User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 590 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 590
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 10, 2011
    5
    "I Am Legend", a horror movie starring Will Smith, could have become a better movie with the idea it pertains. However, all I saw was a monotonous movie where Will Smith was running away from infected zombie-like creatures with a unexplained horrific ending.
  2. Jul 1, 2011
    5
    Not quite as intense as I thought it'd be. The storyline was pretty interesting, not quite as innovative, but not a snooze-fest either. Will Smith was actually really good, especially in a film that has only two other real characters, he demonstrated quite a lot of acting ability. On the other hand, the other 'supporting cast' aka the zombies, were quite disappointing. The visual effectsNot quite as intense as I thought it'd be. The storyline was pretty interesting, not quite as innovative, but not a snooze-fest either. Will Smith was actually really good, especially in a film that has only two other real characters, he demonstrated quite a lot of acting ability. On the other hand, the other 'supporting cast' aka the zombies, were quite disappointing. The visual effects were rather bad, and they looked too fake - digitised, however you want to call it. Just not quite as good as it could have been. Plus, overall, the film does not offer us anything new that any other zombie film before. Not the best of zombie films, but at least it will keep you entertained and watching. More than that one cannot expect, unfortunately. Expand
  3. Oct 19, 2010
    5
    well done and interpreted, a little bit pathetic, not that kind of movie you'd like to watch again (again and again neither). not that thrilling, not that romantic, not that reflexive as the makers probably meant it
  4. Apr 30, 2011
    5
    A decent rework of the novel. The atmosphere was very sad and the creatures were generally pretty creepy. However, the supposedly intentional fright moments are plagued with jump scares, a technique I feel is lazy and over used, especially in modern horror films. Smith is okay. He's not bad, but he's okay. All in all, an adequate flick.
  5. ColR.
    Jan 7, 2008
    6
    I Am Legend is a decent movie. Will Smith gives an excellent performance as Robert Neville in keeping with the theme of the original novel. The final scene in the video store where he begs the manequin to speak to him is brilliant. The story differs quite significantly from Matheson's novel, but this is acceptable due to the fact that much of the original story takes place within the I Am Legend is a decent movie. Will Smith gives an excellent performance as Robert Neville in keeping with the theme of the original novel. The final scene in the video store where he begs the manequin to speak to him is brilliant. The story differs quite significantly from Matheson's novel, but this is acceptable due to the fact that much of the original story takes place within the feelings of the central character and wouldn't have translated well to a movie. The regime of excersize, hunting and isolation in the over-grown NYC is very nice indeed - probably the nicest treatment of this subject matter produced to date - even better than 28 days later. Unfortunately, that's where the praise for the film ends, as it comes with two significant problems. The first is "The Infected". In Matheson's novel, even though the vampires (as they are in the original book) are monsters, motivated by killing the uninfected, they can still reason and eventually develop into a society. In the film, they're nothing more than emaciated humans, similar to the creature from "The Mummy", which neatly dove-tails into the second, and biggest thing going against this movie - the CGI. This is supposed to be a very creepy, unnerving story about a man surrounded by enemies with no way to escape. Blood thirsty monsters who show the ability to reason and to solve problems. Due to the "Mummy-esque" CG, this illusion is totally shattered. The monsters look like something from a second-rate video game and aren't scary, ever. This is a waste of potential on every level - every time the monsters turned their heads around and did their completely inhuman, unbelievable "roar", my heart sunk. CG can be much better than this, Golem from LOTR being a prime example. If only they'd spent the money they should on making the effects work within the movie, this would have been a 9/10. Note should have been taken from Robert Carlyle's stunning performance in 28 weeks later to show how these monsters should have acted (and they *are* different stories using similar worlds, so comparisons would have been fine here) instead of the low budget, hammy, unscary puppets that were used instead. The central enemy (perhaps a tribute to Ben Cortman from the novel) was particularly bad, attempting to create personality from something which was just laughable. A dreadful shame considering how good the rest of the film was - even the performance of Samantha the dog was outstanding. Expand
  6. KenH.
    Mar 20, 2008
    4
    Deeply flawed after the first hour. Really a shame because the movie had enormous potential. Once gets a sense the folks making the movie had no idea what kind of story to tell. The CGI animations are surprisingly bad -- what the heck happened there?
  7. EmilyM.
    May 27, 2008
    4
    Fairly entertaining...but very reminiscent of 28 DAYS LATER. Kind of scary with all the zombies hiding in the dark, but the film has quite a few loose ends. HOW did the infection start? The movie starts out with the announcement that there is a cure for cancer, and then suddenly most of the world is dead? How and why is the protagonist immune to the virus? What happened to his wife and Fairly entertaining...but very reminiscent of 28 DAYS LATER. Kind of scary with all the zombies hiding in the dark, but the film has quite a few loose ends. HOW did the infection start? The movie starts out with the announcement that there is a cure for cancer, and then suddenly most of the world is dead? How and why is the protagonist immune to the virus? What happened to his wife and kid? And WHY are there lions and deer running wild around New York City? And why aren't they infected? Shouldn't they be ZOMBIE lions? Weird movie. Kind of pointless, in my opinion. Expand
  8. DuncanM.
    Jun 3, 2008
    4
    Ok, the movie is exciting in parts and the scenes of desolation do more than Will smith could in ten movies to evoke a world emptied. But the book has been butchered folks. This is NOT how the book is! I know screenwriters need to take liberties and "adapt" books to screenplays, but they have really gone to town on this. Other parts that really bring the movie down are developed scenes Ok, the movie is exciting in parts and the scenes of desolation do more than Will smith could in ten movies to evoke a world emptied. But the book has been butchered folks. This is NOT how the book is! I know screenwriters need to take liberties and "adapt" books to screenplays, but they have really gone to town on this. Other parts that really bring the movie down are developed scenes that go nowhere. The nightstalkers are meant to be dumb ravenous animals at a bestial level, or are they... After watching the movie i still don't know, i know what happened in the book. And it wasn't a farcical game of "chase the black man whilst roaring, then set up elaborate traps in their spare time" Overall I'm really disappointed that they didn't incorporate the main twist that was in the book. Read the book , avoid the movie. Expand
  9. TommyC.
    Dec 11, 2007
    6
    Most people rate movies before they come out for fun, I have seen 10's, 9's, and whatever else, and all they say is "I loved it, the best movie of the year!" Those kinds of people judge the movie on its trailer, and to settle the reviews. Well I'm telling you one thing, those people better start getting on track because I'm not rating the movie just because, I'm Most people rate movies before they come out for fun, I have seen 10's, 9's, and whatever else, and all they say is "I loved it, the best movie of the year!" Those kinds of people judge the movie on its trailer, and to settle the reviews. Well I'm telling you one thing, those people better start getting on track because I'm not rating the movie just because, I'm rating it because I saw it. I Am legend, a legendary great movie to end off the year, with its other side by track films: national Treasure: book of secrets, The Golden Compass. I have to say this movie is good, a lot better than most horror movies, it is action-packed, really fun, visually stunning, but I caught up with so many bruises on in this movie quality. It has a complex plot, it winds up with an intense beginning, and leaps into the future with - not dull - but difficult follow through, it rushed itself so that the audience wouldn't be bored with loud and noisy fun. I sure wasn't embarrassed during the show, no on else was, I was quite entertained. Although I was lost at most times, and the aliens were bizarre and torn together to settle the plot down and confuse you with a whole new race existence that mixes your brain through pointless development that made the movie slightly disappointing. But truly it was all right, nothing spectacular, your only in their for about 95 minutes, and I saw it in the IMAX so, this movie isn't that bad of a holiday fulfillment, but it will never be forgettable how wonderful this experience sure was. Expand
  10. Billco
    Dec 27, 2007
    6
    I enjoyed about two-thirds of this movie, right up until the piss-poor CG started ruining the show. That was a job for actors in makeup, with a conservative application of top-quality CG to add highlights. The ending also made me want to stab whoever wrote the screenplay in both eyes - they don't deserve to see any movie ever again! It was handled so poorly, it reminded me of _BAD_ I enjoyed about two-thirds of this movie, right up until the piss-poor CG started ruining the show. That was a job for actors in makeup, with a conservative application of top-quality CG to add highlights. The ending also made me want to stab whoever wrote the screenplay in both eyes - they don't deserve to see any movie ever again! It was handled so poorly, it reminded me of _BAD_ B-movie endings - bad as in "I'm going to record Geraldo over this tape". Good things about the movie: it's gorgeous (except for the CG). It has moments of amazingly high tension in its minimalism. Will Smith is still Will Smith, but he fits the role surprisingly well, his lack of emotion actually works in this scenario. The pace was good, the few long droning moments seemed purposeful in adding to the teeth-grinding tension and gloom. The storyline itself held much potential but it could have been better explored with a few more minutes of screen time. This movie wasn't bad at all, but I can't help feeling it could have been so much better! Expand
  11. NicolasS.
    Jan 11, 2008
    5
    I agree the CG stuff was pretty lame... also the super human ability of the infected people. I didn't understand why they had super-power like abilities.
  12. JoeR
    Jan 1, 2008
    5
    The script is incredibly choppy and inconsistent. This film lacks a certain flow almost as if Francis Lawrence doesn't know which direction to take it. I would highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War or Before The Devil Knows Your Dead before Legend.
  13. JohnC.
    Jan 5, 2008
    5
    Having not read the book, I dont know if it stays true to the original story, but it seems like of the 4 or 5 possible routes to take, they took the easy way out with the whole zombie retread. Guess the aim was mostly action but the story seemed have more to tell than what I saw.
  14. Annoymous
    Jul 7, 2008
    4
    Not as good as I expected to be. It was too short and the ending is terrible and unsatisfying. Really overrated. Also the CGI effects were unimpressive.
  15. MarianS
    Aug 4, 2009
    5
    Fairly entertaining, though it deviated widely from the source material.
  16. NickM
    Dec 19, 2007
    6
    I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but it had so many shortcomings. It started really well but then kind of dwindled. There were several times in this movie where I expected some more info but never got it. Like, how did the creatures set that trap? Aren't they supposed to not be human at all any more? I just had questions that were created but never answered. This movie could have I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but it had so many shortcomings. It started really well but then kind of dwindled. There were several times in this movie where I expected some more info but never got it. Like, how did the creatures set that trap? Aren't they supposed to not be human at all any more? I just had questions that were created but never answered. This movie could have had so much more depth with a little more work, but it just wasn't there. It all felt kind of shallow at the end. Expand
  17. AndrijaP.
    Dec 20, 2007
    6
    Fun to watch but full of movie-ruining plot holes and consistency issues (think about the ending for instance), this movie would not have been worth it without Smith's amazing performance.
  18. RobertI.
    Dec 25, 2007
    6
    Entertaining, but not as deeply scary as the original. Does anyone remember Omega Man with Charlton Heston, one of the creepiest films ever made? A real nightmare maker.
  19. JasonC.
    Dec 27, 2007
    6
    Will Smith was disappointing, I was leaving the theater wanting more from what seemed to have Epic possibilities. Although there were parts that did not make sense, like how did his water work? and how did his electricity work? I thought the film could have been saved if they would have gotten someone with greater acting chops to consume most of the individual dialog, Smith as Neville was Will Smith was disappointing, I was leaving the theater wanting more from what seemed to have Epic possibilities. Although there were parts that did not make sense, like how did his water work? and how did his electricity work? I thought the film could have been saved if they would have gotten someone with greater acting chops to consume most of the individual dialog, Smith as Neville was not convincing for the majority of the film with no other actors , only certain actors can pull this off and be succussful, via Tom Hanks (Cast Away),Kevin Costner(Dances with Wolves) off the top of my head come to mind, but with this film I was concerned about Smith, and I thought he was dissapointing. Expand
  20. JohnD.
    Jan 13, 2008
    6
    This movie was okay. It is not something I would chose to see again though. It started out great with the exception of obvious CGI (things didn't blend in properly) and started off the plot well. Once things started to get going it was a downhill roller coaster ride that went 1 mph. It was scary but you knew when things would pop out. The fact the zombies were superman didn't This movie was okay. It is not something I would chose to see again though. It started out great with the exception of obvious CGI (things didn't blend in properly) and started off the plot well. Once things started to get going it was a downhill roller coaster ride that went 1 mph. It was scary but you knew when things would pop out. The fact the zombies were superman didn't help the movie out either, I don't think a virus can make a human jump 50 feet into the air and run at 100 mph without making much noise, same goes with screaming across the entire city. The ending was probably the worst of it all. It just seemed like the writers got stuck on what to stick in and threw something a 5 year old thought up. It was unbelievably cheesy and the fact that hiding in a little room with a weak little door will save you from the explosion of a grenade and more zombies that are most likely outside of the room. There were a couple other things I was please with in the movie though. The fact that Will Smith wasn't god and had 100000 bullets that came out of a gun that fired perfectly accurate and shooting it with one hand please me. BUT the gun also was also made wrong. 1) It didn't have any noticeable recoil. 2) It fired at the rate of a bolt action rifle. 3) The value of the gun being nothing. In a scene after he expends the cartridge in his weapon he throws the whole thing down and ends up with basically nothing other than his 100000 pistols he has around his home. The grenade he used was also wrong as a grenade doesn't have a blast like which was shown and it was also a fragmentation grenade, which doesn't kill by it's explosives but by the shards of metal which slice through flesh like a knife and butter. Expand
  21. GrahamP.
    Jan 17, 2008
    6
    I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie in the UK and last night got my chance. Whilst I enjoyed watching the film, I came away thinking that the film was short on a couple of counts. Firstly, after the terrific first 40/50 minutes, where Smith does a pretty good job of commanding the screen with Sam his only company, the tension in that part of the film was palpable and I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie in the UK and last night got my chance. Whilst I enjoyed watching the film, I came away thinking that the film was short on a couple of counts. Firstly, after the terrific first 40/50 minutes, where Smith does a pretty good job of commanding the screen with Sam his only company, the tension in that part of the film was palpable and there were plenty of heart racing and jumping moments. These were beautifully achieved without the need for loud music, just the eerie silence of a deserted New York and the gradual glimpses of the Night Seekers adding to the tension. Why then, was the second half of the film such a contradiction. It seemed to be rushed and lifeless and left many questions unanswered. The interaction between the Neville and Anna characters should have been so much better. Why couldn't the film have been 20 minutes longer and allowed a bit of character back-story to be established so we knew more about Anna and her son(?). How did they manage to get to a seemingly cut off New York. The rush seemed to be to cram in as many OTT computer generated zombies as possible and go for a possibly ludicrous last 15 minutes and a bloodbath at the end. Why, when Neville had gone to great pains to explain, in the first half, that the virus caused the cessation of rational thinking and most human traits, did the zombies suddenly start to show intelligence in the way they set a trap for Neville, which mimicked an earlier set-piece stunt, and sadly, from then onwards the film lost its way. Maybe I'm being a little harsh but there was so much for this film to achieve. The book is a concise 200 pages, written in 1954, so why couldn't the screeen-writers have stuck to the plot line in the book without the necessity of over-doing the CGI and just making the latter half of the film look cheap? Perhaps when the DVD comes out I'll re-appraise the movie so I can see if some of the questions are answered. An enjoyable B movie romp, akin to the Spielberg remake of War of the Worlds, certainly not the A-lister I thought it could have been. Expand
  22. MikeS.
    Mar 20, 2008
    5
    What could have been a great plot came off as a vehicle for Will Smith desperately attempting to win acclaim as a dramatic actor. If they had named his dog "wilson", it might have at least been a good comedic spoof instead of a poor attempt on Smith's part to imitate the character played flawlessly by Tom Hanks in Castaway. Will Smith is a very talented guy, he can pull off the wise What could have been a great plot came off as a vehicle for Will Smith desperately attempting to win acclaim as a dramatic actor. If they had named his dog "wilson", it might have at least been a good comedic spoof instead of a poor attempt on Smith's part to imitate the character played flawlessly by Tom Hanks in Castaway. Will Smith is a very talented guy, he can pull off the wise guy - stunt pilot character ala Independence Day as well as any actor. But his performance in this film is strained and overdone, and too much time is spent showing close-ups meant to showcase emotions that don't really come through believably. Not a terrible movie, but very forgettable. Expand
  23. Ossobuco
    Mar 29, 2008
    4
    Why do I have this nagging feeling that will smith might turn out to be a decent actor should he stop being so aware of being will smith. If he stopped choosing bad hollow movies to star in couldn't hurt. Some sloppy CGI to booth.
  24. mark
    Dec 13, 2007
    5
    To some of the comments, you may not like Smith in this current film, but anyone who saw his fully formed, heartbreaking performance in Pursuit Of happyness knows he is a very good actor. Do yourself a favor, read the classic novel I Am Legend and rent the cheesy but fun 70's film Omega Man with Charlton Heston.
  25. WillL.
    Dec 15, 2007
    4
    What a waste. Very simplistic story that could a been made as a TV movie of the week. To think I wanted to see this in IMAX, thank goodness it was sold out and saved me some cash.
  26. Mike
    Dec 16, 2007
    6
    Overall this movie, isn't bad. But it could have been soooo much more! I The special effects they did to New York ciry were excellent! The atmosphere was just perfect, I would of liked it to be a little "darker" but still they did a great job. The opening scene where he drives the shelby was great as well! I really got into the movie, but it all went down hill for me, when he was Overall this movie, isn't bad. But it could have been soooo much more! I The special effects they did to New York ciry were excellent! The atmosphere was just perfect, I would of liked it to be a little "darker" but still they did a great job. The opening scene where he drives the shelby was great as well! I really got into the movie, but it all went down hill for me, when he was "saved" by that woman, the movie seemed to run out of ideas by that time and got really slow and boring. To top it all off, the monsters were really fake looking as they were CG. By the end the movie is just a mess. See it on DVD. Expand
  27. RHow
    Dec 17, 2007
    4
    I found the movie to be boring. The "Omega Man" was much more entertaining...in a 70's kinda way.
  28. GaborA.
    Dec 22, 2007
    5
    Could a been, should a been, would a been, but wasn't good movie. This here is a moments flick. A few good moments, a lot of bad ones. This movie was supposed to be made by Ridley Scott over a decade ago. That also would have helped a lot because simply these ideas are getting old. When the book was written some of these ideas were revolutionary. Now they're just tired.
  29. StephenC.
    Dec 26, 2007
    5
    I can't really say it was the best movie. In fact I was very disapointed. They've used the "infection thing so many times it's retarded. [***SPOILER***] This movie had it's parts, but the whole movie was miserable after the dog died.
  30. TracyA.
    Dec 26, 2007
    5
    The CG effects killed this movie for me. Whatever the movie had going for it in the beginning evaporated the moment the CG lioness sank her fangs into her digital prey. The zombies had the look and feel of an animated comic book. The truly scary zombies were the ones you didn't see or barely caught glimpses of when the main character was being chased. The final overhead shot of small The CG effects killed this movie for me. Whatever the movie had going for it in the beginning evaporated the moment the CG lioness sank her fangs into her digital prey. The zombies had the look and feel of an animated comic book. The truly scary zombies were the ones you didn't see or barely caught glimpses of when the main character was being chased. The final overhead shot of small town America with it's pretty white church made me want to retch. Expand
