Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2007
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 650 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
459
Mixed:
118
Negative:
73
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
goudamandoJun 1, 2015
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 theWill 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CinemaSinsMay 9, 2015
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,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, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
mariotoadrabbitJul 6, 2014
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 thisI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
DuckNationMay 25, 2014
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 theIm 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
python2000Aug 27, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
LisuebieMay 2, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JawsLaxerDramaDec 24, 2012
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 filmWhile 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Potter17Oct 9, 2011
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
grandpajoe6191Sep 10, 2011
"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"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. Expand
5 of 8 users found this helpful53
All this user's reviews
5
smijatovJul 1, 2011
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, heNot 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
jimmytancrediMay 29, 2011
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 satisfactoryA 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheNewSpielbergApr 30, 2011
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 inA 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. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
4
YumnyMar 20, 2011
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, seemsAn 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
acidhouseOct 19, 2010
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
NF123Aug 25, 2010
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 compulsoryWorks 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MarianSAug 4, 2009
Fairly entertaining, though it deviated widely from the source material.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JeremyEFeb 22, 2009
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
AnnoymousJul 7, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DuncanM.Jun 3, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
EmilyM.May 27, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
T.A.Apr 13, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
OssobucoMar 29, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MikeS.Mar 20, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KenH.Mar 20, 2008
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 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? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisR.Jan 28, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GrahamP.Jan 17, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnD.Jan 13, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
NicolasS.Jan 11, 2008
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ColR.Jan 7, 2008
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnC.Jan 5, 2008
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful