I Am Legend
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
Capt Quirk
Veteran
I actually like Thomas Jane, and feel he is a rather under rated actor. I think I've only seen a couple of movies with him, but the roles were at far ends of the spectrum. The first movie was a chick flick called The Sweetest thing, with Christina Applegate and Cameron Diaz. He showed good comedic skills in that. The other was The Punisher. While the movie was a little flat, he did pretty well, much better than the Dolph Lundgram version. He's one I'll look for in the future.
tmnt
King of Australia
Check out Stander (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326208/) if you want to see what Thomas Jane can do. He's a brilliant actor, kind of a thowback to the old school actors like Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin. He should be getting lots of work.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Thanks, I'll have to look for Strander.
keynstring
Well-known member
Ok...I saw LEGEND Monday. I've been reserving judgment till I could come home and review 28 DAYS and WEEKS. Of course my intent was to reaffirm how horrible and lazy the CG was. Not surprisingly I came to a few other conclusions.
First, as everyone has already said, the CG was poor, about the level of THE MUMMY if you ask me. I found it distracting as I fell into work/techie mode instead of completely involving myself in the story. If you didn't have the establishment of the empty city and hunting scenes you would be lacking for a lot.
Unfortunately to make a post appocolyptic flick convincing you have to at least touch on the issues that 28 DAYS and other films in the genre have. Dude's alone for 3 years and then completely hot, brazilian, niece of Sonia Braga walks in, fixes leg and dude wants bacon? Dude like 2 minutes ago you were hitting on a Mannequin. There ya go...'NOTHIN'S GONNA STOP US...NOTHIN'S GONNA STOP US NOWWWWWWWWWW!!' Except bad CG Vampire/Zombie/Not scary at all creatures.
No but wait, the first reveal of the creatures. Huddled together in a corner, uniformly feeding on the Antelope. That scene was well done. Hitchcockian rip off, looking around the corner style but still really scary...AND...help me on this...weren't those actually PEOPLE???
First, as everyone has already said, the CG was poor, about the level of THE MUMMY if you ask me. I found it distracting as I fell into work/techie mode instead of completely involving myself in the story. If you didn't have the establishment of the empty city and hunting scenes you would be lacking for a lot.
Unfortunately to make a post appocolyptic flick convincing you have to at least touch on the issues that 28 DAYS and other films in the genre have. Dude's alone for 3 years and then completely hot, brazilian, niece of Sonia Braga walks in, fixes leg and dude wants bacon? Dude like 2 minutes ago you were hitting on a Mannequin. There ya go...'NOTHIN'S GONNA STOP US...NOTHIN'S GONNA STOP US NOWWWWWWWWWW!!' Except bad CG Vampire/Zombie/Not scary at all creatures.
No but wait, the first reveal of the creatures. Huddled together in a corner, uniformly feeding on the Antelope. That scene was well done. Hitchcockian rip off, looking around the corner style but still really scary...AND...help me on this...weren't those actually PEOPLE???
Batutta
Major Contributor
I thought his response, and all around the psychological portrait of this man in extreme isolation was very believable. This is a man who is only held together by a rigid routine, and when it's broken by the arrival of these two people, it seemed very real that he would require some time to adjust. What did you expect him to do, rape her on spot?
keynstring
Well-known member
Yeah, pretty much. Even more so after losing Sam...his best friend. And he'd lost all hope, trying to commit suicide. I see your point also.
Batutta
Major Contributor
That's not how people work. When you've been isolated for so long, you forget how to interact with people...I'm not going to argue with you that the CGI was weak, but the reality of the psychological portrait of Neville is the only thing that keeps the movie from being worthless.
Saw it today. Seems like this whole film was based on the "wow" factor of seeing New York completely abandoned. The coolness factor goes out about five minutes into the film, and then nothing else of importance really happens. I've read reviews that called this a "spectacle film." Aside from the decent CG work on New York, there's nothing really impressive about it. The monsters were badly done CG and Will Smith completely fails to carry the movie on his own, which was surprising. The whole "I'm completely alone so I'm going to talk to inanimate objects" has been done much better (Cast Away anybody?). Maybe they should have casted Tom Hanks in the role.