  31. ChuckR.
    Dec 30, 2007
    6
    Will Smith, though he's not at all that bad in this role doesn't have enough grit, class or emotional depth to make it more than the popcorn, CGI blockbuster that it is. The problem is that Will Smith seems only able to play Will Smith. His overacting and shouty approach to situations really makes me want to sick up in my mouth, he is the master of overstatement. It is true that Will Smith, though he's not at all that bad in this role doesn't have enough grit, class or emotional depth to make it more than the popcorn, CGI blockbuster that it is. The problem is that Will Smith seems only able to play Will Smith. His overacting and shouty approach to situations really makes me want to sick up in my mouth, he is the master of overstatement. It is true that the dog out acts him at pretty much every opportunity. The whole script and plot are solely aimed at middle of the road audiences with little or no demand for anything more than a few scares and some explosions. Some of the set pieces are handled well and work, yet others are a complete letdown, that really sums up the film as a whole, a mixed bag. The deserted Manhatten island looks incredible but the audience are never given a chance to explore it and absorb any of the deserted claustrophobia the main character is meant to be feeling, it feels like a video game where you must follow a predetermined path. Some of the live action CGI is awful and I really can't for the life of me understand why the "infected" couldn't be actors all zombied up. They look ridiculous and stand out so much that it destracts you from whatever scene they're in, they're also completely inconsistant which is another feature of this film. As a whole and taken in the context that it's meant it's not a bad film but it also feels like an opprtunity missed, it quickly runs out of steam towards the end and never gets near to living up to the hype. I'm sure it'll do well in cinemas and on DVD but a great film it aint. Worth a watch though. Expand
  32. ChrisR.
    Jan 28, 2008
    4
    When a movie takes itself this seriously, it should pay more attention to plausibility. May have had a better chance with me had I not had the kids with me. Will Smith is a bright spot, and the idea is good, but I left with a strong suspicion that if I ever forced myself to watch it again there would be dozens of missteps within the plot. For serious genre fans only, IMO.
  33. T.A.
    Apr 13, 2008
    4
    This is really one of those films that wastes all it's time creating this huge marketing campaign claiming it to be the blockbuster only to shortshoot it and rush out a half finished and half assed movie. I honestly believe that if they had added even another 20min. to it it would have achieved greatness. Because your suddenly thrust into this random collection of happenings and This is really one of those films that wastes all it's time creating this huge marketing campaign claiming it to be the blockbuster only to shortshoot it and rush out a half finished and half assed movie. I honestly believe that if they had added even another 20min. to it it would have achieved greatness. Because your suddenly thrust into this random collection of happenings and flashbacks without any actual sense of what the fuck is going on or where it's going or what's happening leaving you staring at the screen in the end going wtf!? It just doesn't feel like I Am Legend is an actual movie because it never actually explains anything. Aside from that though it's really just as good as your average Hollywood "Blockbuster". So when it comes right down to it I Am Legend was the short and half-assed movie that almost could. Expand
  34. JeremyE
    Feb 22, 2009
    5
    if it wasn't for will smith this movie would have gotten a 0. his acting really is the only reason to see it. The story feels disjointed, like it's pausing itself every ten minutes. That makes the movie kind of like a chore to watch. Take my advice, don't watch this.
  35. JoyceC.
    Dec 11, 2007
    5
    Shows the future in a different kind of way, more terrifying, suspenseful, and like anything else this year, soulless. Will Smith pulled off a great success, but the fun never stops, and the intensity is too Jaw breaking, the excitement tightens your smile muscles and you become stiff and uncomfortable. This movie was a bit overdone, but fully loaded for the IMAX, trust me, I saw it Shows the future in a different kind of way, more terrifying, suspenseful, and like anything else this year, soulless. Will Smith pulled off a great success, but the fun never stops, and the intensity is too Jaw breaking, the excitement tightens your smile muscles and you become stiff and uncomfortable. This movie was a bit overdone, but fully loaded for the IMAX, trust me, I saw it twice, and the IMAX show is just too ridiculous. The normal way of doing things is a better choice. Anyway, I don't know, this movie was way too quick, it wasn't boring, but it left us watching uninformative and a deliberate buildup which basically all was intense survival. Well, Will Smith, he shot a few deer, tigers, and aliens, but the sad thing is that he only does those things once, which makes the movie just lame. But as far as Ii was concerned, it was entertaining. Expand
  36. MaxL.
    Dec 15, 2007
    5
    The third act made it a lesser movie after the initial setup and the potential for it to be great.
  37. Steve
    Dec 16, 2007
    5
    The most unfortunate part of the movie is that the entire reason Robert Neville becomes a legend is *entirely* different than in the book. The reasons are not even remotely similar, and incidentally, the book's ending is what makes the story as good as it is. The spirit of the book is upheld through about half the movie (Will Smith does very well portraying Neville), but then the The most unfortunate part of the movie is that the entire reason Robert Neville becomes a legend is *entirely* different than in the book. The reasons are not even remotely similar, and incidentally, the book's ending is what makes the story as good as it is. The spirit of the book is upheld through about half the movie (Will Smith does very well portraying Neville), but then the story drastically changes from the book after that. The reason that Robert Neville becomes a legend is quite interesting and makes for a very good read. I highly recommend the book (it's ~200 pages), but I cannot recommend the movie. I give the movie a 5 only because Will Smith captured the character of Robert Neville well. Expand
  38. AdamL.
    Dec 16, 2007
    5
    After a pretty good first half, the movie comes to a screeching halt with the arrival of two entirely unnecessary characters. I highly urge everyone to go read the original novel to see just how short this movie has fallen. Bad CGI, too.
  39. BenB.
    Dec 17, 2007
    6
    Oh, how I wanted to like this movie
  40. HollyR.
    Dec 18, 2007
    5
    Was sooooooooooo looking forward to this movie after I loved Omega Man in the 70's. However, Omega Man was far better because both Neville and the Infected characters were dealt with in depth. In this movie, only Neville's character was really given any thought and as excellent as this was, the lack of anything about the infected ruined this film for me. In Omega Man, Was sooooooooooo looking forward to this movie after I loved Omega Man in the 70's. However, Omega Man was far better because both Neville and the Infected characters were dealt with in depth. In this movie, only Neville's character was really given any thought and as excellent as this was, the lack of anything about the infected ruined this film for me. In Omega Man, Methias' People were scary not just because they were out to kill, but because they were bizarre, organized and smart. The infected in this movie could have been the same ones from 28 Weeks Later. Wondering after the movie if I had been overly critical, I bought the novel. Already into the first couple of chapters the infected are revealed to be much more complex and interesting than this movie portrayed them. The lack of balance totally ruined it. Expand
  41. JasonM.
    Dec 22, 2007
    5
    Its an ok movie. It was fun at times but it just couldnt hold the excitement of the beginning. I absolutely hate the typical Hollywood ending. Such a departure from the book that the movie misses the point. Ok CGI. Zombies way too overanimated to be believeable. Oh well, the masses will love it.
  42. AndyA
    Dec 22, 2007
    6
    If you
  43. GnyquF.
    Dec 22, 2007
    4
    Of course this movie has some redeeming qualities. Will smith is pretty good and some of the concepts are cool. Unfortunately there is WAY too much CGI to the point that I would compare the realism to Jumanji of the 90s topped with a one dimensional plot that doesn't go beyond the overused last minute savior cure for humanity's most recent and destructive super virus. I would Of course this movie has some redeeming qualities. Will smith is pretty good and some of the concepts are cool. Unfortunately there is WAY too much CGI to the point that I would compare the realism to Jumanji of the 90s topped with a one dimensional plot that doesn't go beyond the overused last minute savior cure for humanity's most recent and destructive super virus. I would rather see No Country For Old Men Six times than see I Am Legend again. Expand
  44. NickG.
    Dec 28, 2007
    5
    Whoever cut the trailer for this movie deserves and academy award. It really made me want to see this very disappointing movie. The image of Will Smith and his dog in an empty New York was the best thing in the movie. Once the story kicks in...it sucks. There are story holes you could drive a truck through. Like...why does a woman and a kid travel easily through this nightmare without a Whoever cut the trailer for this movie deserves and academy award. It really made me want to see this very disappointing movie. The image of Will Smith and his dog in an empty New York was the best thing in the movie. Once the story kicks in...it sucks. There are story holes you could drive a truck through. Like...why does a woman and a kid travel easily through this nightmare without a scratch and Will Smith is stuggling to survive...sleeping in a bathtub at night with a gun? There are too many problems to mention here...but in the end it's just a hyped up zombie movie. Expand
  45. AnnR.
    Dec 29, 2007
    4
    The first 1/3 of the movie was good. Then it became stupid. The story unraveled and became senseless with no path. You left feeling cheated, not entertained.
