Weekend Chart RecordDate Rank Theaters Total Gross Days
I Am Legend - 12/14/2007 1 3,606 $76,535,000 3
Return of the King - 12/19/2003 1 3,703 $73,282,370 3
So pretty similar figures. IAL did make 3 million more with 100 fewer theatres. Could be inflation though!
Regardless, I'm sure it's pure rubbish because they cast Will Smith. Even though most of the reviews I've read, while not all glowing, usually state his performance was the best part of the movie.
(I'd much rather see the ability to embed tables here than stupid videos! That would actually be something useful.)
You are a ray of sunshine in a world fully of negativity
My girlfriend and I went and saw this last night, and we both liked it a lot. I haven't read the book so I didn't have any standards to hold it to, so that probably helped but I thought it was great! A nice mix of sad/action/vampires/a little comedy, I also think Will Smith did a good job of acting how someone that had had no human interaction in 3 years or so would be.
I'll probably go see it again in the dollar theater and buy the dvd!
I must be the only person who wasn't impressed by Will Smith's performance in this movie. The parts where he acted 'crazy' were the funny parts in the movie. I read the book, and didn't know the movie was going to be different, so maybe I just went in expecting something different, but I saw him as Will Smith, not Robert Neville.
I like all of his other movies and think he's a great actor, I was just a little dissapointed in this one. Especially the horrible ending.
Does the movie not make it clear that the "things" are vampires? I had no idea from the previews (before i read the book), but I asked two of my friends who saw the movie if they knew it was a "vampire movie" and they had no clue that the "things" were vampires. That was a pretty strong theme in the book (him discovering that their weakness to the cross was mental, etc).
Does the movie not make it clear that the "things" are vampires? I had no idea from the previews (before i read the book), but I asked two of my friends who saw the movie if they knew it was a "vampire movie" and they had no clue that the "things" were vampires. That was a pretty strong theme in the book (him discovering that their weakness to the cross was mental, etc).
I'd say they're represented as a blend between vampires and the "zombies" from 28 days later. The infected lose all their hair, become extremely aggressive (as well as stronger), feed on raw flesh, and are extremely sensitive to UV light.
Does the movie not make it clear that the "things" are vampires? I had no idea from the previews (before i read the book), but I asked two of my friends who saw the movie if they knew it was a "vampire movie" and they had no clue that the "things" were vampires. That was a pretty strong theme in the book (him discovering that their weakness to the cross was mental, etc).
I'd say they're represented as a blend between vampires and the "zombies" from 28 days later. The infected lose all their hair, become extremely aggressive (as well as stronger), feed on raw flesh, and are extremely sensitive to UV light.
I'd add that in my opinion, they're only labeled as vampires in the book because in the book because of the long-held superstition about vampires. It is in fact a virus that initially had an outbreak during the dark ages(?) (my memory is fuzzy on the specifics from the book) and was labeled as vampires because there was no medical expert capable of understanding it was a virus. When it resurfaces in modern times, because of the superstitions, people assume they're dealing with vampires. Robert Neville (who I don't recall being a doctor in the book) is the first person to come to understand that they're dealing a virus and the 'vampirism' is really just a name of the symptoms associated with someone who's infected.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
Now i may just have felt this way cause i have a dog im close with, but the connection between him and Sam was amazing. I damn near cried when Sam died.
Aslanna wrote:Regardless, I'm sure it's pure rubbish because they cast Will Smith. Even though most of the reviews I've read, while not all glowing, usually state his performance was the best part of the movie.
God forbid anyone just so happens to not like a very average actor and shit rapper that dumbass middle american hicks think is cool.
Nick wrote:God forbid anyone just so happens to not like a very average actor and shit rapper that dumbass middle american hicks think is cool.
Idiot.
I have no problem with people not liking Will Smith. I'm not really a fan myself. But to say a movie would "be pure rubbish" simply because it has an actor/actress that someone doesn't like is idiotic. I believe I already explained that a long time ago.
I think Will Smith is a limited actor (suited more for action/comedy) but I thought he did a good job in independence Day, Men in Black, and I Robot.
He's like a boxer that has a limited number of good moves but those moves aren't bad if not overdone. I'm concerned about his son playing the lead role in the "Kung Fu" Karate Kid remake. I'd like for that movie to be good although it won't spoil the original for me no matter what.
