Movie was 'entertaining' I thought. Nothing that made me think of seeing it a second time. But I didn't think it was fucking horrible or anything. I agree I enjoyed the first half much more then once Smith's character was rescued and the action picked up. I liked the lonely atmosphere of that first half and at point I was thinking what that would be like , not scary zombie vampires, but scary to be so alone. I still wished the connection between him and his dog was pushed even more before the dog's demise, to give it even more impact. They were obviously trying to make that connection between the two, but I have a feeling there could have been more done.
I think the film did a decent job in showing the isolation of the character. I don't think the dog ruined it at all as sebboh mentioned in his review, I think it would have been worse off to cut the dog. As a viewer, I felt the dog was almost my vehicle as to watch this man go about his business as the last man on earth. As from the dog's view, you are there with Smith's character, and experiencing the events with him, but still detatched from him in a certain way because it is not person, it can't speak. And I still like the device it serves as that extra blow to Smith's character when the dog dies, as to tell him, now you are truly and utterly alone.
Only thing that irks me in movie reviews is when the writer spends 90% of his time comparing it to a book. It's not the fucking book, its a movie. Did you ever hear the uppity pricks coming out of the Lord of the Rings films, complaining about this and that being left out, they should have included this substory, but all the while forgetting the fact that the film was good in it's own right. When taking a written story and adapting it for the screen, you consider time, and how you want to direct the audience. You could spend an hour of screen time on a short, really cool section of story from the book, but as the director you need to ask if that is necesary to push the story you want to tell along in the film. Judgements are made in adaptations, not always ones everyone agrees with, but thats part of the process.
The better reviews of films are ones from the people who haven't read the book. Or leave the book out of it. You want that same exact story, with all your favorite parts? Cool, then go re-read the damn book. Good thing about books is your imagination of what it would visually look like, you might always be let down at a movie because when you read the book, it is your own idealized movie. Again, like lord of the rings, when I read the books, the visuals were more fantastic then the movie in my head, but I still thought the movie was a good achievement. Or I remember Jurassic Park. I loved that movie, but yeah of course there are elements in the Novel I remember being much more memorable to me, in my vivid imagination
Anyway, I vote I am Legend as , Meh. Probably rent it on video and watch it again.
I think the film did a decent job in showing the isolation of the character. I don't think the dog ruined it at all as sebboh mentioned in his review, I think it would have been worse off to cut the dog. As a viewer, I felt the dog was almost my vehicle as to watch this man go about his business as the last man on earth. As from the dog's view, you are there with Smith's character, and experiencing the events with him, but still detatched from him in a certain way because it is not person, it can't speak. And I still like the device it serves as that extra blow to Smith's character when the dog dies, as to tell him, now you are truly and utterly alone.
Only thing that irks me in movie reviews is when the writer spends 90% of his time comparing it to a book. It's not the fucking book, its a movie. Did you ever hear the uppity pricks coming out of the Lord of the Rings films, complaining about this and that being left out, they should have included this substory, but all the while forgetting the fact that the film was good in it's own right. When taking a written story and adapting it for the screen, you consider time, and how you want to direct the audience. You could spend an hour of screen time on a short, really cool section of story from the book, but as the director you need to ask if that is necesary to push the story you want to tell along in the film. Judgements are made in adaptations, not always ones everyone agrees with, but thats part of the process.
The better reviews of films are ones from the people who haven't read the book. Or leave the book out of it. You want that same exact story, with all your favorite parts? Cool, then go re-read the damn book. Good thing about books is your imagination of what it would visually look like, you might always be let down at a movie because when you read the book, it is your own idealized movie. Again, like lord of the rings, when I read the books, the visuals were more fantastic then the movie in my head, but I still thought the movie was a good achievement. Or I remember Jurassic Park. I loved that movie, but yeah of course there are elements in the Novel I remember being much more memorable to me, in my vivid imagination
Anyway, I vote I am Legend as , Meh. Probably rent it on video and watch it again.
