| Author | Message | ||
     Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.249.146 |
Well, I finally caught up with this one last night. Because of a lot of disparaging remakrs I'd seen on here and other forums, I wasn't expecting much...but I loved it. The first hour, particularly, was incredible, with Will Smith acting his socks off, great use of minimal CGI, and a couple of scenes that were so creepy I had a huge grin on my face. No shaky-cam, minimal fast-cut techniques. A nice slow pace. The rest of the film - after the other two arrived - wasn't quite as good, but it still maintained an admirable sense of dread and loneliness as it moved towards a decent resolution. I know a lot of people had problems the CGI creatures, but I think they were done well and their "unrealness" added to the weird atmosphere. Also, the tacked-on ending didn't bother me half as much as it did some; it made sense in context of the script, which was more like The Omega Man than Matheson's original novel. So, all in all, I thought this was pretty great. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.145.131.242 |
Yeah, I liked it. Maybe the cgi looks better on telly - at the cinema they looked like cartoons. Does it bother you they're making a sequel? I'm actually a bit interested. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.163.48.60 |
I really liked it too, although the very last few minutes were a little too "Hollywood" for my liking. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
I saw this months before Zed. That makes me feel inexplicably happy. Good film. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Did you get my two emails, Gary? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
No. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Gary Fry. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Ah. | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
Can I have your email, Zed? I feel the need to stalk you. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.191.250 |
I can't remember any disparaging comments on here - maybe that was Shocklines? As far as I recall, Tony and I raved about it (can't remember anyone else commenting, but it was a few months ago). I thought Will Smith's performance in this was superb. I really enjoyed the first two-thirds, but it didn't seem to know where to go in the last third. I thought the CG creatures were badly done (except for the first encounter), and would've preferred that they'd used real actors with make-up (or at least a mixture of the two). | ||
| John_l_probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 90.203.130.34 |
Here's what I said on the old board: The best way to approach this film is absolutely not as an adaptation of Richard Matheson's vampire classic, but more as a big-budget Hollywood distillation of films like THE CRAZIES, 28 DAYS LATER, and MUTANT by John 'Bud' Cardos. Will Smith's central performance is excellent and the 'quiet horror' of the deserted streets behind which things are lurking is beautifully realised. James Newton Howard contributes some beautiful, tragic, understated music that brings tears to the eyes, and this is probably one of the few films where a dog is one of the best actors. Bad points? The monsters are bollocks. CGI is not scary, it just reminds you of a Playstation game. Made-up actors with horrible teeth as in 30 DAYS OF NIGHT would have worked so much better The ending is poor compared with the book but in view of the fact that the screenplay was co-written by the God of Crap Writers' Representative On Earth, Akiva Goldsman, we should be thankful for small mercies. Not brilliant but not bad. And a lot better than the director's CONSTANTINE | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.24.122.40 |
>>>Bad points? The monsters are bollocks. A veritable Barry Norman, ain't ya, John? | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.100.119 |
I'll probably watch it six months after everyone else as usual but I wonder if I'll prefer The Omega Man. Has there been a film where CGI is good? I was so turned off by VAN HELSING although Kate Beckinsale will have turned a few members of this board on :>) | ||
| Griff (Griff) Username: Griff Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.100 |
"Has there been a film where CGI is good?" Sister! | ||
| John (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.4.67 |
I was surprised to enjoy I Am Legend. Well, the first three quarters at least. Once the CGI beasties with their wobbly jaws came to prominence it became pretty ridiculous. And the ending was balls. Apparently the director originally planned to have actors in the role of the 'infected', then decided to CG them because they "weren't convincing." I've got some news for him... The bit with the dog was good. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.100.119 |
Name them Griff! | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.100.119 |
Where is Craig! |