I Am Legend [Two-Disc Special Edition]

I didn't really like this one much either, Smith was fine, and some of the CGI was indeed neat (the vampires, however, were ridiculously animated, no points there), but I just thought it was generic and clumsy for the most part. I'm wondering what it means by "alternate theatrical version" though, were there two versions shown in theaters?

Also, he may be THE movie star now that Cruise has lost a good amount of popularity, but I'm getting somewhat tired of Will Smith. I like him, he's an entertaining guy, but I've recently been looking at his career, and..well, he seems to just go with whatever is the biggest, safest already popular idea around- the Bad Boys films were generic, relatively lazy rip-offs of Lethal Weapon, Die Hard and such, sci-fi action is popular, so Independence Day and I, Robot, romantic comedies are big, so Hitch, zombie films are popular, so this, super-hero films are popular so now whatever that new one is. As for Wild, Wild West and such, there's nothing that can be said.

when he makes "serious" movies, they suck, too. "the pursuit of happyness" bored me to tears.

Never got around to seeing it, but I'm willing to believe it. Even disregarding 'Pursuit's' quality, if falls into the pattern I mentioned. The whole person with a lousy life and next to no money rising from adversity whilst dealing with this and that..though it can still be done well, it's a tired concept.

it's too bad...will smith is very charming in just about every movie/tv show, but his taste in scripts is rather poor. i mean, we know that he's a big box-office draw...why not lead his audiences to worthwhile fare?

From the review:

[quote]For instance, most of us might agree that a virus could wipe out the world's population. But why would it also turn some select folk into blood-seeking monsters with superhuman strength and agility, who go nuts and die at the prospect of light? It makes for great entertainment, to be sure, but if you're going for reality, it makes no logical sense nor do the filmmakers ever try to explain it."[/quote]

Since viruses mutate all the time, perhaps it turned into a strain that turned *viable* humans into superhuman vampires. And those who weren't cut out would die in the process. And a small percentage of the lucky (or unlucky ones?) may have some kind of immunity.

[quote]Take notice of one of the flashbacks of an evacuating New York City. The military clearly is out of its league in trying to contain a mass panic. Forget the idea that an Executive Order quarantining the city comes down before all the necessary personnel have been airlifted out or the bridges and tunnels destroyed. To control the populace, logic dictates a quiet evacuation of VIP's and then the Presidential order. In a previous flashback, watch the technology developed to screen for the virus. It's an eye scanner. How it works, we don't know nor does the movie really care, which gives false positives. By extension, isn't it reasonable to expect it would also give false negatives, thereby condemning virus-free people to whatever fate the government decides? And, by further extension, a false negative would allow the virus to get out while it is attached to infected "safe" people? [/quote]

I thought the dodgy eye scanner was a great touch. Presumably it uses some kind of iris dilation detection to identify the infected ones from the non-infected ones (the movie makes numerous mention of the infected specimens' eyes being insensitive to light). And the fact that the scanner fails sometimes is spot on regarding detection technology - that's how things are.