make it over the top. Definitely worth the watch though.

I agree. It seemed a bit rushed.

SPOILER

Does the title "I am Legend" make sense for the movie? In the book, "I am Legend" referred to the lead character's (an untainted human) role reversal with the classic vampire of legend. The last remaining human becomes as unique and feared as vampires of stories. In the book, some infected people had retained normal thinking ability. The human Neville would go around every day finding them and driving stakes through their hearts. The vampires were terrorized by him. In a role reversal, Neville had achieved the status of a count dracula, with a reputation for killing everyone else not like him. There is nothing like this in the movie.

This was accurately told in Vincent Price's Last Man on Earth. I forgot about this important characterization from that movie. You are right it was left out completely in I am Legend. In the original movie his daily routine was to go hunting everyday and kill as many zombie/vampires as he could find whereas Dr. Neville in the newest movie has a daily task of trying to save as many zombies as he can by trying to find a cure.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Did anyone else think that the zombies in this film acted (i.e. walked, climbed, etc.) just like the robots in I Robot?

Now that I think of it (just watched it this week), there were similarities. There was also similarities to the movie Signs.

***SPOILER***

Another difference between the original (the Vincent Price movie) was the Zombies always knew where Dr. Neville lived and every night they would beat against the boarded up house trying to get in (the zombies in the original were much weaker and more stupid than the ones in this movie). In this movie they never knew where he lived until the end and when they attacked it was quite easy for them to break through.

 

[Scott]

Did anyone else think that the zombies in this film acted (i.e. walked, climbed, etc.) just like the robots in I Robot?

Now that I think of it (just watched it this week), there were similarities. There was also similarities to the movie Signs.

***SPOILER***

Another difference between the original (the Vincent Price movie) was the Zombies always knew where Dr. Neville lived and every night they would beat against the boarded up house trying to get in (the zombies in the original were much weaker and more stupid than the ones in this movie). In this movie they never knew where he lived until the end and when they attacked it was quite easy for them to break through.

Yeah, that was a huge difference. What you describe above is what happened in the book too. The movie was very different. In the book, there was a leader of the vampires, Ben Cortman, who would taunt Neville all night long (shouting "Come out Neville" and the like) outside his house. The vampires in the movie were close to mindless, although there is some question about that since they evidently had the ability to set a trap for Neville, using bait and everything.

The book also used a lot of traditional vampire lore. Neville used garlic, mirrors, and crosses to keep them at bay.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Did anyone else think that the zombies in this film acted (i.e. walked, climbed, etc.) just like the robots in I Robot?

Now that I think of it (just watched it this week), there were similarities. There was also similarities to the movie Signs.

***SPOILER***

Another difference between the original (the Vincent Price movie) was the Zombies always knew where Dr. Neville lived and every night they would beat against the boarded up house trying to get in (the zombies in the original were much weaker and more stupid than the ones in this movie). In this movie they never knew where he lived until the end and when they attacked it was quite easy for them to break through.

Yeah, that was a huge difference. What you describe above is what happened in the book too. The movie was very different. In the book, there was a leader of the vampires, Ben Cortman, who would taunt Neville all night long (shouting "Come out Neville" and the like) outside his house. The vampires in the movie were close to mindless, although there is some question about that since they evidently had the ability to set a trap for Neville, using bait and everything.

The book also used a lot of traditional vampire lore. Neville used garlic, mirrors, and crosses to keep them at bay.

Sounds like the original movie Last Man on Earth followed the book rather closely. Neville also used garlic, mirrors and crosses in the movie. I have an extra DVD with this movie on it if you are interested. It came with four Vincent Price movies, but House on Haunted Hill did not work so the company at my request sent me another movie (which worked better but still had some problems). Regardless Last Man on Earth views fine on both copies and I liked it better than the main feature, House on Haunted Hill, anyway.

PM or email me your address and I will be glad to ship it to you at no cost.

 

[beej6]

We just watched I Am Legend last week. I was unaware of the history of its connection with the earlier movies, but I understand it is different in the relationship, if you will, between the infected humans and the Will Smith character.

The first 1/2 hour - Will Smith and his dog cruising through an overgrown and deserted NYC during the daytime - is worth the rental in itself. And the story told in flashbacks develops well, too.
As with Hollywood movies, any Christianity is implicit, not explicit.

 

[govols]

I wish they would have spent some time showing what the infected went through, per se. WSmith mentions that they have lost all human likeness (or something like that). Well, what did they exhibit before?

I know, I can read between the lines, but it still would have been nice to see that for a few minutes.

 

[matthew11v25]

I agree with others that said the first half of "I Am Legend" was better than the second. The ending was what annoyed me since it personally felt like a cop out. The religious aspect of providence, etc, was cool but seemed a bit sudden or forced since it came suddenly towards the end. I liked the spiritual themes but I wished they would have been better developed towards the begining rather than with Anna's random remark at the end "God told me to..."

I thought the book had a cool plot and made sense with the title I Am Legend, where as this movie doesnt develop Neville as a "legend" per se.

 

[Scott]

I agree with others that said the first half of "I Am Legend" was better than the second. The ending was what annoyed me since it personally felt like a cop out. The religious aspect of providence, etc, was cool but seemed a bit sudden or forced since it came suddenly towards the end. I liked the spiritual themes but I wished they would have been better developed towards the begining rather than with Anna's random remark at the end "God told me to..."

I thought the book had a cool plot and made sense with the title I Am Legend, where as this movie doesnt develop Neville as a "legend" per se.

Yeah, the title "I am Legend" does not fit the movie. The movie is so different from the book. That is not bad; I actually like the movie a lot. But the title does not fit.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Did anyone else think that the zombies in this film acted (i.e. walked, climbed, etc.) just like the robots in I Robot?

"Duh, man! It's cuz they hired dem ther same actors for dem parts."

That's what my cousin Sirmon told me to tell you.

Tell Sermon that I said, "

."

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Who's Sermon?

Oops! I meant Sirmon. My most abject apologies!

But then again, maybe "Sermon" is his brother you know, the one who went to seminary.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

To me, it was one of those movies that could have been legendary (pun?), but came up just short. It's great, but it's just missing something to make it over the top. Definitely worth the watch though.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Sirmon's not laughing.