EPT
Review: I Am Legend, 3 of 5 stars - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
unknown.sam
Philippines2701 Posts
| ||
|
Beardfish
United States525 Posts
On January 07 2008 07:19 CharlieMurphy wrote: The second thing that was hugely annoying is the fact that he is basically king of new york with food, mansion, companion(pet), weapons, cars, jets (albeit maybe he cant fly it), an entire research lab with drugs and chemicals, a routine including a workout, and hes gone crazy in 3 years??? That is just ridiculous to believe. I was surprised he wasn't even crazier. Three years of NO HUMAN CONTACT whatsoever? Try to imagine living by yourself for 3 years, in an enormous city with nothing but zombies and wild animals on the loose, and the memory of losing your loved ones. Oh, and in this imagination of yours, you can't post on TL.net, sorry. I'm pretty sure you'd go insane within months. On January 07 2008 07:19 CharlieMurphy wrote: PS- Why the fuck does he watch Shrek over and over? He can surely get his hands on other movies that don't suck. What, they don't have blockbuster in NY? Wow, out of all the things you could criticize, you chose this? Well, I'll come up with an answer then. Maybe Shrek was his daughter's favorite movie? After she died, he watched it over and over so he could remember the times he and his daughter shared watching it together. On January 07 2008 07:19 CharlieMurphy wrote: I also find it pretty hard to believe that there was a colony a couple hundred miles south and they never bothered to go to MAJOR cities and look for any survivors with a radio or whatever. Later in your post you say .5% of the people weren't affected by the virus. Think about the ratio of "zombies" to survivors, and now think about the ratio of "zombies" to survivors at the colony. Why would they bother wasting whatever few resources they had to scout major cities? I'm pretty sure they were more worried about staying alive and keeping mankind from becoming an extinct species. Plus major cities were probably the least likely places to have survivors, considering how easy it was for an outbreak to occur in NYC. On January 07 2008 07:19 CharlieMurphy wrote: The ending was shitty as hell too, Its already bad enough the he just so happens to be a pathologist, a general in the marines or whatever, in the .5% of people not affected, but he finds a cure and makes the 'ultimate sacrifice' when he doesn't even need to? thats not cliche at all. Yeah, it was a typical shitty Hollywood ending to a great movie. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36374 Posts
| ||
|
Beardfish
United States525 Posts
On January 07 2008 10:49 CharlieMurphy wrote:Blank screen with just sounds for 3 minutes is just bad directing no matter how you look at it. I Robot fucking sucked, just like this movie. Good comparison there. I Robot was bad, yes. I don't know why you're complaining about that scene being too dark though. I'm sure it would've been much more intense if Will Smith had thermal goggles on. On January 07 2008 10:49 CharlieMurphy wrote:In the last scene you can see they have some form of military, I'm pretty sure they have tanks and aircraft.. Which brings to the other point, wouldn't they want to go to major cities not only for survivor search but for scavenging and resource gathering? The best thing for them to do would be to defend themselves and increase the human population. Once their numbers grew, they could slowly expand their colony, gathering whatever resources they could. On January 07 2008 10:49 CharlieMurphy wrote: No one says he has to throw a grenade all he has to do is get in the chimney or whatever that was. The ending was pretty stupid, thank you Hollywood. But he couldn't just go into the thing because the zombies were breaking into the room. He bought the girl and boy time by getting rid of all the zombies with the grenade. That way, by the time any zombie reinforcements had come, it would already be dawn, giving the two a chance to escape. Why he couldn't just throw the grenade into the center of the zombies, rather than dive into them with it, I have no idea. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia12997 Posts
| ||
|
JudasT
Spain2226 Posts
| ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
| ||
|
Rev0lution
United States1805 Posts
On January 04 2008 12:02 Kentor wrote: the movie really sucked. "why did you come here?" " 'cause god told me to." oh, and she was able to convert him at the end terrible huh? convert him to what lol P.S. Does he really sacrifice himself in the book or this is just another bad hollywood ending? | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14892 Posts
it's very different | ||
|
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