  46. Aug 25, 2010
    5
    Works extremely well, normally when the Zombies aren't on the screen. Mainly because they're not scary, at all in fact they're hilarious. A few problems I had include the Zombies can extend their Jaws 180 degrees, the love interest compulsory in most of these films appears to have been replaced by a dog, the VERY convenient timing of someone else showing up after so many years alone andWorks extremely well, normally when the Zombies aren't on the screen. Mainly because they're not scary, at all in fact they're hilarious. A few problems I had include the Zombies can extend their Jaws 180 degrees, the love interest compulsory in most of these films appears to have been replaced by a dog, the VERY convenient timing of someone else showing up after so many years alone and Nevilles grenades appear to be nuclear bombs judging by the damage they do. I would have vastly preferred the movie to have taken place during some of it's strongest scenes, when Neville is trying to get his wife and child out of the besieged city. I don't know there's potential for a good film in here but something went wrong on the drawing board and besides the book has already been done much better in the "Omega Man". I probably would go and see a prequel to the film but I wouldn't go see a sequel. Expand
  47. Mar 20, 2011
    4
    An awful film that seemed to confide in it's own pointlessness. Will Smith shows considerable acting talent, there is no mistaking that, it is the plot and setting that cause discomfort. The film, with all of it's suspense and horror, seems to work up to a specific climax, but this climax proves wholeheartedly unconvincing and unsatisfying. In other words: the movie is long-stretched, atAn awful film that seemed to confide in it's own pointlessness. Will Smith shows considerable acting talent, there is no mistaking that, it is the plot and setting that cause discomfort. The film, with all of it's suspense and horror, seems to work up to a specific climax, but this climax proves wholeheartedly unconvincing and unsatisfying. In other words: the movie is long-stretched, at some points boring, even, and bland. Expand
  48. May 29, 2011
    6
    A nice movie. Will Smith can handle with the task of "bringing the movie back and forth." Charismatic and with easiness to take the audience to feel empathy for the actor, brings the movie a watchable story, a road median, a satisfactory performance of the 'ubiquitous' in the film. Something missing from the movie to surprise him (to my eyes). It has a good start giving introduction to theA nice movie. Will Smith can handle with the task of "bringing the movie back and forth." Charismatic and with easiness to take the audience to feel empathy for the actor, brings the movie a watchable story, a road median, a satisfactory performance of the 'ubiquitous' in the film. Something missing from the movie to surprise him (to my eyes). It has a good start giving introduction to the theme early on, bits of action with the suspense surrounding the film from beginning till the end, and this order and unsatisfactory, rushed ending, very busy, badly exploited. What a beautiful and excellent post-apocalyptic scenario, a relationship of 'the dog is man's best friend' beautiful to see, nice to be assisted. Few speeches in the film, which generates more attention to facial expressions that the actor brings in a rather peculiar scenes, showing how the man is afraid of being alone. The desperation of loneliness. When this happens, imagination and creativity arises resulting in comic scenes. It is noteworthy that the soundtrack was well introduced in the dialogues. But suddenly puff. The film slows down, something has changed in the course, and lost the harmony we had on the beginning. A suspenseful drama, tried to escape the cliché but was unsuccessful. Alice Braga could have been easily replaced by a dummy, no emotion added by the character in the film. Left to be desired, expected more. Less is more, a little "overrated." Expand
  49. Oct 9, 2011
    6
    Smith was very well on this role and a vision of apocalyptic and devastated world is always interesting for me but it can't help but I felt like "I Am Legend" lacked of something more substantial.
  50. Dec 24, 2012
    5
    While the acting is great, there is nothing really going on in this movie. Diagnosis: See for your own eyes, but at the end, I felt confused. Not because it is a piece of crap, but because it was almost like there wasn't a need for this film to be made. This is not a film like "Wall-E" where you can sit there and it's great- this movie...just see it and you'll know what i mean.
    Pros:
    While the acting is great, there is nothing really going on in this movie. Diagnosis: See for your own eyes, but at the end, I felt confused. Not because it is a piece of crap, but because it was almost like there wasn't a need for this film to be made. This is not a film like "Wall-E" where you can sit there and it's great- this movie...just see it and you'll know what i mean.
    Pros: Great direction, and perhaps interesting.
    Cons: Boring at some points.
    Guilty pleasure: It's not that bad.
    +
    Expand
  51. May 2, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Entertaining right down to the last third where it all falls apart and suddenly seems to have been hijacked by teabaggers or maybe even the Westboro Baptists. Wasn't there something about a covenant..? Expand
  52. Aug 27, 2013
    6
    An alright movie with a good performance from Will Smith. The worst thing about it is the zombies, they obviously spent all the budget on advertising because the special effects are actually pretty bad.
  53. Jul 6, 2014
    6
    I am legend which is the third of Richard mathson's i am legend novel of the same name, makes a effort of mystery thrilling, new cast will smith playing as dr. Robert Neville and exciting sound effects during the action sequences. In this flim where it's left off about a last standing man named dr. Robert Neville tries to find a cure to kill the virus. during the search, he encounteredI am legend which is the third of Richard mathson's i am legend novel of the same name, makes a effort of mystery thrilling, new cast will smith playing as dr. Robert Neville and exciting sound effects during the action sequences. In this flim where it's left off about a last standing man named dr. Robert Neville tries to find a cure to kill the virus. during the search, he encountered vampire mutants that we're transformed by a virus. I would recommend that it's a instant classic of the I am legend novel. While watching it under 11 or 12 years old, the vampires maybe intense for some audiences. So that's my explanation of this movie. Expand
  54. May 25, 2014
    4
    Im sorry but i just dont understand how people think this is a good movie yes Will Smith did a good performance but the plot was so pointless and that fact that the humans ended up turning into vampires was even worse. I would have rather the movie just differ from the book this time and him be alone the whole dealing with that. I cant believe i actually went to the theaters to watch thisIm sorry but i just dont understand how people think this is a good movie yes Will Smith did a good performance but the plot was so pointless and that fact that the humans ended up turning into vampires was even worse. I would have rather the movie just differ from the book this time and him be alone the whole dealing with that. I cant believe i actually went to the theaters to watch this movie i was beyond bored almost as much as i was when i watched I, Robot. The ending has to be one of the worst ever and even though the alternate ending is a bit better it doesnt effect my rating for this movie.

