Subscribe to
NSLog(); Header Image

I Am Legend?

I usually agree with Rotten Tomatoes. I Am Legend got a 68%. Perhaps their math library's not working and the decimal was misplaced, because that's all I can figure. The plot was horrible, disconnected, and incoherent (I'd list examples, but every time I think about it I come up with several new ones, so I'm afraid I might not be able to stop). The characters were poorly developed. The animation was wretched.

68%? More like 6.8%. Blech. I'm glad I spent only $1.25 to see the movie and am glad to remove it from my Netflix queue lest it take five days to receive, watch, and return.

P.S. The movie's description isn't even honest: "A terrible virus has spread across the planet and turned the human race into bloodthirsty monsters. Mankind's only hope for survival is scientist Robert Neville, the one person left unaffected by the epidemic. When he's not fighting for his life against the hordes of the infected, Neville searches for a cure to reverse the virus's effects -- all the while battling his own doubt and despair as he spends every day alone."

4 Responses to "I Am Legend?"

  1. The movie was "ok", although I think maybe it's one of those movies that must be seen in a theater for it to have any impact.

    I had read the book before seeing it. The book is a much better experience and a much better story. Although the basic premise is the same, there are better elements to it as you get "inside" the character's head.

  2. I watched it, and then watched the original (The Omega Man - Charlton Heston in a deserted LA, before CGI; how did they do that??).

    I think I Am Legend is actually more believable: the falling apart of the cities, his inability to cope when he comes across other people. The plot's a bit of a mess, but internally consistent. I thought he did well, and I'm not usually a fan of big CGI remakes.

    I like "the characters were poorly developed", though - a man, a dog? And a few people in snatched flashbacks? Umm. Not much room for development there.

    (Sorry, should mention - I originally saw Omega Man first, a long time ago, and had expected that I Am Legend would be rubbish. Was surprised to find that not the case.)

  3. Yes, the character development was non-existent. If there's only one main character you'd think he could develop. It's easier to do that than in a movie with more characters. You'd think we'd know something more about him. Hell, we don't even know why he was involved with the stupid project to begin with. They couldn't even tell us that.

    Tom Hanks was the only character in Castaway and yet we saw him develop just fine. Admittedly it's a longer movie, but not an order of magnitude longer.

    And the plot internally consistent? From an email I sent to Patrick earlier today:

    [begin]For example, in the movie, when the one "thing" voluntarily exposes himself to sunlight. Neville even makes a note of it in his video journal. So okay, I think perhaps they're becoming immune to sunlight, and they're going to start attacking Neville in the daytime or something. Nope. Nothing ever happens.

    And if they don't like UV light, why wouldn't you just grab a shitload of UV lights and put those all around and inside your safe room?

    And why didn't they attack his house the first night he was rescued? Certainly the woman wouldn't know how to shut all those metal shutters and she didn't know how to blow things up or turn on the outside lights.

    And the dogs - why couldn't they cross over a tiny sliver of sunlight? They'd just burnt themselves slightly doing so and still lived, so why not jump through the sunbeam and attack?[/end]

    There are a LOT more holes than that, and frankly, they got in the way of understanding the movie. For example, why the heck was he so intent on hunting deer? I thought perhaps they had a gland that could help cure the virus. But no, Neville just wasted time hunting deer…

  4. Hmm, true - I'd forgotten all those holes. (Which I did notice at the time. But conveniently forgot.) I got the feeling that the screenplay had a lot of "development" - ie lots of cooks messing with the broth - and that ideas got left behind. It was dramatically necessary, etc.

    The Omega Man suffers from the same contradictions. Perhaps it's a weakness in the novel. Or maybe it's impossible to write a post-apocalyptic screenplay that holds together. 28 Days Later had some big holes too, I recall.