When Robert set up the trap to catch one of the infected, they most likely caught on and used it against him.
The beginning of the movie and the middle were both fairly good, but the ending (horrible use of deus ex machina) was pretty bad. It pretty much ruined the movie for me. 28 Days Later was better.
=\ The worst part isn't really that it was Deuz Ex Machina, but that they tried to cram a shitload of religion into the viewers.
- Adam gets fucked over by Eve
- Man gives himself up for the sake of many (... why's it have to be the guy?)
- That whole speel(sp?) about God
- Sanctuary/Providence/Whatever you wanna call it
[this doesn't seem like spoiler, so it'sn ot white).
I saw it. It was really good, except the ending could have been longer. I really didn't expect it to be scary.
Its a movie about mutants taking over the world, how did you not expect that ^^
I didn't know there would be like zombie human things. I thought it would be him, this dog and a few weird people who can't move correctly. I was so scared I _____________________________________.
About the dogs if you looked closely in the scene with the apartment, that Will raided to get food and shit, you could see a warning poster that said something like watch out for the infected dogs that come out when the sun is setting or something. So the dogs were probably the first ones out every night. And the trap the "Dark Seekers" most likely imitated Wills traps, he must have done quite a few of them cuz in his basement there is a whole bunch of pictures of infected people whom hes tried to cure. So they watched him putting up the traps and used it against him
I saw the movie a week ago and I really liked it, and I strongly recommend that everyone sees it. Great movie. You should also watch Vincent Price's The Last Man On Earth from 1964 and The Omega Man (1971), both films are inspired by the I am Legend book. And also George A. Romero's Night of the living dead, is worth re-watching witch also was inspired by the book.
Wait, what? The only religious aspect they used was the word "God". The main point of those things was to convey hope and faith, they happened to use religion (or the word God) as the medium to do that. You don't need religion to be hopeful or faithful in something, but people find religion the easiest to connect the dots with. After all, the main turning point was the butterfly, which is the furthest thing from a religious symbol but was more of a symbol of hope and faith.
Originally Posted by xxsaznpride
I mean, for starters what does Adam and Eve got to do with it? You're looking to hard for connections there. Your second point would mean that a lot of movies who have the "hero" giving his life for the greater good is trying to cram religion down our throats. The speech about God is one person's view (a person who happens to believe in God) about the situation, the movie also gave another view about God; how there isn't a God. So can I also take it as this movie being anti-God and trying to force the disbelief upon others? Your last point is also stupid, in any crisis or suituation, in any capacity big or small there will always be a safe haven/sanctuary etc for people to live. This isn't religion at all, it's just the way people operate, we seek safety and protection from those able to give. In larger crisis we form sanctuaries as a way to avoid extinction.
possible spoilars, although if people don't expect them by this point I don't know what to think.
Another thing people don't understand is, the monsters haven't dropped in intelligence, Robert just thought they had. It was extremely obvious that they had intelligence and a social structure but Robert didn't want to believe it. Just because he says they have no intelligence and social capabilities (actually I don't think he even said they had no intelligence) doesn't mean it is so.
The fact was that Neville was the one blinded. This is evident by him talking to mannequins as real people, he was the one deluded into thinking that the dark seekers couldn't form social structure when it was he himself who couldn't (or more accurately, lost the capacity to do so). It's like the dark seekers in a caveman like state, but it's obvious they had a community, they had an alpha male and they were (or at least some) smart enough to domesticate those mutant dogs. Along with his mistakes it's apparent why he said what he said and thinks the way he does.
I'm torn as to whether the trap Robert got caught in was one he set up and forgot about (in his hysteria and declining mental state) or if the dark seekers were smart enough to replicate his trap and lure him in based on previous encounters with Frank. I think they may have seen his interactions with the mannequins, although it would have been obvious if they had shown it since the whole scene was rather disturbing not knowing who exactly put it there.
You could say that Robert was the one de-evolving while the dark seekers started to build a new community, looking at the wall which had all of Robert's failures, from the dark seekers view it could also be seen as Robert being a monster who kidnaps and kills their comrades. The Shrek scene showed how much he had lost, since that was one of his only forms of interaction, it was funny but sad at the same time if you understood what it means.
I love this movie, the plot was a bit thin, and the ending wasn't great but it wrapped up nicely for me. I heard the writers were torn on how to do the ending, so they hired this producer who eventually came up with the ending we all saw. I pray that in the DVD they let us see the alternate endings which could truly make this film legend.
Will Smith is a fantastic actor who really portrayed the lonliness of the character. I don't think there are many movies which can make you switch from happy (or laughing) to sad to scared (or shocked).
thanks elcura for the detailed analysis. i heard that there were debates on who set up the trap as well - to me, either choice still doesn't feel particularly convincing: neville's mental condition didn't deteriorate to the point where he was forgetting things, and setting up a trap like that requires far more intelligence and planning than what we've seen in the monsters.
in any case, i would've really liked to see the book's ending... that would've been a more fitting end to the movie considering everything that happened, imo. i suppose it wouldn't have been very christmas-y though
again, possible spoilers/
It bothers me because we see that when he wants to catch one, he does so with the intent of taking it back with him instantly so setting up a trap like that and leaving the prey seems unplausible because they would die by the time he gets there due to there being no tarp/sheet/blanket to cover the victim so I would think it definitely wasn't meant for dark seekers. Also there wasn't a trace of his blood (or just, food in general) to catch a dark seeker...
The way it was set up seemed like it was meant for him, it had a low catching point so he was bound to get hurt in the process (think the concussion was intention?) and it was meant to leave him trapped for a good while (injury helps that) so the sun could go down.
The books ending I think would have been great, but honestly they went a completely different direction, they personified the main character as a 'sympathetic hero' rather than a 'villain'. They were missing a few concepts from the book however to make that ending work as it did in the book since the dark seekers aren't exactly relatable the same same the still living were. And the movie's tag line is completely changed in the movie, giving a symbol of hope (which the movie did focus) on rather than fear (which the book focused on).
For what the movie was, I couldn't personally think of a better way for the movie to end especially considering what they gave us. I'm eager to see if the DVD version has some other endings though, cause it did get test screened and shit in various different ways.
This was a book. And in that book Robert Neville is a bad guy.