    Overall i give it a 4.5
    Expand
  55. May 9, 2015
    5
    In the novel on which this moody blockbuster is based, Richard Matheson offered a neat sci-fi twist on the vampire mythos, imagining a world-destroying spore which would turn everyday folk into blood-lusting creatures of midnight. Yet, despite retaining the tweaked-vamp threat, Akiva Goldsman and Mark ‘Poseidon’ Protosevich’s script, as realised by MTV alumnus Francis Lawrence, betterIn the novel on which this moody blockbuster is based, Richard Matheson offered a neat sci-fi twist on the vampire mythos, imagining a world-destroying spore which would turn everyday folk into blood-lusting creatures of midnight. Yet, despite retaining the tweaked-vamp threat, Akiva Goldsman and Mark ‘Poseidon’ Protosevich’s script, as realised by MTV alumnus Francis Lawrence, better resembles a werewolf or Dr. Jekyll. By day, it’s a limber, thoughtful and supremely effective drama. By night, it’s a drooling, lurching, crushingly stupid and clumsily executed VFX disaster.

    Sunrise. Smartly employing the sharp eye of Lord Of The Rings lenser Andrew Lesnie, Lawrence presents to us a New York free of all human presence. Shoulder-height grass wafts lazily in Times Square, disturbed only by the occasional herd of deer. Skyscrapers still shout of the glories of mankind’s achievements, but with no-one to hear them they serve only to cast long shadows.

    In one sense it’s terrifying -the Mary Celeste as an entire conurbation. Yet it’s also oddly beautiful - a city where nature has regained her hold and the tiniest animal sounds are no longer smothered by the deafening cough of engines.

    When we’re introduced to this landscape’s only human inhabitant - one Robert Neville (Will Smith), who is conveniently both highly militarily trained and a brilliant virologist - he’s seemingly enjoying his desolate environment, redlining a sports car through town, his faithful canine companion Sam (best animal performance of the decade, say us) gazing happily out of the passenger window. It’s a great opening sequence, especially when it transpires that Neville’s actually on the hunt, rifle in lap, seeking some venison to supplement his tinned provisions.

    For a big studio genre film, I Am Legend goes a surprisingly long way to explore psychology, and Smith fearlessly dives headfirst into the mind of an individual who’s had no human contact for almost 40 months.

    The little details ring true, such as when Neville chides his dog for not eating her vegetables - he’s anthropomorphised her so completely that he’s forgotten she’s a carnivore. Ignore the predictably dodgy science and plot-fissures, and you have a tentpole picture that doesn’t, for once, insult its audience’s intelligence. Until…

    Sunset. Before we sink our teeth in, let’s make one thing clear: having cut his incisors on infernal comic-book adaptation Constantine, Lawrence knows how to crank tension and apply a shock. So, in its earlier moments, I Am Legend plays on our primal fear of the dark like a maestro. But when it comes to the blood-lapping “dark seekers”, Lawrence’s inadequacies come crashing through. A more experienced director would likely have taken a more clever, less profligate approach to this movie’s monsters. As would a filmmaker who was - like Danny Boyle, helming the superior 28 Days Later - forced to operate on a considerably more limited budget.

    After all, what are the dark seekers? Skinny, pale, hairless people with a supernaturally advanced metabolism. So why on Earth did Lawrence choose to make them pure-CG conjurations? And what dismally dire CG it is, too. Lawrence’s ‘vampires’ are cartoonish phantoms, evaporators of fear who mercilessly inhale all the atmosphere so ingeniously woven during the daylight hours. Going full CG was the worst artistic decision Lawrence could have made - short of having the populace of New York suddenly jump out from behind the Empire State and shout “April foo-ool!” at Neville before cutting to the credits.

    While the sun shines, it’s a four-star thriller with a superb turn from Smith. When the moon rises, it’s a two-star horror cartoon with some of the worst FX we’ve seen all year. So, really, it has to average out at…
    Expand
  56. Jun 1, 2015
    5
    Will Smith act most of the movie with a dog so it may be an interesting updating of the original novel, which Smith shows that he can actually act. One of the few films that brings a tear to my eye during one certain scene. However, what the hell is up with the new ending? It sucks, and also makes the film title itself nonsensical.
Metascore
65

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. Smith, sporting a newly buffed physique, delivers an extraordinary performance as a man slowly coming unglued under the strain of no human contact and a constantly alternating role of hunter and prey.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    Remarkably eerie yet annoyingly larded with cheap horror-film shock effects, I Am Legend stands as an effective but also irksome adaptation of Richard Matheson's classic 1954 sci-fi novel.
  3. The first two thirds and change of I Am Legend is terrific mindless fun: crackerjack action with gnashing vampires barely glimpsed (and scarier for that) and how’d-they-do-that New York locations that retroactively justify the traffic jams.