• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

I Am Legend

Well I managed to see this a couple of days ago. The first half was very atmospheric and the cut scenes with his wife and kid are good too, but opting for full CGI for the infected was a big mistake - they come across as too comic-like and therefore less scary and less believable.

I was disappointed that they also opted to differ so much from the book - losing the two types of infected, the big changes over the dog, not having Ben Cortman (although the head infected was clearly supposed to be Ben), changing Robert's occupation and making him not only a high ranking army officer, but also a world-leading scientist...not very believable! The book showed Robert as far more realistic as an average working Joe.

Having said all that, I thought Will Smith's performance was very good and far more under-stated than his previous 'Oh Hell No' sci-fi roles. He played teetering on the edge of madness very well and also looked genuinely terrified in the scene where he had to go into the warehouse to retrieve Sam.

Not bad overall, but left me a little disappointed.
 
I thought the movie was total crap.

I think it was way too violent and way too intense to be allowed a PG13 rating. That was probably a half a cuss word from an R rating, and it should have been an R movie anyway. My wife was so disturbed by the subject matter and its presentation that she left before the dog attack scene and went shopping while I stuck out the rest of the film.

If the movie was rated R, I would have thoroughly enjoyed it. But I am too hung up on how the ratings folks bungled this one to recommend it to anyone. Total crap.
 
I didn't think there was anything wrong with the rating at all. Too violent??? There's hardly any violence in it at all and what there is does not show gratuatous blood or gore. The dog attack scene was the most violent scene and even that the viewer only got to see small smears of blood on Sam. People get far too hung up on ratings.

It was clear from the trailers (even if you hadn't read the book or seen the first two incarnations of the film) that it was about hordes of nasty creatures against Will Smith, so you should've realised from that that there would be some degree of violence in it.
 
Call me old fashioned, but I stick by my earlier post. It is quite common for people to take kids a "bit" younger than 13 to a PG-13 movie (and also to take people younger than 17 or whatever the cutoff is to R rated movies too.) I'm glad I didn't give in and bring my 12 year old son with me. But there were other kids in the theater that were in that 10 year old range. Totally inappropriate.

If viewers and movie theaters were dilligent about the ages of folks they allowed into their showings based on the ratings, then I'd be less adamant about my assessment of this film.
 
That's a fair point, but if people want to flout the ratings system then it's at their own risk. In my own personal opinion, I thought the rating was about spot on, but I know people's opinions differ quite a bit over ratings in general.
 
Will S. was awesome, as usual, very intense BUT the movie was trash. I would rather have my 12 year old read the book and discuss the irony with him, than see this silly adaptation.
 
Fore Check said:
I thought the movie was total crap.

If the movie was rated R, I would have thoroughly enjoyed it.
Click to expand...

That is one of the stupidest statements I've read in a while You are calling the movie crap based on the rating it has been given and not upon the content. It's like saying Bambi was crap because it was for all ages but you'd love it to bits were it rated for adults alone. Absolute nonsense.

roddglenn said:
I didn't think there was anything wrong with the rating at all.
Click to expand...
roddglenn, in the UK the rating is 15, meaning that nobody under the age of fifteen should see it. PG-13, in the States, allows children under thirteen to see it provided they are accompanied by an adult. As such, the ratings are different and, since you are both approaching it from different countries and different ratings, there can't really be an argument or disagreement here.

Fore Check said:
But there were other kids in the theater that were in that 10 year old range. Totally inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Since it's a PG-13 that's not for you, but for their own parents to decide.

If viewers and movie theaters were dilligent about the ages of folks they allowed into their showings based on the ratings, then I'd be less adamant about my assessment of this film.
Click to expand...
So, with the same script, the same actor, the same scenes, the same schmalzy ending, etc. the film would be better if it wasn't for the rating? You're mad.

That said, I saw the film last night and it was awful. To be named after the Matheson novel I would expect some parity and the only real similarity between the two was that Neville was the last man on Earth. The horrid reworking of the title into that ending was a disgrace and defeats the whole purpose of the book and the title. Will Smith, surprisingly, was the second best thing about it; the dog was the real star. But the film, by inventing its own storyline, couldn't match the book and was full of holes. If anything it should have retained the name The Omega Man, as its essentially a remake of that rather than an adaptation of I Am Legend.
 
Stewart said:
roddglenn, in the UK the rating is 15, meaning that nobody under the age of fifteen should see it. PG-13, in the States, allows children under thirteen to see it provided they are accompanied by an adult. As such, the ratings are different and, since you are both approaching it from different countries and different ratings, there can't really be an argument or disagreement here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I was just saying that I thought the rating was fair to the film. If anything, our rating set at 15 in the UK is too high.
 
roddglenn said:
Yes, I know, I was just saying that I thought the rating was fair to the film. If anything, our rating set at 15 in the UK is too high.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree about that. I doubt it's any more scary to children who see huge roaring polar bears clashing in The Golden Compass or Gollum in The Two Towers.
 
Stewart said:
That is one of the stupidest statements I've read in a while
Click to expand...

C'mon....

Just because you disagree with my reasoning doesn't mean that I'm stupid. I don't have the patience to engage in a discussion of this level (or to clarify with more information - I'm dropping it at the fact I really didn't like it), particularly on an "anonymous" internet forum. Let's just agree to disagree and keep it civil, 'k?


No-one, including me, is trying to usurp or or impose upon anyone's parental authority. My point of view predisposed me to dislike the movie. Everyone can make their own choices.
 
Fore Check said:
Just because you disagree with my reasoning doesn't mean that I'm stupid.
Click to expand...

I never called you stupid, just your statement and that was because the logic behind it doesn't amount to reasoning. How a film can be better because it has been awarded a rating is crazy - everything would be the same, apart from the audience. How can the presentation possibly differ depending on who is watching?
 
Ohhhh no it wasn't!

Sorry, couldn't resist! I'll get my coat...

EDIT: Didn't see that you had already beaten me to it, Stewart! :D
 
Wasn't keen on the movie, the bit with the dog getting infected made me cry and then what a really shit ending, it was just like.....where do we go from here??? oh I know THE END!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top