Thomas J. O'Hara
Senior Citizen
entertaining, go see it on imax for the experience...and a girl on each arm makes a bit more fun. 
i agree with the CG zombies being overkill, just use real people w/ makeup!
i agree with the CG zombies being overkill, just use real people w/ makeup!
DeSica
Well-known member
Now I want to see this film just to see how and where they went wrong.
From what I have already read on here, the zombie creatures are not up to snuff, not only in terms of their CG representation, but as characters.
If a man lives alone in fear of certain creatures, then those creatures would be more scary and more haunting if they were more real. In The Omega Man, the zombies used to be real people with real lives that we glimpse, and now have mutated to something else...and they want to get at Heston.
Heston fights them off at night, scrounges for supplies in the daylight, and repeats a lonely series of events that make up his existence...which seem devoid of point and purpose. If it weren't for the creatures, he'd be bored to death...and because they are there, he lives in fear of death. When he meets the human girl and her brother, there is a renewed connection to his own humanity...and the it also marks the beginning of the end for him.
CGI zombies with video game features and no personality that just howl and fly by are shallow artifacts that supply superficial and short lasting thrills. Things that once were very much like you and I that now have become something very different and very threatening make for a deeper thrill and a better film experience. The psychological element of a movie monster is just as important as, if not more than, the physical part. The more real they appear, the more the revulsion we feel.
Also, since what I have read indicates that for, a certain element of the creatures, Smith's character is akin to a vampire who hunts them in the night, it would make for a better counterpoint to have a discernible, once human soul behind those monster eyes, since they are not really opposites, but more like two halves of what once was the same coin.
It sounds like this could have been a very thrilling, somewhat scary, and pretty smart post apocalyptic pic...but everything I hear about it suggests that they cut corners character wise and just coasted on gimmick and hype for the most part.
Seems like a wasted chance at making a modern classic.
From what I have already read on here, the zombie creatures are not up to snuff, not only in terms of their CG representation, but as characters.
If a man lives alone in fear of certain creatures, then those creatures would be more scary and more haunting if they were more real. In The Omega Man, the zombies used to be real people with real lives that we glimpse, and now have mutated to something else...and they want to get at Heston.
Heston fights them off at night, scrounges for supplies in the daylight, and repeats a lonely series of events that make up his existence...which seem devoid of point and purpose. If it weren't for the creatures, he'd be bored to death...and because they are there, he lives in fear of death. When he meets the human girl and her brother, there is a renewed connection to his own humanity...and the it also marks the beginning of the end for him.
CGI zombies with video game features and no personality that just howl and fly by are shallow artifacts that supply superficial and short lasting thrills. Things that once were very much like you and I that now have become something very different and very threatening make for a deeper thrill and a better film experience. The psychological element of a movie monster is just as important as, if not more than, the physical part. The more real they appear, the more the revulsion we feel.
Also, since what I have read indicates that for, a certain element of the creatures, Smith's character is akin to a vampire who hunts them in the night, it would make for a better counterpoint to have a discernible, once human soul behind those monster eyes, since they are not really opposites, but more like two halves of what once was the same coin.
It sounds like this could have been a very thrilling, somewhat scary, and pretty smart post apocalyptic pic...but everything I hear about it suggests that they cut corners character wise and just coasted on gimmick and hype for the most part.
Seems like a wasted chance at making a modern classic.
Batutta
Major Contributor
If you've invested this much thought in a movie you haven't seen I suggest you see it before criticizing it. Your concerns are partially valid, although it's not as though the film is devoid of genuine thrills and suspense. One of the things I like about the film is that they took the time to build REAL suspense in many sequences and not just hurl creatures at the screen. The problem isn't that the director used CG creatures for cheap shocks (which I don't feel he did) it's just that the CG work is subpar. Also, the movie is faithful to the source material in that, in the book, the vampires were just a faceless horde. I don't mind that. It makes you feel Neville's isolation more to tell the story from his point of view only. I can even defend the use of CG for the vampires in that it makes them feel more non-human. They just did a lousy job of it.