It should be called something else, and been "based on 'I am legend' " or "inspired by 'I am legend' " In the book, hes a legend for something completely different, and the phrase "I am legend" makes sence. In the movie, its just an half-assed sentance made by an insignificant irish chick. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On January 07 2008 19:06 ButtFace wrote: I was surprised he wasn't even crazier. Three years of NO HUMAN CONTACT whatsoever? Try to imagine living by yourself for 3 years, in an enormous city with nothing but zombies and wild animals on the loose, and the memory of losing your loved ones. Oh, and in this imagination of yours, you can't post on TL.net, sorry. I'm pretty sure you'd go insane within months. I definately agree here... it was very easy to believe a person would go crazy after 3 years. I myself was actually surprised too he wasn't even crazier. I mean can you honestly say you can predict the psychological repurcussions of being the ONLY FREAKING PERSON ON EARTH FOR 3 YEARS. I mean I'd probably snap after a week. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On January 07 2008 10:49 CharlieMurphy wrote: The first theory is totally wrong because the mannequin is 'Fred' from the book store. Same clothes and shit. Blank screen with just sounds for 3 minutes is just bad directing no matter how you look at it. I Robot fucking sucked, just like this movie. Good comparison there. sorry have to disagree with you. The scene where the dog ran into the dark abondoned building was easily one of the best scenes in the whole movie. It kept me at the edge of my seat the entire time, and it was great how they didn't reveal the zombies right away and left it to your imagination. Allowing the viewer to use his imagination is actually a great directing technique, as oppose to just quickly showing all the monsters on screen constantly and using excessive gore to invoke fear (with cheesy music in the background). THAT is bad directing. Also regarding the mannequin thing. He said it was a DIFFERENT mannequin with the same clothes. So that theory is feasible. | ||
|
MaGnIfIcA
Norway2312 Posts
| ||
|
Dknight
United States5223 Posts
On January 08 2008 00:28 Epicfailguy wrote: Yeah, so in my opinion I think its wrong to name the movie "I am legend" since the book and movie differs so much. It should be called something else, and been "based on 'I am legend' " or "inspired by 'I am legend' " In the book, hes a legend for something completely different, and the phrase "I am legend" makes sence. In the movie, its just an half-assed sentance made by an insignificant irish chick. There were actually two movies created based off the book but with different names. This one should have followed suit. And don't read just Wikipedia for the book ending, read the actual book. Its amazing. | ||
|
dan1st
Malaysia399 Posts
On January 08 2008 00:48 stk01001 wrote: Also regarding the mannequin thing. He said it was a DIFFERENT mannequin with the same clothes. So that theory is feasible. I may have missed this. But who said it was a different mannequin, and when? Was it Neville? but I really don't recall it. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On January 08 2008 03:23 dan1st wrote: I may have missed this. But who said it was a different mannequin, and when? Was it Neville? but I really don't recall it. Sorry, I wasn't referring to Neville. I was referring to the poster who offered two theories as to who set up the mannequin. He said one theory (from IMDB) was that Neville himself set up a different mannequin but with the same clothes as Fred and then forgot about it. Someone then argued this theory wasn't possible because Fred was the mannequin from the video store.. and I was simply pointing out it is possible because the theory was that it was a DIFFERENT mannequin in the same clothing. Regardless, I for one don't even think this theory is right. The theory that the dark seeker saw Neville capture the alpha female and then used a similar technique to try and trap him is much more believable. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7205 Posts
On January 08 2008 04:07 stk01001 wrote: Sorry, I wasn't referring to Neville. I was referring to the poster who offered two theories as to who set up the mannequin. He said one theory (from IMDB) was that Neville himself set up a different mannequin but with the same clothes as Fred and then forgot about it. Someone then argued this theory wasn't possible because Fred was the mannequin from the video store.. and I was simply pointing out it is possible because the theory was that it was a DIFFERENT mannequin in the same clothing. Regardless, I for one don't even think this theory is right. The theory that the dark seeker saw Neville capture the alpha female and then used a similar technique to try and trap him is much more believable. I dont agree at all with that. When I watched the movie I assumed he just set it up there himself and because he was going crazy forgot about it. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On January 08 2008 04:42 Sadist wrote: I dont agree at all with that. When I watched the movie I assumed he just set it up there himself and because he was going crazy forgot about it. OK so you agree with the first theory then... Honestly to me, neither theory is more feasible than the other. Saying he set up the mannequin and then just forgot about it is just as feasible as saying the dark seeker set it up. (to me anyway) edit: after watching the scene again on Youtube, I am almost sure now the dark seeker set it up. It really makes the most sense, i really disagree with you. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
As far as the survivors not going out of their colony... forget the seekers... you can't escape an airborne virus. Remember, the only reason the few others didn't get infected is because they are immune. The normal survivors would have been screwed by the air alone. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
| ||
