Eric D. Snider
I Am Legend
Movie Review
"I Am Legend"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, December 14, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
The most startling thing about "I Am Legend" is how quiet it is. That's logical, since it's about a man who for most of the film is the only human being in New York; but given Hollywood's propensity for loudness at all costs -- and especially given director Francis Lawrence's pedigree of music videos and the chaotic "Constantine" -- it's a pleasant, eerie surprise to be overwhelmed by all that silence.
Based on Richard Matheson's novel (previously filmed as "The Last Man on Earth" and "The Omega Man"), the movie is set in 2012, when a virus has killed the vast majority of the world's population. Of the few million people left alive, most have turned into cannibalistic zombie vampire-y things, preying on whatever animals or people they can find.
Then there's Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith), a military scientist. He and a tiny percentage of other people were strangely immune to the virus. He was tasked with helping prevent the outbreak; that having failed, he now works feverishly to devise a vaccine. The cannibal zombie vampires are still human beings and can theoretically be made well again.
Accompanied by his trusty German shepherd Sam, Robert hunts the deer that now live in Manhattan (but look out for lions!) and makes daily trips to the video store. He has gasoline and water and electricity at his heavily barricaded home/laboratory. He always makes sure to be home well before dark, to prevent any of the infected from following him and discovering where he lives.
Will Smith has the same kind of everyman likability that has made Tom Hanks the world's biggest movie star, and he has the same obligation here that Hanks had in "Cast Away": to keep the audience's interest despite being alone on the screen. Smith manages that exceedingly well, with one particular sequence of events reinforcing his loneliness and grief so vividly that it actually brought tears to my eyes. He is a fine actor, let us not forget, in addition to being a butt-kicking action hero.
He gets to flex both sets of muscles in "I Am Legend," as Robert inevitably encounters nests of infected folks and must kill, evade, or capture them. Lawrence creates spooky tension with all that silence, piling on more creepiness as we realize the zombies are starting to get smarter.
That brings me to one of the problems I have with the screenplay, which was adapted (not very faithfully) by Mark Protosevich ("Poseidon") and Akiva Goldsman ("Batman & Robin," "Practical Magic," "I, Robot," several other bad movies) from Matheson's novel. Robert is obsessed with curing the monsters, suggesting he realizes they are not beyond hope. Yet he also insists they have no shred of humanity left, despite several very obvious signs that they do. If he's so pessimistic about them that he's willfully ignoring evidence of their humanity, then why is he also determined to cure them? Those two mindsets are at odds with each other.
Robert is a tragic, bleak figure. You might wonder why a movie like this is coming out in December instead of during the summer blockbuster season; you won't wonder after you see it. In flashbacks, we see him hustling his wife (Salli Richardson) and daughter (Willow Smith) out of New York just before a quarantine is imposed. "I can still fix this," he says, even though things are already bad enough that such a declaration is ludicrous. He says it again later in the film. By that time, it's downright pathetic. You feel for the guy.
The decision to create the zombies with computers instead of good old-fashioned actors in makeup does not pay off; they never look any better than video game characters. That and some sogginess in the film's last act (when he plays the Bob Marley CD for someone -- oy vey) prevent me from loving it. Nonetheless, the silence, the suspense, and Smith's accessible performance draw you in for some post-apocalyptic fun. The end of the world is almost always a hoot.
Grade: B
Rated PG-13, a little very mild profanity, some violence, nothing graphic
1 hr., 40 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 27 comments
December 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Boy am I glad to hear this! I really didn't like I,Robot, and from the previews this movie looked to me to be about the same quality. (and not just because both star Will Smith and begin with "I"!)
I'm looking forward to seein it tomarrow!
December 14, 2007 at 6:08 am
Thank you for the review. I have been tightly wound like a spring, waiting for the review for this one. I liked I-Robot ok, but was hoping this one would be better. I'm now looking forward to seeing it this weekend.
December 14, 2007 at 10:52 am
I think that the characters opposing viewpoints, as you described them, make perfect sense. I feel the same way about homeless people. I want to help them, see them as normal people, and get them out of the terrible situation they're in, but at the same time, I'm terrified of them and would prefer to avoid hands-on contact. I ease my cognitive dissonance by supporting homeless shelters through payroll deduction.
December 14, 2007 at 11:08 am
I went to see I Am Legend last night, and I think your review is right on. Will Smith's acting is great in the movie, very dynamic, but I definitely wondered about the same conflicting points as you did. I liked it, but it's more of a vampire movie than anything else. Great review!
December 14, 2007 at 11:31 am
Robert is obsessed with curing the monsters, suggesting he realizes they are not beyond hope. Yet he also insists they have no shred of humanity left, despite several very obvious signs that they do.
I took that dissonance, like his continued insistence on remaining at his post to "fix" things, as another example of his creeping insanity/guilt for whatever part he played in causing the outbreak (which he was probably overestimating by the time the movie starts due to his aforementioned madness). Taken that way, it fits.
December 14, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I just saw the movie. Will Smith is a great actor and this movie is no exception. The movie itself should have been better. Another detraction of the movie is basically it gave up when he went to the pier at midnight. Like the director said, "we've got an hour and twenty-five minutes, better wrap this movie up."
Wasn't Castaway a lot longer, maybe they didn't trust Will to carry the movie with just him and some CG deer. (Which would never have survived in such numbers at night)
December 14, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I liked the movie also. I just wanted a little more and really didn't want it to end. I thought those CGI effects were good. There were a couple of scenes where I really couldn't tell they were computer generated. If some were "Animitronic" I couldn't tell. Felt kinda sad for Will Smith's character Robert. Especially the scene with the dog "Sam" his only friend. Too bad it ended so quickly but I figured why should I be "Picky." Overall I liked the flick.
December 17, 2007 at 9:56 am
I saw the movie this weekend. I definitely agree that they should have used real people for the infected. I also agree that the movie ended rather quickly, but at least it wasn't totally depressing.
I was surprised at what happened to Neville's family. After that, I can see why he worked so hard on finding a cure -- it gave him an occupation, something meaningful to busy his mind.
December 18, 2007 at 10:11 am
I like this film-- the creepy parts creeped me out, and I was touched by how Will Smith was able to play fragile and tough in the same breath. And wacky too- when he did the Shrek scene. That cracked me up in the middle of all that tension.
December 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm
This isn't a comment on the movie, per se. It's mostly a comment on the other comments I've read from several of your movie reviews. I find it kind of annoying that some people put so much stock in what you have to say about movies that it is the deciding factor of whether or not they should go and see it. Can these people not think for themselves? I haven't seen this movie yet along with some of the others, but still do, despite the mildly scathing comments you've said about it. Just because I Am Legend won't make me gush all about it and dream ceaselessly about being the heroine (if there was one) opposite Will Smith doesn't mean it won't have some impact on me or that I won't enjoy it. But so what? Movies allow an escape from reality and are an excuse to let us believe ridiculous things such as this can actually happen. Watching a movie is not a life or death situation! There is no need to put on such a serious and sombre demeanor about whether or not a movie is good! It's two hours of your time, people. If the movie sucks, so what? Don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, but that doesn't mean they won't stop making movies that suck. It just means you have to be optimistic and not just assume a movie won't be good. And don't let other people tell you what does and doesn't suck! You have a brain, and while it may not be put into good use during a crappy movie, that's not an excuse not to use it. Lemmings, all of you.
December 18, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Megan,
Believe it or not, two hours (and at least five dollars) is far to much to spend on some movies, "Bratz" or "Santa Clause Conquors the Martians" (which is a real movie) for example. I don't watch too many movies in the theater, so I don't want to waste my theater going time. Reviewers, including Eric, help me to make informed decisions before selecting a movie. I am not being sheeplike, I am just listening to someone who has actually seen the movie before spending a chunk of my life with it. What demonstrates a better use of my brain, considering the advice of someone who's movie opinions I generally trust, or simply wandering into whatever showing room happens to be open?
That said, I enjoy reading these reviews. The review of bad movies make me laugh, and there is often good commentary on what makes an effective bit of comedy, suspense or whatever. I don't think that makes me a Lemming.
Sincerely,
John
December 18, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Five bucks?! We just dropped 11.50 like it was hot on this moving picture show. And I don't know whether it was because it was very late at night or because it was very dark in the theater or because my parents were eaten by zombies but this movie scared the crap out of me. Which is a good thing.
And I, personally, don't think I'm a lemming either for enjoying a good commentary from time to time. Unless you guys think I'm a lemming. Because if you guys think I'm a lemming then maybe I am...I don't know? Guys...guys? Baa?
Which reminds me: "Moo! Baa! Where's Leonardo??"
December 19, 2007 at 3:58 am
It's $9.50 each ticket, plus popcorn, drinks, getting a babysitter, etc. I don't want to waste my money on a worthless movie. Usually I can tell from the preview that I don't want to watch it. I'll never get to know how awful these movies are without Eric reviewing them (at least not until they are on TNT in 3 months).
Eric did save me money on the Golden Compass, I almost went with some friends late on a weeknight, but the review helped me decide that it wasn't worth losing sleep to watch, subsequently my friends all told me that it wasn't good.
Perhaps I need to take the money that was saved and buy ericdsnider merchandise?
December 19, 2007 at 3:10 pm
@Megan:
How does trusting an established critic's reviews make anyone a "lemming"? I can't speak for everyone else, but spending well over ten bucks and three hours or so to drive to the theater and watch a movie just to find out that it's not very good (a la Golden Compass) makes me wish that I had just stayed at home.
"It's two hours of your time, people. If the movie sucks, so what? Don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, but that doesn't mean they won't stop making movies that suck. It just means you have to be optimistic and not just assume a movie won't be good."
In other words, trust Hollywood with my time and money and hope they don't give me crap projected on a screen... who's the lemming again?
December 19, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I'm thinking that many of you missed my point; regardless, I'm not going to repeat myself. What I will do is apologize to anyone that I have offended, but also add that many of the movies I have seen, though critics have said they are crap, I have thoroughly enjoyed. In other words, I trust myself, rather than placing my faith and my decision-making onto what someone else has to say.
And YES I am aware that individual preferences come into play here, but I also think this ties into my point. I'm just sayin', but I imagine the angry comments will come anyway.
(And P.S. From a lot of reviews I've read on here, it seems Eric was less than impressed with them, and yes, I'll admit some of them were terrible. But you still went to see them, didn't you? Again, I'm just sayin'.)
December 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm
@Megan, #2:
I seriously doubt you'll get any genuinely angry comments, but your entire argument doesn't make sense. You seem to be convinced that at least some of those commenting here make movie-viewing decisions based on the e-Gospel of Eric, as contained in the holy servers.
Once again, just because some people take Eric's opinion about movies seriously doesn't make them brainless followers. In fact, it only seems like common sense to find a critic that you consistently agree with and then balance what you want to see with what they recommend.
I'm not offended, by the way. I just don't think all that good grammar should go to waste on faulty logic.
December 20, 2007 at 4:21 am
This movie reminded me a lot of "Children of Men". It was as depressing.......it wasn't as good due to an even more unrealistic plot. I think this movie deserved an "R" rating since "Children of Men" got an "R" rating. Will Smith was great as always, but I really didn't think this was very good.
December 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Eric is writing entertaining reviews that weight every movie on its own merit - and he never drops a spoiler. That's more that one can say about most other reviewers.
This movie is good (it make me sobbing - yes) but somewhat too melodramatic and everything is explained oh-so-slowly. I liked "28 days later" much better even if the "I am a legend" movie was shot on vastly bigger budget.
By the way, the biology lab was looking quite realisticy - apart from the shatter-proof glass wall and Dr. Frankenstein table
December 21, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Megan, I've found that when Eric gives a film like this a B, I will enjoy it. Eric has slightly less patience for movies like the "Pirates" trilogy or "I, Robot" than I do, but I can usually read between the lines and find out if I will enjoy a movie.
We don't go and see the movie based purely on Eric's (or any other critic's) recommendation, but a positive review from a trusted source can help us make the final push and fork over the few bucks.
I just got back from this movie and can confirm that the system works. Eric has only let me down once, but I used free tickets for "Superman Returns" so no harm done.
December 26, 2007 at 11:11 am
Great review! The contradiction you mention, I believe, has an explanation. How can he say that the creatures have no shred of humanity left, yet think they are reclaimable? His character is by definition at conflict with himself. He stubbornly pushes forward with survival, and yet deep inside he fears it is all for not.
The part of him that fears and hates the creatures is the part that feels they are beyond saving, the guilt-ridden side of him, the doctor/scientist and last lonely "Human", can not surrender the final shred of hope, that maybe, just maybe he can save them. The original story by Richard Matheson deals with these complex and contrasting emotions. I hope the film keeps the spirit of the book.
April 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic films, even the bad ones, but this is a good one.
April 5, 2008 at 2:35 pm
**SPOILER**
I really enjoyed this movie, except the ending left a little to be desired. However, there is an alternate ending that shows him achieving the status as a legend WITHOUT dying. It makes it much more satisfying, although it does play into the "happy ending" mindset we all seem to crave. Oh well. I still like it better than the theatrical version. You can watch it here:
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/03/05/must-watch-i-am-legends-original-ending-this-is-amazing/
April 14, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I find this movie to be very well done. There are some conflicting points, as you have mentioned, but the acting pays off. I loved the suspense when he was trying to retrieve Sam from the dark room. I also loved how you can feel his desperation for human contact, making you feel overwhelmed, and hope for a happy ending for Robert Neville. I think I will read the book and see what it has in store...
April 17, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Just saw it. Does anybody care?
I loved it up until I saw the monsters up close. Man, they looked cheesy. It took me right out of the movie.
These were worse than video game monsters (compare it to, say, Resident Evil 4). If the bad guys had been actors in makeup, I think the film would have been almost infinitely more compelling (I saw almost because it couldn't really be infinite. That's totally impossible.)
June 13, 2008 at 4:45 pm
As with I Robot this is another of the greatest pieces of science fiction ever written. Unfortunately it has been duelly bent over and r***d by a combination of awful story changes, simply terrible CGI and an ending which was so dissapointing words can hardly express. Even the ever ingaging acting of Will Smith couldn't save it. The truely sad thing of course was that as with I Robot it could have been so good.
July 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I liked this movie up until about halfway through...then it just became ok.
SPOILERS:
I just felt that they developed some plot points but ignored them. The duality of Smith's feelings towards the infected aside, they clearly show intelligence at once point (with the dummy) and yet this point is never expanded upon. Albeit, Smith's character has a lot of other things going on in his mind at that point, but I expected it to go at least SOMEWHERE. Was it meant for the the audiences sake? If it was meant to drive the story, it only did so in one way, and that point could have occurred in a number of different methods. Then theres the plot line with the Alpha-male that again, went nowhere. I don't expect a movie to answer all of the questions (such as in Cube) but I don't expect them to introduce plot points/turns only to ignore them once they have been introduced.
July 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I don't understand the supposed conflict between his assertion that the monsters have no humanity, and his quest to reclaim them. It didn't bother me at all. I find it no more bothersome than if he had stated "the monsters have no hair," but then continued a quest to make a monster-hair-growing drug. It's just an assertion about the current state of things.