Just watched this DVD tonight. It was enjoyable enough and I love the original novel. I was just left wondering if the film makers had actually read it or not...

JB

It's a few months back, but I'd read the book before seeing the film too, and remember some 'amendments' - were they mainy about making the main character more sympathetic?

Sheila

Well, the whole film is loosely based on the book.

Firstly, I don't think the MC in the novel is either a colonel or a scientist, and he certainly doesn't have a lab in his basement searching for a cure. Secondly, the monsters are true-blood vampires, not mutants, and they already kew where Robert Neville lived. The whole reason he has metal shutters all over his house in the book is because the vamps show up every night and try to entice him out. They are articulate, rational creatures, not savages. Thirdly, the whole point of the novel is missed. Fourthly, there are no other survivors and certainly no survivor colony, just a female Neville isn't sure is a vamp or not. Lastly, in the movie, the 'I am Legend' bit comes from Neville's search for a cure. In the book, it comes from the fact that he is the last human being and the 'Hollywood ending' they have in the movie undermines the whole point of the novel.

I watched the movie and enjoyed it as a decent action/horror film in its own right. There are some great moments of tension. But I don't understand why they didn't just make 'I am Legend', because the Will Smith movie certainly isn't it.

JB

Well, I think part of the reason is that films don't work like books and although writers are well-paid for the films rights - unless they are Jane Austen and dead, of course, - they often don't have much say in how the film will turn out. Sometimes they even issue press statements dissociating themselves entirely,which I think happened recently with a well-known fantasy author.

One of the differences I noticed was the hunting scenes with the dog. I don't think there were herds of deer in the book and as I recall - it's coming back to me - the hero spend practically the whole story trying to persuade the dog to come near him. I could see how in the film the dog was used to show the hero's humanitarian side -also something to talk to, which might have seemed odd otherwise. A lot of it was about showing the possibilities of a derelict New York - something American filmmakers seem to like.

One scene I really enjoyed was the visit to the music store to get the CDs and the presence of the mannequins. That had me so spooked I could hardly watch it, as I was convinced any minute one of them would move.

It reminded me of that other movie with Will Smith moving among the robots.

Sheila

That's right. Neville coaxes the dog to be his companion.

It's not a bad film, I would have just preferred to see something a bit more bleak and gothic, but it seems that unhappy endings don't make for box office hits. I always wonder whether that's just because the masses aren't used to them and Hollywood execs won't take a gamble, or if it's a tried and tested philosophy.

I thought the woman never having heard of Bob Marley was a bit contrived and her sudden religious fanaticism a tad forced, but on the whole, Smith put in a good turn and it held my interest, even if I did groan out load at the end.

World destruction by human hands? Oh, don't worry consumer America, it will all be ok in the end...

JB

<Added>

Oh, I did notice the Batman and Superman poster in the ruined Times Square. Now, that's one I'm waiting for...the first big budget crossover movie. Well, it works in the comics...

The title "I am legend" made much more sense in the book than in the film I thought. I would recommend the book to anyone, a good read! (though the film was good too, completely different story, but a little bit of Will Smith has never hurt anyone!!) LOL

We rented this but I didn't get to see it - although I meant to...

Should really give it a second chance.

(In fact I'll have to - having inadvertantly sent it back when the other adult in the house had only watched half of it )

Sarah

Yes, it certainly appealed to the consumer soul -empty New York turned into a kind of giant free shopping mall, combined with elements of a bizarre pioneer nostalgia.

Sheila

Trying my best not to read this thread. I was searching for JB's thread on the actual novel. I've just finished reading that and thoroughly loved it. Brilliant, brilliant book - though it feels more of a novella than a novel. My first reaction on finishing it was, "I don't want to watch the film, because it can't possibly do it justice" and from the clips on the trailer I get the feeling it's based mainly on the isolation. I'll have to buy it and see.

Colin M

Couldn't help myself - I've just read the whole thread, and at least now I'm settled and ready to watch the film without the hopes of it matching the book - which I honestly don't think would make a good hollywood movie. JB, I think you're spot on with the tried and tested philosophy of hollywood; they've had years of trial and error to realise what people will and won't spend money on. European films don't follow suit, and are often better (or just more interesting) for it, but also suffer because they don't have the WOW factor, so don't get the mass audiences. I guess it comes down to simple word of mouth: if you sit in a bar after a film discussing the intelligent debate put forward by the director, and the guys at the table next to you are discussing the incredible effects and rollercoaster story of the film they've seen, then the majority of hob-nobbers will be more likely to check out the latter. But I hold out for the directors that go against the grain and try for new ground, either being true to the original story (Peter Jackson: Lord of the Rings) or breaking new ground (Matt Reeves: Cloverfield).

Colin M

I concur, although LOTR wasn't entirely true to the books, it did capture the spirit of it, I thought.

JB