Aslanna wrote: I have no problem with people not liking Will Smith. I'm not really a fan myself. But to say a movie would "be pure rubbish" simply because it has an actor/actress that someone doesn't like is idiotic. I believe I already explained that a long time ago.
Yeah, a film with one character for an hour and a half surely wouldn't suffer at all if the man playing the main character was shit
Pfftt, Wayne Brady is way whiter than Will Smith...
Though, let's be realistic, they don't act white, they just don't act somewhere in the ebonics => crazy nigger spectrum.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
Nick wrote:One of Will Smith's better performances it has to be said, I almost managed to forget that he tries to be the whitest black man on the planet.
Do you actually understand what racism is or are you just actually that retarded? Feel free to take the answer to PM's, this is actually a good film, so let's leave the thread to that discussion.
It was really unrealistic though. Who the hell would pick a Shelby Mustang for their car if they could have any car on the planet.
Ruined the whole movie for me.
No, seriously, I liked it a lot but it tried to be too "jumpy" instead of suspensful. The only suspense was wondering when the loud out-of-nowhere sound effect was going to come.
I'll buy this one for sure. The look that he "leader" of the infected people gave Neville through the glass when he was breaking it would make me poo if I were Neville. It was like... "Yeah, I'm going to get you, don't you worry"
Not sure why they titled the movie so...it really could have been named anything. It wasn't a bad movie--but it wasn't even loosely based on the book, aside from the main character name. Too bad though, as an actual 'based on' movie would own for that story.
That rather large complaint aside, it was a pretty decent movie, albeit a bit goofy. Solid acting by Smith. Hollywood shouldn't be allowed to do this though.
The movie was decent. It hooked me at the start, but the last third of it was pretty lame I thought. I read the alternate ending online and it sounds like it would have been a more fulfilling ending. Smith was excellent in this, the dog was excellent in this, the CGI was ho-hum. Apparently the virus turns everyone into Gollum on roids!
As to Aardor's question, I didn't once make the connection that they were vampires, which I find actually pretty astounding in retrospect. I thought of them more as mutants. Go figure.
The alternate ending was much better than the theatrical ending IMO. It also added quite a different undercurrent to the movie as a whole. Thankfully, the second disc has the entire movie with the alternative ending, so I can pretend the theatrical one dosen't exist. The animals and "people" looked terrible in CGI, especially considering they didn't even have to use it.
7/10 for the alternate ending, 6.5/10 for the theatrical
I got it from Netflix and watched it this past weekend. Will Smith did a fantastic job in my opinion as well and was the only redeeming part of the movie. The script is very weak and was not good at all. They would have been better off sticking closely to the book. I want my 100 minutes back, although maybe I'm just crazy because it appears a lot of you did like the film...I just expected a lot better since the book is pretty decent.
The "cure" at the end is just plain stupid. That should have been one of the very first things he tried. That's just unbelievable that he would not figure that out sooner. He's a fucken doctor for god's sake, so he should have some intelligence.
After that one complaint, the only other real complaint I have is that the title of the movie also makes no sense. He is not a legend at all. There is no legend. There is no "I". The movie should have been called, Sleepless in New York, or something equally ghey that has no point...just like "I am Legend" has no point for this movie.
What irritated me most is that someone as "smart" as this doctor is and as much of a "survivor" as he is supposed to be, why does he not have a safe fallback area in case he is compromised? I mean with a 3 year window that he had, I would have built an underground steel and concrete bunker that nothing would have been able to get through. Not to mention if he KNOWS they are very pained by UV light, why did he not have mass amounts of UV floodlights all around the outside of the hosue running all night? COME ON!
What irritated me most is that someone as "smart" as this doctor is and as much of a "survivor" as he is supposed to be, why does he not have a safe fallback area in case he is compromised? I mean with a 3 year window that he had, I would have built an underground steel and concrete bunker that nothing would have been able to get through. Not to mention if he KNOWS they are very pained by UV light, why did he not have mass amounts of UV floodlights all around the outside of the hosue running all night? COME ON!
That's a great point about the UV light. He could have set up shop in a tanning salon! (or at least have taken all the UV lights from tanning the tanning beds.
In the theatrical version, be hands the cure off to the woman and the boy, puts them in a safe spot, then grabs a grenade and blows himself up along with the creatures. The movie ends with a transition of her arriving at a safe spot in Vermot and handing the cure over to those people.
Oh, another thing...They don't really go into the part where the government would not just allow this cure of cancer to be used...and would obviously have an anti-virus ready for the "just in case" scenario. Its just not plausible in the least how the movie uses a man made viral cure for cancer as the problem. Its inconceivable that the virus and its side effects, no matter how much later they happen from release to public, would not have been under research still at NIH laboratories. Its where they test all the cures for every disease known to man now, but apparently the campus was on vacation for the movie's cure for cancer release.
He releases the "cured" female to the alpha-male mutant and they leave him alone. I personally like this one more because it addresses the fact that they aren't just mindless beasts now but still retain some of their humanity. With the theatrical release, the whole fact that the alpha-male goes out into the sun when Neville traps the female, and where the alpha-male snares Neville in a similar trap, is thrown by the wayside in terms of importance and relevance. They just don't need to be there in that way with the shitty theatrical ending.
I am still baffled why they did not at least try to use the central theme of the novella.... I mean, it would not be that difficult for the average tard theater-goer to figure out! This is now the 3rd fuckup film to a fantastic story! =/ (with apologies to Chuck Heston)
I still think Smith was great in it...just such a catastrophy of a script though....
Boogahz wrote:I personally added it to my "will see on DVD list." I'll let y'all know what I thought when it arrives
I finally received this movie last week. I never read the book, so I did not expect anything to happen in a particular manner. I am guessing that the book had a lot of internal conversations with the main character and himself, because there were several areas where I felt it could have actually explained wtf was going on. It was obvious that the character knew, so it would not be like other movies that has the audience learning as the doctor did. The ending was a little hokey, but I had already read the spoilers here which meant I did not expect anything better. It was entertaining, but I am glad I waited to watch it at home as I was doing something else.
Boogahz wrote:I personally added it to my "will see on DVD list." I'll let y'all know what I thought when it arrives
I finally received this movie last week. I never read the book, so I did not expect anything to happen in a particular manner. I am guessing that the book had a lot of internal conversations with the main character and himself, because there were several areas where I felt it could have actually explained wtf was going on. It was obvious that the character knew, so it would not be like other movies that has the audience learning as the doctor did. The ending was a little hokey, but I had already read the spoilers here which meant I did not expect anything better. It was entertaining, but I am glad I waited to watch it at home as I was doing something else.
Now go read the short story/book/novella whatever it's called, it's worth it.
I finally saw this movie. Parts were enjoyable, but on a whole it sucked for me because they could have done better by sticking closer to the original novella instead of trying to Hollywood it up.
I especially hate HATE HATE tacked on happy endings in stories that didn't have them in the original manuscript!!!!
I liked it. I have realized that expecting a movie based off of a book to follow it is unrealistic and not really fair to expect, so it doesn't bother me that it doesn't happen a whole lot (exception being the Dark Tower books, because I them.)
I have also realized that people on this forum have pretty unrealistic expectations for movies and video games in general though.
Imagine if there was Steven King Dark Tower movie made and Roland (played by Matthew McConaughey) rescues Susan (played by Tina Fey) from the mob of villagers at the Charyou tree and they escape and warn Gilead who's army, forewarned, defeats Farson (played by The Rock) in the epic battle of Jericho's Hill ...
Ashur wrote:Imagine if there was Steven King Dark Tower movie made and Roland (played by Matthew McConaughey) rescues Susan (played by Tina Fey) from the mob of villagers at the Charyou tree and they escape and warn Gilead who's army, forewarned, defeats Farson (played by The Rock) in the epic battle of Jericho's Hill ...
I think I would totally watch that movie if they called it "I Am Roland" and it wasn't actually supposed to be a Dark Tower movie.
But I get what you're saying!
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."- Barack Obama
Imagine if there was Steven King Dark Tower movie made and Roland (played by Matthew McConaughey) rescues Susan (played by Tina Fey) from the mob of villagers at the Charyou tree and they escape and warn Gilead who's army, forewarned, defeats Farson (played by The Rock) in the epic battle of Jericho's Hill ...
yeah, ike that...
Like I said, the Dark Tower is my only real soft spot when it comes to this. If they bastardized the story that bad I think I might have a nervous breakdown.
them.)
Susan needs to be played by a innocent looking, extremely hot teenage blonde girl (probably no one mainstream.)