DeSica
Well-known member
Now that I have seen it, I don't think it was bad at all (hold your TLITW jokes, please) ...maybe I wasn't expecting much. I'd say it was prety good on the whole.
The zombies had no personality, but maybe that is closer to the book material than The Omega Man was. I didn't see any explanation of their pack nature being cultural or whatever...just like their domestication of infected dogs, but it didn't really matter in this film.
Why didn't the vampires kill one another? Did they attack deer? We never saw any infected deer...
Were rats wiped out by the virus, too? I saw something on A&E which suggested that if the guys who go around killing rats in NYC took a couple of days off, the whole city would be overrun...
Why didn't they kill and devour their dogs, or vice versa? If they are so aggressive and mindless, it wouldn't be unfair to ask that question...but it is never addressed (that I saw).
The CGI wasn't great, but at least the entire scenes they were in didn't look like video game screen captures (like in some of The Matrix films).
I'd really like to see a version with the middle type of beings...the ones that are infected, but not totally lost. That angle seems rather interesting to me. I guess I'll read the book.
The zombies had no personality, but maybe that is closer to the book material than The Omega Man was. I didn't see any explanation of their pack nature being cultural or whatever...just like their domestication of infected dogs, but it didn't really matter in this film.
Why didn't the vampires kill one another? Did they attack deer? We never saw any infected deer...
Were rats wiped out by the virus, too? I saw something on A&E which suggested that if the guys who go around killing rats in NYC took a couple of days off, the whole city would be overrun...
Why didn't they kill and devour their dogs, or vice versa? If they are so aggressive and mindless, it wouldn't be unfair to ask that question...but it is never addressed (that I saw).
The CGI wasn't great, but at least the entire scenes they were in didn't look like video game screen captures (like in some of The Matrix films).
I'd really like to see a version with the middle type of beings...the ones that are infected, but not totally lost. That angle seems rather interesting to me. I guess I'll read the book.
George Romero's last Zombie flick addresses this aspect...
Just watched it myself. What I liked
1- Will Smith's performance. To be able to carry 90% of the movie in a credible and fresh way is incredible.
2- The Dog.
3- Overall Directing (excluding CG "Infected humans"), Very nice camerawork, pacing, framing.
4- Bob Marley
Didn't like:
1- CG Zombies. This could very well work with real actors. They could CG some of the over the top leaping and blowing up, but keep the real actors for the close ups and emotional scenes. The "master infected" needed a real human actor.
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT Do NOT READ OVER THIS POINT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE.
2- Plot Holes- So, an entire colony of unninfected, and no one listens to the radio? No one is able to broadcast a signal? Even with the High tech military gizmo at the door and soldiers with uniforms fully equipped?
3- Hmm. So the City is quarantined, everyone dies, but it is however capable of self generating electricity?
4- The Infected are capable of climbing tall buildings, but are not capable to invade the colony's walls...
5- Weren't all bridges cut off? How did they drive that SUV in and out of Manhattan?
6- Batman and Superman in the same movie in 2009? Are they nuts?
Last edited:
Missed it completely! when did that happen?
SPOILER ALERT
But the rest you must agree, its a bit, lets say, unexplainable, isn't it?
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yeah, except maybe number 4. Only a full scale attack by a giant horde would probably be able to overrun their fortress, and in a place as remote as that it's unlikely they would get that far. Small pockets of infected could be repelled by constant watches around the perimeter. But hey, maybe that's what the inevitable sequel will be about, the fortress under siege by larger and larger masses of infected humans as they race to get the cure replicated.
Jg Marceaux BestBetter
Active member
First 30 minutes were the best.
Movie fell apart completely when the lady appeared and just exactly how did she swoop in to save him? The last 45 minutes or so was dumb, dumb, dumb. I was shaking my head at how B-rated this movie's production felt... from lousy CG zombies to plot-holes galore.
The end narration seemed completely out-of-place.
4/10 -- I care not to see this movie ever again.
Movie fell apart completely when the lady appeared and just exactly how did she swoop in to save him? The last 45 minutes or so was dumb, dumb, dumb. I was shaking my head at how B-rated this movie's production felt... from lousy CG zombies to plot-holes galore.
The end narration seemed completely out-of-place.
4/10 -- I care not to see this movie ever again.
lots of SPOILERS - you've been warned
Stop the presses! I liked this movie!
Anytime I agree with Brandon I'm a little concerned. But then I remember that Brandon likes everything and that makes me feel better.
Love apocolyptic movies. Hate Zombies. Back and forth on Will Smith. That made this movie a complete unknown for me. I had no idea if I'd like it. And it totally got me from the first frame. I think I just really bought into the world. The messed up New York was so convincing to me that it registered in my mind as "real". From that point on I was going to believe everything. Even when CG monsters made their first appearence - it didn't bother me that much. I don't know why because usually that stuff annoys the hell out of me. I think it was a testament to that setup and to Will Smith's performance, which I thought was really good. He is the new top movie star. Everything he does does well.
I cannot get over, however, how the fake zombies didn't take me out of the movie. I totally bought into them. I do know why they made the zombies CG though. I believe the holy grail for every special effects artist out there, is to be the first one to create a totally real-looking believable CGI human being. It's a macho thing. So they sell that to the production - "We're going to be the first ones to do it. Believe us." And of course every director buys into it because at that point they still have a year or two before the movie comes out. Not unlike the virus in this movie, it's assumed that they will figure it out. Of course they never do. But hey - it brings them one step closer to doing it.
SPZ - The reason none of those things make sense is because the ending was tacked on. It wasn't originally the ending - just a reshoot. So they didn't have time to patch up all those holes (I thought the same thing - how did they make it off the island? - then again - she did make it ONTO the island...). I was trying to figure out just where exactly they began the reshoots of the ending. I believe it was right around the point where he said, "the cure is in our blood". Maybe I didn't follow but how did we come to that conclusion again? The smart thing they did though, was make that glass-crushing scene so intense that you weren't really focusing on that. It probably originally ended with the zombies getting through the glass and killing all three of them. Electricity was totally believable though. This guy's smart and would know how to harness a building generator or two.
Stop the presses! I liked this movie!
Anytime I agree with Brandon I'm a little concerned. But then I remember that Brandon likes everything and that makes me feel better.
Love apocolyptic movies. Hate Zombies. Back and forth on Will Smith. That made this movie a complete unknown for me. I had no idea if I'd like it. And it totally got me from the first frame. I think I just really bought into the world. The messed up New York was so convincing to me that it registered in my mind as "real". From that point on I was going to believe everything. Even when CG monsters made their first appearence - it didn't bother me that much. I don't know why because usually that stuff annoys the hell out of me. I think it was a testament to that setup and to Will Smith's performance, which I thought was really good. He is the new top movie star. Everything he does does well.
I cannot get over, however, how the fake zombies didn't take me out of the movie. I totally bought into them. I do know why they made the zombies CG though. I believe the holy grail for every special effects artist out there, is to be the first one to create a totally real-looking believable CGI human being. It's a macho thing. So they sell that to the production - "We're going to be the first ones to do it. Believe us." And of course every director buys into it because at that point they still have a year or two before the movie comes out. Not unlike the virus in this movie, it's assumed that they will figure it out. Of course they never do. But hey - it brings them one step closer to doing it.
SPZ - The reason none of those things make sense is because the ending was tacked on. It wasn't originally the ending - just a reshoot. So they didn't have time to patch up all those holes (I thought the same thing - how did they make it off the island? - then again - she did make it ONTO the island...). I was trying to figure out just where exactly they began the reshoots of the ending. I believe it was right around the point where he said, "the cure is in our blood". Maybe I didn't follow but how did we come to that conclusion again? The smart thing they did though, was make that glass-crushing scene so intense that you weren't really focusing on that. It probably originally ended with the zombies getting through the glass and killing all three of them. Electricity was totally believable though. This guy's smart and would know how to harness a building generator or two.
Last edited: