I looked at Robert's sacrifice as intentional. I don't think he wanted to live anymore, being that his family was gone and he just lost his dog. Losing his dog was his breaking point.
That's radiculas what if the fucking vaccine don't work. If third act's time increased by 1 hour and the movie was made 2:30 hours then it had a potential to have been one of the greatest appoclepes movie of all time.
Still pretty dumb. He wanted them to get the vaccine to work, he needed to be alive to see that it actually does and help make sure it does. But instead he goes and kills himself out of nowhere and without necessity.
Can't spend an entire movie fighting to survive, despite the suffering, then have it overcome you.
3 роки тому+193
Now Knowing the true ending just made me mad. This ending was incredible, the plot wist would have been amazing. It would definitely have been a cult classic. It had everything going for it, until the ending. Too bad they ruined a masterpiece.
I know I’m a year late, but the motion comics are incredible too. If you want even more evidence that the original ending is the true ending of that movie, just watch those. Some actually show that the monsters are still people, quite literally, and support the original ending perfectly. It sucks that the test audience won
If you want the real masterpiece, read the book it's based on. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. This movie is trash and very disrespectful to the original material. They could have called it any other name, that's how far apart it is from the original story.
@@concernedandequal1928 - you mean like 'The Last Man on Earth' or 'The Omega Man'? I've never seen 'The Last Man on Earth,' but I've seen 'The Omega Man' and it was very similar to 'I Am Legend.' I haven't read the book yet though. I ordered it from Amazon, just haven't gotten it yet.
The happy/optimistic ending trope has soured the perception of writing. It has spoiled entire generations of consumers into thinking that the structure of a story can be wrapped up in its entirety just because the 'good guys' won as if there won't be any opposition to them in the future.
That's why I can't get into modern Star Wars. I grew up loving the original trilogy, of course, but not only were the prequels infamously bad, the new trilogy wants you to get amped up for the Jedi to beat the Empire (the First Order is the same thing) and return to power. Why should I? They already did that at the end of the first trilogy, and somewhere in the span of 30-40 years, lost power. If they set up a society / political system so bad that people rejected it and gave rise to the Empire in less than two generations, why am I supposed to believe that won't happen all over again?
I don't think it's necessarily a new thing, I think people just generally want to consume media with happy endings not because it's what they've been conditioned to like, but because it just makes people feel good.
The problem with I am legend is that will smith was some brilliant military scientist instead of an average man who learns to become a survivor like in the book. Btw Robert Neville is an anagram for terrible novel because the author thought no one would like.
SPOILERS: I think there's one pretty important detail about the original novel that justifies its ending. In the novel Robert was not only killing the vampires which came to haunt him, but during the day he was also getting into sleeping (later revealed to be inteligent) vampire's homes, dragging them out and killing them in their sleep (I don't remember it exactly, I think they were unable to wake up during the day), which in the ending is explained that they now portray him the same way people portrayed vampires that killed their victims in their sleep. And yes, I remember the sound my jaw made hitting the ground when I finished reading the novel :)
@@b005t3r I'm sure the internet was down by then. but it doesn't matter. if they were intelligent enough to speak, then they had the means to show they're not animals, even if they couldn't wake up during the day.
The novel is so much better. I was surprised by the cliffhanger at the end of the book. And by the existence of the book itself. The main focus of the novel is not on the cure but on the survival. When the protagonist methodically goes out during the day and kills all the infected thinking they are already dead, he spares their lives. However, it appears in their mindset he was a mass murderer, maniac who was to be stopped no matter the cost. He was probably the last remaining human (in our understanding). And he became alien to the new society and the new species of humans emerged after the virus. He is now cancer, monster and the 'vampire', because their society is alive and his society is dead. He and his ideals stopped being normal, their ideas became standard. This book is deeply symbolic and psychological. Using this simple setting it explains that our ideals are some kind of a fiction, depending on how many people believe in them. As long as the idea is supported by the masses, it is normal. The moment another idea (contradictory, for example) is supported, it becomes norm. For example, this happened in Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR. For the rest of the world it was horrible but in the country it was a norm. Just my thoughts. Thanks for the channel!
It's kind of ironic for you to compare the Nazi's and communists to the dark seekers, when it's in fact the opposite to some extent. Democracy started as a concept in the late 19th and early 20th century and slowly took over replacing monarchies, aristocracies, and the Catholic church. And in the mid 20th century everything become more centralised by governments. So it's actually us who believe in democracy who have replaced the previous "normal" people and have become the new normal for societies.
@@reilysmith5187 i would like to quibble with one point you made, Democracy wasn't started in the 19th and 20th century, it was started back in the 5th century BCE, in the Macedonian Empire state of Greece. It did become a more popular and worldwide form of government in the 19th century, as you said. I just wanted to make that one minor adjustment.
@@Thoron_of_Neto didn’t only start in Greece. Like many things in evolution, it was also independently developed in other societies. The Almamiat regime of Fuuta Toro in West Africa being one example that I know of!!
Yeah this book being written in the Fifties must have been a commentary about the political concerns of the time. I wonder if it is not about Macarthyism where the notion that someone could become a communist (a Vampire) generated fear in the American psyche (Robert). This book could be a commentary on the ensuing witch hunts!!
The alternate ending is actually the best of both worlds imo Neville realizes the darkseekers werent emotionless and feels bad for what hes done, even returning the alphas mate. He gets to live at the end to with the cure in order to immunize humans so in this fashion humans will still struggle and survive but the darkseekers will still rule
@@galipote_rd Humans can amaze with our compassion and ingenuity but than we can also be a bunch of arses so I understand your point but it depends on what side of the coin you want to look at.
Blind guess before the video: "The ending, for it turns this movie from a subversive story with a mature and thought provoking theme into just another zombie flick.”
I remember my brother telling me about this movie when it came into theatres. He had no idea tgis movie wasn't an original work, mind you. He said: "The ending was BS. You can clearly see hints of intelligence within the zombies, they probably just seiged his house to rescue the woman too, and yet he just kills them all and thats supposed to be a happy ending."
This is so wildly predictable of me to say, but when he mercy killed poor infected Sam, the emotion of the scene never fails to get me right in the heart because it's an experience, however exaggerated, many of us have or MAY endure at some point. Smith can be an amazing actor, no doubt about it.
I always thought it would have been better and still have enough mainstream appeal if it had a similar setup to the novel, but Will Smith decided to embrace being the "Legend" and continued to fight and hunt the zombies. On the surface level, it would be like "yeah! He's so badass!" but those who think deeply about it might consider that he was actually the villain the whole time.
Golly, I remember the backlash to the ending of this film back in the day.... Probably a controversial take, but I’d be ok with the Director’s Cut ending over recreating the book’s. It seems like one of those twist endings that work better in a book than a film, not unlike the way each introduced the dog - in a film you’d need to setup that emotional beat earlier so it doesn’t come across as whiplash and manipulative when the doggo dies after two scenes. Since the film isn’t being told from a character’s POV, it would at the very least be much more difficult to affect the twist without substantially changing the way the plot is told. Anyways, super psyched to see you look at Amadeus, which is also one of my favorite films. I’m curious as to what the “one fatal flaw” is, though.
I think the book's ending is better in any way than what we got in the original film's version and DC's version, but it wasn't just the ending on its own - the novel somehow prepared us for the ending and made it fit, as the novel's Robert's actions were far different from the film's one.
Books always allow for more time to digest the plot as the story moves forward. With movies you can't add everything from the book so it has to be condensed making it hard to get every subplot in explaining why certain things happen. The ending of the book was great but for the movie it would have been confusing on sheer fact that there was not enough info being told throughout the course of the movie.
I like the Director's Cut ending the best, both parties realise that they don't need to be enemies, that the other had understandable motives for their actions, and decide to just leave each other in peace. Both the theatrical cut and book endings assume that there needs to be a "bad guy" in the story, rather than being a matter of perspective.
I actually agree with that. Now i was never familiar with the novel until later, but i do like the Director's Cut ending of the movie because it makes Neville realize what he has done and is left wracked with guilt. I do like that Dark Seekers despite being "cannibalistic" creatures are capable of showing mercy and compassion despite Robert's actions, showing that they still have humanity left. Theatrical ending was massive letdown for obvious reasons.
I'd argue the movies point is a hope for humanity style VS the hopelessness of humanity, which in a sense arent opposites but instead extremely different categories of movie
I caught this movie on tv and the ending i watched was the good one where Will smith’s character survives and i was surprised to see that that was actually the secret one lol.
I read the book before the movie and was saddened that it wasn't 100% faithful. I Am Legend is an epic story and it was asinine of the director, writers, studio and Will Smith to think that their story was better than Matheson's. I hope they reboot it and do a faithful adaptation, not only with the story, but also the aesthetics.
Weird to me that one of the likely very few virologists decides to sacrifice himself... instead of staying alive to use his skills and knowledge to help the survivors develop and distribute his potential cure.
Why were the darkseekers mad about the main character capturing and experimenting on them and killing them and stuff, when they themselves were killing people willy nilly? Like yeah they're sentient and alive and all that but they are dangerous. I'd just think that since they're sentient theyd realize their own hypocrisy
When we're the dark seekers killing people? I feel like you missed the premise of the story, the virus initially created a hoard of mindless zombie like creatures from humans. In time some of these creatures started to develop back into sapient beings. Perhaps in time they all would have made this change. The sapient seekers were not killing anyone because effectively there was nobody to kill.
@@DrewLSsix I'm referring to the beginning of the infection and them trying to kill will Smith, unless everyone got infected via something else I imagine the people who turned had to turn other people somehow. Also in the comics an infected girl kills her family
@@earlwarner4404 true, we kill sharks all the time but when a shark kills a human its a tragedy. i don't think it's hypocrisy per se. Every species is looking out for their own. If there were aliens they probably wouldn't care to kill us if it helped further their own species. I'm not saying its ethical but that seems to be the goal of every species.
It shouldnt mind fuck anyone, Robert wasn't a monster for killing feral darkseekers to find a cure. The feral darkseekers killed millions of humans. There was this one guy who killed a lot of us after we ate everyone like him on the planet "he a monsta". What a great "legend". Let's add that to other legends see if it works well, Satan and Dracula, big legends. We add a lil tragedy to their beginnings, they start to sound less Mythical and more your average revenge story, but with magics.
@@spitzerlass2684 it's because the entire time you think that it's an underdog success story but turns out it's a legend about one man who went on a killing spree and became a villain in an attempt to "survive"
Since suicide is a touchy subject, I think it could have better ended with Dr. Neville being released from the Deathstalker prison to run off and be free, having Robert realize that like the fairytales of monsters, he too will now be known as a lonely remnant of a bloodthirsty race long extinct, that hunts innocent civilians in the day (instead of the traditional night, like vampires).
That is a great ending to the book and gives the title a profound. Here is my single flaw with the film. Robert is freaking perfect. I hate characters like this. So let me get this straight. He is an epic survivalist too brass military man AND a genius scientist. Cmon now....oh and for good measure he is also the most immune human ever made.
perfect would not have ben traped by HIS OWN TRAP, perfect would mean he would beat the crap out of the zombies, PERFECT would have safed the dog. So no, he aint perfect. He had 3 years to gain SKILLZ to survive in that world, soooo training not shown but there. Not like Rey....
In the book, Robert Nevlle is just some guy. Maybe he fought in Korea but I dont remember. Hes not a scientist or anything like that and basicly has to teach himself how to do everything
Oh my god, this film. Okay, so with the whole, I dug the movie, up until the decided to just up and change the ending, and also screw around with the "Vampires." Test Audiences' reaction made this film worse. Why not just keep in line with the theme of the film, that the main character was an extremely unreliable narrator, and that he was the villain when you actually take a closer look into it. It could've been a very provocative thing, and they flubbed it. Flubbed it, baaad. Good video, Mac!
I liked I Am Legend, not particularly because of the ending but I watched it around like 12 years old and it was the very first movie I ever cried in a movie (obviously when the dog dies). It’s really stuck with me because of that, and that scene was definitely very effective
I've nothing against Will, but I've yet to watch him in anything that hasn't made my eyes roll with boredom; just personal taste. He's too evenly rounded as an entertainer, entirely inoffensive, deliberately so. Could you imagine him playing a villain and actually pulling it off? Even in Suicide Squad he never once came across as bad-ass, or just plain bad.
@@markpaterson2053 I was offended by bright. (Not really) I dont think he could have helped it, but his character was insufferable. I think someone like Jamie Fox who is super emotive would have crushed this movie. The ending would still suck though.
ha ha, everything you said is perfectly true; Jamie Fox has range, too. As for the ending, I thought: "So that was I am Legend, eh?" I don't think so. I haven't read Richard Matheson's novel, but I doubt it's this dull.
While watching this, I thought of a rewrite. Maybe not the same as the book but in the same spirit. The characters are pushed back into a corner. Robert is separated from Anna and Ethan. He sees them being mulled down by the Darkseekers. Robert has a flashback to his wife and daughter deaths as he grits his teeth and begins slaughters the darkseekers down one by one in a mad frenzy. The fire of the guns drown out all music and the sound in his ears. Finally he reaches Anna and Ethans who laid on the ground. But as he gripes Anna arm, he finds none. As the sound slowly starts returning, he sees to his horror that Anna and Ethan are but mannequins. “No, that’s, that’s not” is all he can as his returns to him. Of how he was truly to save himself that. And he realizes since Sam’s death he’s been going mad. It’s then he notices the darkseekers injured leader grasping the hands of the one he’s been experiencing on loving. Robert then sees the darkseekers truly then. As scared people, mutated but alive. Then he shares a look with the leader, he can see the same rage go through that he once bore to the monsters that took everything from him. Noveille did nothing has the leader rose and began moving towards him. He saw the other seekers try to stop him desperately but there a determined look in his. Despite the fact he could kill them all, Robert did not shoot. Instead his hands trembled as he let gun fall and his knees followed moments later. With his downtrodden as the seeker approached Dr. Robert Neville let himself be killed by the seekers hands. This whole time he thought his legacy, his legend would be curing Humankind. But instead he’s been culling the new race of man and in doing so as become their monster of legend.
The original book ending is not only lame but dumb. Even if they try and claim Neville is some sort of mass murderer, the impact he has had on the 'vampires' has been minimal vs the billions killed by the virus and those 'vampires'. Causing the genocide of a race either way is bad, so they are equally in the wrong or more so.
The CGI was another fatal flaw. The effects were not only distracting, but they were completely unnecessary. The vampires are people. You don't need CGI for that.
At 4:55......remember, Robert Neville was bitten on the shoulder and is now infected. Thus, his "sacrifice" makes sense in a way as he doesn't want to end up as a Dark Seeker. Even if he doesn't turn in a Dark Seeker, he will die from the bite.
Im a bit confused then, why in the novel is the main character trapping them and killing them then, if they're supposed to be ''happy-go-friendly-sjw you're opressing us''? I understand there's 2 types, the woman being one of the sane types, but he's never encountered the good ones before. But if there is a whole other section of them who are in fact raging zombie vampires who are actively out killing and feeding off humans, then it's totally ok for him to be out killing them. Unless he's 100% just killing them on a hunch and they havnt been trying to kill him as in the movie. And if there's enough of the sane ones in a proixmity to him so close that he's mistaking them for the bad ones every night and killing them too, why are they only coming in contact with him now, when the woman appears for the first time? I can imagine if they're far away this whole time, in that community, but if theyre close enough for him to be killing them all this time, why is this the first time he's bumped into him and given him a chance to see there's good, sane ones too? They didnt think to pop their head out one night and be like ''hey bro, we're cool, chill''?? Sounds like the book has as many holes as the movie.
We kill other species too. That's the thing. in their Story they were the normal ones and he was the threat. I assume they don't see the bad zobies as bad either.
And if they were so intelligent all along, how the fuck did he survive as long as he did against hundreds of them? They are the next step in the human evolution and they can't kill one old-school human?
Oh man, I remember my book fan friend telling me that the pathogen was a bacteria and not a virus in the book, then I made the following meme: "But authooooor, germs are booooriiiiing" "PATHOGEN IS PATHOGEN" EDIT: I was playing Devil May Cry 3 while listening and holy shit somehow I managed to take on Nevan without getting hit at all, your voice must have some skill boost passive or something
Great video, but it has one fatal flaw: 'crapshoot' is not a synonym for 'shitshow'. Craps is a game of chance with dice, so a crapshoot means a roll of the dice.
Unless I'm missing something I have to disagree that the vampires are the next step of humanity. Having to avoid the sun is a huge drawback no matter how many benefits the vampires have. I also don't get why the vampires would veiw themselves as separate from humans since they were all humans not that long ago, it's not like they lived for hundreds of years or have othe vampiric powers like the vampires in more fantasy. settings. I would guess that a lot of them would try to cure themselves is they could. Having said all that, they would likely still veiw Robert as a murder but I also don't get why they haven't tried to communicate with him to try the explain the situation. I haven't read the book so I might be missing some crucial information.
Think of it less as the next evolutionary step, and more so as there's so many of them and so few humans, that they're the next dominant species. There's too many to either kill or cure and the human race is almost completely extinct. That's how it is in the book with more details with how the vampires are evolving to be able to handle the sun light without dying.
You are in a way missing the point and yet are absolutely right at the same time. The main character had the exact same thought assuming that the vampires are a disease, an ugly and degrading transformation of formerly beautiful humans. Yet, from the vampires point of view they were perfectly fine, they were themselves, not some kind of ugly knock off of humans. So the idea is that even though from some objective perspective humans might be better than vampires or the other way around, but every kind has its own view, and from their respective perspectives they are the good ones. The tragedy of the story is the main character realizing that his perspective was just that - his subjective view, nothing more, and he was good and bad at the same time.
@@mushypork2132 i understand that but my point is that there is no reason for the vampires to veiw themselves differently from humans. We don't view humans with disfiguring desies as a totally sepret thing. I would suspect that many of them would want to become human again since they were all human not long ago
@@stalwartteakettlepotato9879 except, they were different and the only human they encountered was killing them or abducting for medical experiments. Main character saw them as monsters, they saw him as a monster. I don't know, maybe the physical transformation they went through altered their body chemistry and thus changed their motivations and desires, maybe their old memories felt to remote to comprehend as reality, maybe their change was so drastic that they didn't have any "human" left in them.
I always thought the novels ending was a young vs old style ending and the story of growing old and watching everything around you change bit by bit and helplessness and that you one could feel before ultimately dying
Maybe someone who read the novel can explain this to me, but the one huge issue I have with the novels ending, as you explained it, is that robert shouldn’t be seen as a villain if he was doing things out of self defense. How was he supposed to have a conscience about killing the infected if they weren’t communicating with him verbally, and weirder, they were originally human, so it isn’t like the intelligent infected didn’t have a default understanding of how diplomacy works. So did They attacked him for years, with the entire ability to communicate, finally capture him, then forget to be sympathetic to one of their own, people keep saying a new species like they weren’t simply human at first ???
@@teaves9272 yeah the only way I see the Novel ending working is if Robert turned out to be an unreliable narrator and the darkseekers did communicate but Robert refused to see any humanity in them so he killed them while convincing himself they were monsters who needed to be saved or something like that
My main complaint is the CGI, as far as production design goes. Edit: and I agree the third act was disappointing. But I still like the film and I’m a huge Will Smith fan.
One of my favorite movies of the late 2000's. The movie was more akin to the Charlton Heston movie "The Omega Man" which had been a favorite of mine also. The novel is diffrent from both this movie and the Charlton Heston one. I was fine with the ending except for that it didnt allow any room for a sequel. I did hear that there was a sequel in the works a while back but don't understand how that would work. They'd have to figure out some kind of way to make it so that Dr. Robert Nevel survived the blast or make it a prequel or something. They could make a prequel work by filling in the gaps between the flashback scenes in the first movie up to where we see him as a hardened loner at the beginning. To me this is Will Smith's last decent movie... havent been impressed by anything since.
I wish my phone would stop listening to what’s happening around me. Because I just so happen to have this movie on in the background before I opened the app
So not having read the novel from your description the books story still sounds a little strange to me. You mentioned there were also mindless types in the books. What did the intelligent ones think about them? how did they want to deal with them? Were they not aware that the main char might have them confused? .... Also do the intelligent ones not remember when they used to be human? Do they not think "oh hey maybe we should let that guy know whats up earlier"? Maybe if they did not know where he lived they could have like left messages around town or something ... or use radio broadcast or whatever ... from your explanation it seems they would have been capable of that ...well maybe I should read it and see if there are answers to that.
Giving the movie the book's ending wouldn't work because the film would need more time to explore Anna, so that viewers could be invested in her enough for the ending of her giving him a "mercy death" to be meaningful. Similar to the reason they make the dog a "family dog" instead of a random pet. The film in its current form has Anna as a "random woman" and there isn't much time left to make her that meaningful for such a dramatic ending where she helps kill the main character. It would be completely out of place and awkward. In order to give this story the book's ending, the entire film would have to be nearly identical to the book.
I don't think the book's ending would work on the film unless they changed the movie to highlight Robert's "brutality" in seeking a cure, or at least potray him as more of a hunter than the movie does.
Your descriptions brought to mind another book that is supposed to be adapted to a film "The girl with all the gifts", which also has a great ending that I hope they don't ruin.
So I’m supposed to believe that the smart vampires were mad that he killed the cannibalistic vampires? Seems like they would be able to understand that
I mean, what if you were the smart one and your mother was the cannibal, would you be pissed if a human killed her, trying to find the cure for an extinct species? When you have the antibodies to make them non-feral? Would you sympathize?
I love the Matheson's novella. Will Smith is a great actor--it's difficult to hold-up a film where you're basically the only main character. If the filmmakers had done two things--stuck with the spirit of the novella ending, and utilized practical effects to bring the vampires to life--there's no doubt in my mind this movie would be considered a sci-fi/horror classic.
I don't think you put enough emphasis on the catastrophic use of CGI in this movie. Yes, the ending was bad and made me angry as well, even without knowing the ending of the source material, but I was already lost before that. As soon as the infected were actually shown, the horror was gone for me. The infected just look that bad. They were not even remotely scaring me, aside from the cheap jump scares. I don't understand why they had to be shown that frequently anyways. This movie is a perfect example of how bad FX can ruin an atmosphere. I can't imagine it could have been worse with actual actors. So well, your analysis still holds, but even if there had been other decisions plot-wise, it wouldn't have worked for me. Which is sad, because I also really loved the first half of this movie.
It sounds like the book was trying to have its cake and eat it too. I’m not sure if that plot actually works the way you’ve described. If they are so smart why does it take him so long to realize? That’s nonsense. And if there are two different types, smart and rabid, the smart ones will understand why you he guy killed rabid ones. Sometimes in an effort to have a twist, writers leave logic at the door.
Robert Neville of the book is an ordinary guy with flaws. Most of the intelligent vampires he meets early on, including his neighbour (with whom he has conversations), terrorize him nightly. He believes vampires are beyond saving and starts killing them during they day when they are hibernating. He doesn't distinguish between the undead and living as they are all literally out for his blood. The civilized caste of vampires come to see him as a figure of death and set a trap using the girl, who is infected but supresses her bloodlust with science.
Yeah this book being written in the Fifties must have been a commentary about the political concerns of the time. I wonder if it is not about Macarthyism where the notion that someone could become a communist (a Vampire) generated fear in the American psyche (Robert). This book could be a commentary on the ensuing witch hunts!!
I appreciate this video because this is what I thought about a few other movies with one such being Little shop of horrors. In the play the plant wins and takes over the word. In the most recent adaptation there was an entire six minutes of film where it shows after seymour gets eaten, other people fall for the same thing he does and the plants spread throughout the world before becoming large enough to dominate. Instead of this ending being shown, the ending we got was seymour defeating the plant and living happy with Audrey who also survives and never pays for what he's done and a new bud of the plant closes the film on a cliffhanger. Now that could very well imply that the same thing can happen again as a wink to the audience but it doesn't hit as hard as the intended ending. It was removed due to audiences who have seen it finding it too disturbing and wanted the happy ending. Now I love the movie but feel like I would have enjoyed it much more had they stuck with the original ending because it leaves off on a dark note that makes you feel something, Makes you think, lingers on the mind a while after watching it and makes the movie more memorable. So many movies have it where the heros always win. The humans always triumph because....they do. Meanwhile life doesn't always work that way and with movies ending in ways where those we root for make it then we've pretty much have watched a reskin of the same film over and over.
I loved this video but one thing: I distinctly remember in the beginning of the movie there is audio that plays that talks about the virus coming from a cure for cancer, not measles. I could be wrong, but I do remember that and it was even a thing I used to tell people who talked about the movie because most people don’t remember that or didn’t catch it at all but it is right in the beginning of the movie.
From Wikipedia: An attempt to genetically re-engineer the measles virus to cure cancer becomes lethal, infecting 99% of the world's population, turning those it does not kill into vampiric, albino, cannibalistic mutants called Darkseekers, who are extremely vulnerable to sunlight and prey on the few who are left unaffected.
The CGI killed this movie. They should have gone with practical effects. They also totally botched the ending when he realized the darkseekers were able to love and saw him as a monster.
I saw the movie with the alternate ending years after watching the theatrical cut and it was much better. Not great but good. Also I worked throughout the outbreak of COVID-19 in NYC and while it wasn't as apocalyptic as I Am Legend, those early months were weird being the only person out on the street.
The original movie ending wasn't as good as the book's, but was still better than what the eventual ending gave us. The movie actually did set up the Darkseekers as intellligent, or at least more than animal intelligence. I saw it telegraphed from a mile away (using infected dogs as weapons, the copied rope trap, using the mannequins to trick him). In that sense, it was going in the right direction. However, the ending through me for a loop, because it looked like they were again just treating them like ravenous monsters. Only later, when I actually looked into it, did I realize that the ending had been changed because the original didn't do well with test audiences. I couldn't understand why they just abandoned all of that setup to show the Darkseekers as intelligent and having emotion.
9:08 Looks on my screen somewhat like the book has a yellow decal saying "GOLD MIND FUCK" just after you say that was the kind of ending it has. XD Great mention btw. Didn't know it came from a book. That would've been a much more interesting ending. Like you said, I had a recollection that Will Smith was good in the movie but couldn't remember the ending... cuz forgettable. I did recall it had an alternate ending as well... which I also couldn't remember haha
There appears to be two cribs at 1:06 - 1:07. I thought he only had one child. Also, the child in film was six years old at the time, why would there need to be a crib at all?
Macabre, I’d like to see you critically discuss the good and bad of X-Men Dark Phoenix and give your opinion of whether the harsh criticism of the film was warranted. I feel the movie was way overly criticized because A. The film was dealing with studio interference, and B. Simon Kinberg the director did the best that he could with what he had given to him as a writer and director. Personally, I felt it’s a movie that’s far more deep and sentimental in terms of themes it touches on than the critics gave it credit for. Yes, I know the box office reception for the movie was shit. But at the same time, I do not think the movie is garbage. I’d rather hear you discuss all the positives and negatives and hear it from someone offering a bit of an unbiased view on it, because I feel the film has two sets of people: those who despise it just because they want to calling it “emotionless” when it clearly wasn’t in my opinion because of several critical moments, and those who love it giving it an 8 out of 10.
I do feel like a lot of films get a bad rap due to things that were out of the creative's control. Sometimes I can't believe just how badly studio execs fuck up films.
@@MacabreStorytelling yeah. I personally feel if Disney hadn’t interfered telling Simon Kinberg he couldn’t do what he initially planned, the movie would have been a financial success. But Dark Phoenix is a better film than people give it credit for. I remember when I first saw it and the credits rolled up, I left the theater nearly sobbing because the character of Jean Grey is near and dear to me and I thought the movie put the spotlight in her character in a great way. For me, the story itself isn’t weak. Yes the villain could have been more recognizable, but it wasn’t by any means as bad as critics said it was. I personally feel it’s a trend amongst movie critics to hate everything for stupid reasons
I didn't read the book: so what is the relationship between the infected and the undead? Why do the infected care that Robert killed some undead? They are portraid as instantly agressive torwards Robert, how can I (the audience) symphatize with them (and feel sorry for them)?
@034bloodas It said: Undead are infected who died and came back to life. The infected found a way to not die (and become undead). They are (way) more intelligent than undead. The video portrays undead as the zombies in the movie and infected as the woman. From this picture the infected seem much more similar to humans than undead. So why do they care abou the undead? If it were flipped: humans (=we, =homo sapines, =Robert) would'nt care about undead humans...
Your comment really hits the nail for me. To preface, I haven't read the book either. I believe it would be effective and sympathetic to show more intelligence from the Night-seers throughout the movie. Not something tacked on at the ending. Some basic communication and, if Robert is the stuff of 'legendary' nightmares for them, fear. Less of them standing around breathing rapidly and doing nothing in particular. Also, if the undead and infected were one and the same. Over time they do grow more intelligent, for instance Anna would be a younger second generation night-seer. She could sport a more relatable almost human look, being born and not rapidly transformed by the virus. Maybe how I would interpret it at least.
Huh, guess I got everything mixed up on alternative ending. Though what had happened was the dark seekers come in and the leader gets his mate and they leave but the lab is going to self destruct. Neville locks out the woman and kid to go find other humans or something and Neville lets himself explode because he couldn’t live with the guilt of all he’s done. Living with the knowledge he killed so many of an intellectual and emotionally conscious species that could evolve into something greater than even humanity (hence the butterfly tattoo on the female dark seeker). And that he’ll never be able to be apart of their advanced society to come. We also don’t see what happens to the woman and boy, leaving an open end for the two (being dark seekers or they gtfo and head to Vermont empty handed.)
Here's a fun little bonus... there were animated comics that fleshed out the world of I Am Legend. In the 3rd one the story follows a girl who leaves her family's shelter to find her lover and gets infected. After she turns, she retains sentience but doesn't recognize uninfected people as people. Ends up killing "monsters" who've replaced her family, then finds her lover who muses how much stronger they are after the sickness passed. At least someone on the team was aware that they weren't mindless rage zombie vampires.
This is ironically a movie that I think could be fixed in a sequel. Proposed plot: Set a few years after the initial movie where the Darkseekers have started developing societies, that can be hinted at throughout. The remaining human population with the cure on hand begins to distribute it to the Darkseekers, however as they turn human again they never feel right and have frequent nightmares, but not direct memories as a Darkseeker, not to mention being depressed to see the changed world. Throughout the movie they could have the humans learn that their position is pointless and learn about the intelligence of the Darkseekers, as well as learn about their destructive nature of turning them back. Eventually the humans give up and either decide to remain a small colony or to attempt to reverse the cure and join the Darkseekers. Then they could write into the dialogue about how the cure is seen as the most dangerous weapon to the Darkseeker society, and the legend behind Neville is his development of the weapon. Of course this is a thought provocative way to fix the one flaw in an entirely new movie, that will never be made, but it's an interesting change on how to address it.
That's cool you did this film. I was a paid background actor on the bridge scene when it blew up. It's cool how they did it. We got 400 and some great food on that film
The dog was the true star in this flick.plus get into an armored car and drive away put on a CD so you don't hear the crunch of the undead as you drive around
As you said, the infected are also presented as somewhat intelligent in the film. They use a mannequin to trap the main character so they can get him at night, they are capable of following direct orders and organize as a group to attack his home. It's not the same as in the book where there are two versions of infected and one is more intelligent than the others, but they are presented as somewhat intelligent - which is part of why I dislike the ending where they are mindlessly slaughtered even more, and why I'll always prefer the other ending they filmed for the movie. Not as great as the book but still better than what we got.
I didn't understand one thing about the book... If Nevil only killed and experimented on dead vampires why the living ones that survived the germ pick on him? Ok, the book reveals that Robert harbored a sort of sadism towards those creatures, but even the infected survivors enjoyed raiding the undead in the end. If Nevil had mistakenly captured one of those who have adapted to the virus why couldn't the latter have defended itself by demonstrating its "immunity" to the virus or, in the case the subject was primarily killed by Robert, why didn't Robert notice its immunity ?
this movie couldve been one of the G.O.A.T.s if they leaned more towards the novels story, I mean just look at some of the best movies they're almost always based on a book, still one of my fav movies tho!
I Am Legend's story is a victim of the zombie craze that swept through around that time. Producers boiled a lot of things down to that trope. That's too bad, because this would have been a ridiculously good movie that could have made the zombie revival something worthwhile, had it kept to its roots. Instead this is a movie that people know as, "the one with those zombies-ish things where the dog dies. Man, what a pretty dog. That part was SO sad. I love dogs."
I watched this in the theater when I was 7. First time I cried at a movie was when Samantha died so I think about the movie a lot. I liked the ending because I was too dumb at the time to realize the obvious flaws with it. I wonder if they had gone with the ending from the book how different my experience would have been. I wonder how my dad would've reacted to an ending like that. Lol, kinda bugs me that we got the shit ending.
Anybody with combat experience would have set their defensive promoters staggered and far enough away not to create an inherit breach of their own fortifications. So, if that was felt with, they would not have made it in, or even close.
How does robert not know the darkseekers in the novel are sentient is what I would like to know. Do they not all behave like ruth? Could they not try communicate with him too? Is there something I'm missing
To support the book ending they would have needed to frame the vampires quite differently, either by not showing them much at all or by showing them in a more subtle way that doesnt make them look like feral monsters.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
One thatal thlaw
Based
@@classicpinball9873 You know, liking owning the libs
BringleBoy idc about that stuff anymore
@@classicpinball9873 lmao I thought you were going for the meme, but clearly not.
@@classicpinball9873 Nevermind, dude. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Explaining it would just take too long. Feel free to look it up.
I looked at Robert's sacrifice as intentional. I don't think he wanted to live anymore, being that his family was gone and he just lost his dog. Losing his dog was his breaking point.
That's radiculas what if the fucking vaccine don't work. If third act's time increased by 1 hour and the movie was made 2:30 hours then it had a potential to have been one of the greatest appoclepes movie of all time.
@@ankansenapati3600 What would increasing the run time do if the vaccine didn't work?
Still pretty dumb. He wanted them to get the vaccine to work, he needed to be alive to see that it actually does and help make sure it does. But instead he goes and kills himself out of nowhere and without necessity.
same here
Can't spend an entire movie fighting to survive, despite the suffering, then have it overcome you.
Now Knowing the true ending just made me mad. This ending was incredible, the plot wist would have been amazing. It would definitely have been a cult classic. It had everything going for it, until the ending. Too bad they ruined a masterpiece.
I know I’m a year late, but the motion comics are incredible too. If you want even more evidence that the original ending is the true ending of that movie, just watch those. Some actually show that the monsters are still people, quite literally, and support the original ending perfectly. It sucks that the test audience won
then just follow the ending you like then, the movie was a masterpiece and i am legend 2 will be coming out in 2024
If you want the real masterpiece, read the book it's based on. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. This movie is trash and very disrespectful to the original material. They could have called it any other name, that's how far apart it is from the original story.
Agreed
@@concernedandequal1928 - you mean like 'The Last Man on Earth' or 'The Omega Man'? I've never seen 'The Last Man on Earth,' but I've seen 'The Omega Man' and it was very similar to 'I Am Legend.' I haven't read the book yet though. I ordered it from Amazon, just haven't gotten it yet.
The happy/optimistic ending trope has soured the perception of writing. It has spoiled entire generations of consumers into thinking that the structure of a story can be wrapped up in its entirety just because the 'good guys' won as if there won't be any opposition to them in the future.
Absolutely, I love movies that give an ambiguous resolve. Writers can learn a lot from Guillermo del Toro's El orfanato or Pan's labyrinth
Avengers Infinity War did that. The heroes lost everything.
That's why I can't get into modern Star Wars. I grew up loving the original trilogy, of course, but not only were the prequels infamously bad, the new trilogy wants you to get amped up for the Jedi to beat the Empire (the First Order is the same thing) and return to power. Why should I? They already did that at the end of the first trilogy, and somewhere in the span of 30-40 years, lost power. If they set up a society / political system so bad that people rejected it and gave rise to the Empire in less than two generations, why am I supposed to believe that won't happen all over again?
The rise of Skywalker
I don't think it's necessarily a new thing, I think people just generally want to consume media with happy endings not because it's what they've been conditioned to like, but because it just makes people feel good.
The problem with I am legend is that will smith was some brilliant military scientist instead of an average man who learns to become a survivor like in the book. Btw Robert Neville is an anagram for terrible novel because the author thought no one would like.
How does this comment not have a 1000 likes??
ROBERT NEVILLE
TERRIBLE NOVEL
@@jaskunwarkohli3463 all I can do is add my one (and one for you).
Holy shit that’s brilliant
Mind blown
He was also a suicidally depressed alcoholic, not some brooding hero.
SPOILERS: I think there's one pretty important detail about the original novel that justifies its ending. In the novel Robert was not only killing the vampires which came to haunt him, but during the day he was also getting into sleeping (later revealed to be inteligent) vampire's homes, dragging them out and killing them in their sleep (I don't remember it exactly, I think they were unable to wake up during the day), which in the ending is explained that they now portray him the same way people portrayed vampires that killed their victims in their sleep.
And yes, I remember the sound my jaw made hitting the ground when I finished reading the novel :)
yeah I have seen the movie first. So I was shocke by this ending
Now i get why he didnt notice they were sentient
all they had to do was write "don't kill us, please" on the walls.
@@arsenii_yavorskyi They could've posted it online as well.
@@b005t3r I'm sure the internet was down by then. but it doesn't matter. if they were intelligent enough to speak, then they had the means to show they're not animals, even if they couldn't wake up during the day.
The novel is so much better. I was surprised by the cliffhanger at the end of the book. And by the existence of the book itself.
The main focus of the novel is not on the cure but on the survival. When the protagonist methodically goes out during the day and kills all the infected thinking they are already dead, he spares their lives. However, it appears in their mindset he was a mass murderer, maniac who was to be stopped no matter the cost. He was probably the last remaining human (in our understanding). And he became alien to the new society and the new species of humans emerged after the virus. He is now cancer, monster and the 'vampire', because their society is alive and his society is dead. He and his ideals stopped being normal, their ideas became standard.
This book is deeply symbolic and psychological. Using this simple setting it explains that our ideals are some kind of a fiction, depending on how many people believe in them. As long as the idea is supported by the masses, it is normal. The moment another idea (contradictory, for example) is supported, it becomes norm. For example, this happened in Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR. For the rest of the world it was horrible but in the country it was a norm.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks for the channel!
It's kind of ironic for you to compare the Nazi's and communists to the dark seekers, when it's in fact the opposite to some extent.
Democracy started as a concept in the late 19th and early 20th century and slowly took over replacing monarchies, aristocracies, and the Catholic church. And in the mid 20th century everything become more centralised by governments.
So it's actually us who believe in democracy who have replaced the previous "normal" people and have become the new normal for societies.
@@reilysmith5187 i would like to quibble with one point you made, Democracy wasn't started in the 19th and 20th century, it was started back in the 5th century BCE, in the Macedonian Empire state of Greece.
It did become a more popular and worldwide form of government in the 19th century, as you said. I just wanted to make that one minor adjustment.
Bro u wrote a thesis. This is outstanding 😂😂😂
@@Thoron_of_Neto didn’t only start in Greece. Like many things in evolution, it was also independently developed in other societies. The Almamiat regime of Fuuta Toro in West Africa being one example that I know of!!
Yeah this book being written in the Fifties must have been a commentary about the political concerns of the time. I wonder if it is not about Macarthyism where the notion that someone could become a communist (a Vampire) generated fear in the American psyche (Robert). This book could be a commentary on the ensuing witch hunts!!
The alternate ending is actually the best of both worlds imo
Neville realizes the darkseekers werent emotionless and feels bad for what hes done, even returning the alphas mate. He gets to live at the end to with the cure in order to immunize humans so in this fashion humans will still struggle and survive but the darkseekers will still rule
Lol "best"? Humans tend to be racist agains his own kind, now try to imaginate what will happens.
@@galipote_rd What?
@@galipote_rd ............................................................
WTF?
bro
we talking about the same thing here?
@@galipote_rd nuketown 😂
@@galipote_rd Humans can amaze with our compassion and ingenuity but than we can also be a bunch of arses so I understand your point but it depends on what side of the coin you want to look at.
Blind guess before the video: "The ending, for it turns this movie from a subversive story with a mature and thought provoking theme into just another zombie flick.”
The fact that that happens so often you can predict it is so sad. The amount of great stories that Hollywood has ruined.
Weeb
Because I have an anime profile pic? But you have one too fellow weeb XD
I remember my brother telling me about this movie when it came into theatres. He had no idea tgis movie wasn't an original work, mind you. He said: "The ending was BS. You can clearly see hints of intelligence within the zombies, they probably just seiged his house to rescue the woman too, and yet he just kills them all and thats supposed to be a happy ending."
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
Hello there
Its an old code, but it still checks out.
A fellow Star Wars fan
@@deptusmechanikus7362 General Kenobi
The Last Man On Earth
The Omega Man
I Am Legend
I Am Omega
This is so wildly predictable of me to say, but when he mercy killed poor infected Sam, the emotion of the scene never fails to get me right in the heart because it's an experience, however exaggerated, many of us have or MAY endure at some point. Smith can be an amazing actor, no doubt about it.
One of the saddest scenes i can recall honestly
I remember seeing it in theaters, there was a lot of sniffling during and after that scene 🥺
I always thought it would have been better and still have enough mainstream appeal if it had a similar setup to the novel, but Will Smith decided to embrace being the "Legend" and continued to fight and hunt the zombies. On the surface level, it would be like "yeah! He's so badass!" but those who think deeply about it might consider that he was actually the villain the whole time.
Well, the zombies killed people so it's not like they were portrayed as misunderstood
Golly, I remember the backlash to the ending of this film back in the day....
Probably a controversial take, but I’d be ok with the Director’s Cut ending over recreating the book’s. It seems like one of those twist endings that work better in a book than a film, not unlike the way each introduced the dog - in a film you’d need to setup that emotional beat earlier so it doesn’t come across as whiplash and manipulative when the doggo dies after two scenes.
Since the film isn’t being told from a character’s POV, it would at the very least be much more difficult to affect the twist without substantially changing the way the plot is told.
Anyways, super psyched to see you look at Amadeus, which is also one of my favorite films. I’m curious as to what the “one fatal flaw” is, though.
I think the book's ending is better in any way than what we got in the original film's version and DC's version, but it wasn't just the ending on its own - the novel somehow prepared us for the ending and made it fit, as the novel's Robert's actions were far different from the film's one.
Books always allow for more time to digest the plot as the story moves forward. With movies you can't add everything from the book so it has to be condensed making it hard to get every subplot in explaining why certain things happen.
The ending of the book was great but for the movie it would have been confusing on sheer fact that there was not enough info being told throughout the course of the movie.
I like the Director's Cut ending the best, both parties realise that they don't need to be enemies, that the other had understandable motives for their actions, and decide to just leave each other in peace.
Both the theatrical cut and book endings assume that there needs to be a "bad guy" in the story, rather than being a matter of perspective.
I actually agree with that. Now i was never familiar with the novel until later, but i do like the Director's Cut ending of the movie because it makes Neville realize what he has done and is left wracked with guilt. I do like that Dark Seekers despite being "cannibalistic" creatures are capable of showing mercy and compassion despite Robert's actions, showing that they still have humanity left. Theatrical ending was massive letdown for obvious reasons.
I'd argue the movies point is a hope for humanity style VS the hopelessness of humanity, which in a sense arent opposites but instead extremely different categories of movie
I caught this movie on tv and the ending i watched was the good one where Will smith’s character survives and i was surprised to see that that was actually the secret one lol.
I read the book before the movie and was saddened that it wasn't 100% faithful. I Am Legend is an epic story and it was asinine of the director, writers, studio and Will Smith to think that their story was better than Matheson's. I hope they reboot it and do a faithful adaptation, not only with the story, but also the aesthetics.
Weird to me that one of the likely very few virologists decides to sacrifice himself... instead of staying alive to use his skills and knowledge to help the survivors develop and distribute his potential cure.
Why were the darkseekers mad about the main character capturing and experimenting on them and killing them and stuff, when they themselves were killing people willy nilly? Like yeah they're sentient and alive and all that but they are dangerous. I'd just think that since they're sentient theyd realize their own hypocrisy
When we're the dark seekers killing people?
I feel like you missed the premise of the story, the virus initially created a hoard of mindless zombie like creatures from humans. In time some of these creatures started to develop back into sapient beings.
Perhaps in time they all would have made this change.
The sapient seekers were not killing anyone because effectively there was nobody to kill.
@@DrewLSsix I'm referring to the beginning of the infection and them trying to kill will Smith, unless everyone got infected via something else I imagine the people who turned had to turn other people somehow. Also in the comics an infected girl kills her family
People *Are* hypocrites. We all demonize others for acts that we have done ourselves or would do in their situation. It’s human nature I think lol
Why would you expect that when so many people in life can't see their own hypocrisy???
@@earlwarner4404 true, we kill sharks all the time but when a shark kills a human its a tragedy. i don't think it's hypocrisy per se. Every species is looking out for their own. If there were aliens they probably wouldn't care to kill us if it helped further their own species. I'm not saying its ethical but that seems to be the goal of every species.
personally i think the alternative ending is ten times better the the theatrical ending
Wow, the novel's ending just mind fucked me.
That's what it was supposed to do, which is why the book is remembered and the motion picture isn't.
It shouldnt mind fuck anyone, Robert wasn't a monster for killing feral darkseekers to find a cure. The feral darkseekers killed millions of humans.
There was this one guy who killed a lot of us after we ate everyone like him on the planet "he a monsta".
What a great "legend".
Let's add that to other legends see if it works well, Satan and Dracula, big legends. We add a lil tragedy to their beginnings, they start to sound less Mythical and more your average revenge story, but with magics.
You're easily impressed it seems
@@spitzerlass2684 it's because the entire time you think that it's an underdog success story but turns out it's a legend about one man who went on a killing spree and became a villain in an attempt to "survive"
@@cryojudgement2376 dumb ass he had to kill them they were attempting to kill him
Since suicide is a touchy subject, I think it could have better ended with Dr. Neville being released from the Deathstalker prison to run off and be free, having Robert realize that like the fairytales of monsters, he too will now be known as a lonely remnant of a bloodthirsty race long extinct, that hunts innocent civilians in the day (instead of the traditional night, like vampires).
omg so good. Never knowing if he is actually dead would make him more of a legend.
That is a great ending to the book and gives the title a profound.
Here is my single flaw with the film. Robert is freaking perfect. I hate characters like this. So let me get this straight. He is an epic survivalist too brass military man AND a genius scientist. Cmon now....oh and for good measure he is also the most immune human ever made.
perfect would not have ben traped by HIS OWN TRAP, perfect would mean he would beat the crap out of the zombies, PERFECT would have safed the dog. So no, he aint perfect. He had 3 years to gain SKILLZ to survive in that world, soooo training not shown but there. Not like Rey....
@@christianresel8051 actually, the dark seekers learnt from him and baited him a trap they made
In the book, Robert Nevlle is just some guy. Maybe he fought in Korea but I dont remember. Hes not a scientist or anything like that and basicly has to teach himself how to do everything
The One Fatal Flaw: Every CGI scene
I agree
Thats honestly what I thought this video would be about. CGI aside - I thought the movie was pretty fun.
bro this is a 2007 film what the fuck were you expecting
@@khalil42 maybe more practical effects?
Oh my god, this film. Okay, so with the whole, I dug the movie, up until the decided to just up and change the ending, and also screw around with the "Vampires." Test Audiences' reaction made this film worse. Why not just keep in line with the theme of the film, that the main character was an extremely unreliable narrator, and that he was the villain when you actually take a closer look into it. It could've been a very provocative thing, and they flubbed it. Flubbed it, baaad.
Good video, Mac!
I liked I Am Legend, not particularly because of the ending but I watched it around like 12 years old and it was the very first movie I ever cried in a movie (obviously when the dog dies). It’s really stuck with me because of that, and that scene was definitely very effective
The book ending was so powerful that the lack of it made me hate the movie.
Not Will Smith too? He blanded me out
@@markpaterson2053 I liked him in this, just didn't like most everything after the breakfast scene with the two survivors.
I've nothing against Will, but I've yet to watch him in anything that hasn't made my eyes roll with boredom; just personal taste. He's too evenly rounded as an entertainer, entirely inoffensive, deliberately so. Could you imagine him playing a villain and actually pulling it off? Even in Suicide Squad he never once came across as bad-ass, or just plain bad.
@@markpaterson2053 I was offended by bright. (Not really) I dont think he could have helped it, but his character was insufferable. I think someone like Jamie Fox who is super emotive would have crushed this movie. The ending would still suck though.
ha ha, everything you said is perfectly true; Jamie Fox has range, too. As for the ending, I thought: "So that was I am Legend, eh?"
I don't think so. I haven't read Richard Matheson's novel, but I doubt it's this dull.
While watching this, I thought of a rewrite. Maybe not the same as the book but in the same spirit.
The characters are pushed back into a corner. Robert is separated from Anna and Ethan. He sees them being mulled down by the Darkseekers. Robert has a flashback to his wife and daughter deaths as he grits his teeth and begins slaughters the darkseekers down one by one in a mad frenzy. The fire of the guns drown out all music and the sound in his ears.
Finally he reaches Anna and Ethans who laid on the ground. But as he gripes Anna arm, he finds none. As the sound slowly starts returning, he sees to his horror that Anna and Ethan are but mannequins. “No, that’s, that’s not” is all he can as his returns to him. Of how he was truly to save himself that. And he realizes since Sam’s death he’s been going mad.
It’s then he notices the darkseekers injured leader grasping the hands of the one he’s been experiencing on loving. Robert then sees the darkseekers truly then. As scared people, mutated but alive. Then he shares a look with the leader, he can see the same rage go through that he once bore to the monsters that took everything from him. Noveille did nothing has the leader rose and began moving towards him. He saw the other seekers try to stop him desperately but there a determined look in his.
Despite the fact he could kill them all, Robert did not shoot. Instead his hands trembled as he let gun fall and his knees followed moments later. With his downtrodden as the seeker approached Dr. Robert Neville let himself be killed by the seekers hands. This whole time he thought his legacy, his legend would be curing Humankind. But instead he’s been culling the new race of man and in doing so as become their monster of legend.
I loved this movie as a kid, and had no idea it was based on a book with such a crazy twist ending.
Nice of you, that you played Queen.. The first line would have been "oooh you makin me live" which fits the bond between Will and the dog perfectly!
The original book ending is not only lame but dumb. Even if they try and claim Neville is some sort of mass murderer, the impact he has had on the 'vampires' has been minimal vs the billions killed by the virus and those 'vampires'. Causing the genocide of a race either way is bad, so they are equally in the wrong or more so.
The CGI was another fatal flaw. The effects were not only distracting, but they were completely unnecessary. The vampires are people. You don't need CGI for that.
Knowing how good the alternate is just makes the chosen ending such a slap to the face
I can't stand people who say "the movie was OK, but the book was better."
Having now read the book ... the movie was OK, but the book was better.
At 4:55......remember, Robert Neville was bitten on the shoulder and is now infected. Thus, his "sacrifice" makes sense in a way as he doesn't want to end up as a Dark Seeker. Even if he doesn't turn in a Dark Seeker, he will die from the bite.
Im a bit confused then, why in the novel is the main character trapping them and killing them then, if they're supposed to be ''happy-go-friendly-sjw you're opressing us''? I understand there's 2 types, the woman being one of the sane types, but he's never encountered the good ones before. But if there is a whole other section of them who are in fact raging zombie vampires who are actively out killing and feeding off humans, then it's totally ok for him to be out killing them. Unless he's 100% just killing them on a hunch and they havnt been trying to kill him as in the movie.
And if there's enough of the sane ones in a proixmity to him so close that he's mistaking them for the bad ones every night and killing them too, why are they only coming in contact with him now, when the woman appears for the first time? I can imagine if they're far away this whole time, in that community, but if theyre close enough for him to be killing them all this time, why is this the first time he's bumped into him and given him a chance to see there's good, sane ones too? They didnt think to pop their head out one night and be like ''hey bro, we're cool, chill''??
Sounds like the book has as many holes as the movie.
We kill other species too. That's the thing. in their Story they were the normal ones and he was the threat. I assume they don't see the bad zobies as bad either.
And if they were so intelligent all along, how the fuck did he survive as long as he did against hundreds of them? They are the next step in the human evolution and they can't kill one old-school human?
Is the book ending really that good? Cause when once he said stop to read it I stopped LOL.
same im now thinking of buying the book lmaoo
It's ok, the ending feels a bit too fast paced, but it makes up for that.
Oh man, I remember my book fan friend telling me that the pathogen was a bacteria and not a virus in the book, then I made the following meme:
"But authooooor, germs are booooriiiiing"
"PATHOGEN IS PATHOGEN"
EDIT: I was playing Devil May Cry 3 while listening and holy shit somehow I managed to take on Nevan without getting hit at all, your voice must have some skill boost passive or something
Surprise bard
hey man this lowkey one of my favorite movies idk why
Great video, but it has one fatal flaw: 'crapshoot' is not a synonym for 'shitshow'. Craps is a game of chance with dice, so a crapshoot means a roll of the dice.
Although everything you’ve been saying is true. I still think the one thing that ruined this movie was the decision to make the Darkseekers CGI.
Unless I'm missing something I have to disagree that the vampires are the next step of humanity. Having to avoid the sun is a huge drawback no matter how many benefits the vampires have. I also don't get why the vampires would veiw themselves as separate from humans since they were all humans not that long ago, it's not like they lived for hundreds of years or have othe vampiric powers like the vampires in more fantasy. settings. I would guess that a lot of them would try to cure themselves is they could. Having said all that, they would likely still veiw Robert as a murder but I also don't get why they haven't tried to communicate with him to try the explain the situation.
I haven't read the book so I might be missing some crucial information.
Everyone is infected, it's the new normal.
Think of it less as the next evolutionary step, and more so as there's so many of them and so few humans, that they're the next dominant species. There's too many to either kill or cure and the human race is almost completely extinct. That's how it is in the book with more details with how the vampires are evolving to be able to handle the sun light without dying.
You are in a way missing the point and yet are absolutely right at the same time. The main character had the exact same thought assuming that the vampires are a disease, an ugly and degrading transformation of formerly beautiful humans. Yet, from the vampires point of view they were perfectly fine, they were themselves, not some kind of ugly knock off of humans. So the idea is that even though from some objective perspective humans might be better than vampires or the other way around, but every kind has its own view, and from their respective perspectives they are the good ones. The tragedy of the story is the main character realizing that his perspective was just that - his subjective view, nothing more, and he was good and bad at the same time.
@@mushypork2132 i understand that but my point is that there is no reason for the vampires to veiw themselves differently from humans. We don't view humans with disfiguring desies as a totally sepret thing. I would suspect that many of them would want to become human again since they were all human not long ago
@@stalwartteakettlepotato9879 except, they were different and the only human they encountered was killing them or abducting for medical experiments. Main character saw them as monsters, they saw him as a monster. I don't know, maybe the physical transformation they went through altered their body chemistry and thus changed their motivations and desires, maybe their old memories felt to remote to comprehend as reality, maybe their change was so drastic that they didn't have any "human" left in them.
I always thought the novels ending was a young vs old style ending and the story of growing old and watching everything around you change bit by bit and helplessness and that you one could feel before ultimately dying
Maybe someone who read the novel can explain this to me, but the one huge issue I have with the novels ending, as you explained it, is that robert shouldn’t be seen as a villain if he was doing things out of self defense. How was he supposed to have a conscience about killing the infected if they weren’t communicating with him verbally, and weirder, they were originally human, so it isn’t like the intelligent infected didn’t have a default understanding of how diplomacy works. So did They attacked him for years, with the entire ability to communicate, finally capture him, then forget to be sympathetic to one of their own, people keep saying a new species like they weren’t simply human at first ???
Exactly what I thought
@@KingKayuuu okay glad I’m not crazy, the whole time he was explaining the novel ending I was like ..... uhh wait a min lol
@@teaves9272 yeah the only way I see the Novel ending working is if Robert turned out to be an unreliable narrator and the darkseekers did communicate but Robert refused to see any humanity in them so he killed them while convincing himself they were monsters who needed to be saved or something like that
My main complaint is the CGI, as far as production design goes.
Edit: and I agree the third act was disappointing. But I still like the film and I’m a huge Will Smith fan.
It was actually ahead of its time at the time it was amazing
@@TechProFury I’m biased against CGI tho...even if it’s top of the line I’d rather see practical effects that are less believable
Plus if the sanctuary exists & loads of people in it how has no one ever contacted him? He literally talks on radio every day 🤣😂
One of my favorite movies of the late 2000's. The movie was more akin to the Charlton Heston movie "The Omega Man" which had been a favorite of mine also. The novel is diffrent from both this movie and the Charlton Heston one. I was fine with the ending except for that it didnt allow any room for a sequel. I did hear that there was a sequel in the works a while back but don't understand how that would work. They'd have to figure out some kind of way to make it so that Dr. Robert Nevel survived the blast or make it a prequel or something. They could make a prequel work by filling in the gaps between the flashback scenes in the first movie up to where we see him as a hardened loner at the beginning. To me this is Will Smith's last decent movie... havent been impressed by anything since.
My main question is why didn’t he set up UV light like in Dying Light
I wish my phone would stop listening to what’s happening around me. Because I just so happen to have this movie on in the background before I opened the app
That would have been a cool ending! If they had that end with practical effects infected it would be a classic
So not having read the novel from your description the books story still sounds a little strange to me. You mentioned there were also mindless types in the books. What did the intelligent ones think about them? how did they want to deal with them? Were they not aware that the main char might have them confused? .... Also do the intelligent ones not remember when they used to be human? Do they not think "oh hey maybe we should let that guy know whats up earlier"? Maybe if they did not know where he lived they could have like left messages around town or something ... or use radio broadcast or whatever ... from your explanation it seems they would have been capable of that ...well maybe I should read it and see if there are answers to that.
How come this got a video before Midsommar? Dying to hear your take on it
Never read the book but that ending would have made this movie a classic. I saw this movie in an empty theater. Literally the only person in there.
Legend has it you’re still there by yourself
@@SOSO_CREPITUS I'm not sure how to take that. I did watch it at 12:15pm on a Tuesday.
Giving the movie the book's ending wouldn't work because the film would need more time to explore Anna, so that viewers could be invested in her enough for the ending of her giving him a "mercy death" to be meaningful. Similar to the reason they make the dog a "family dog" instead of a random pet. The film in its current form has Anna as a "random woman" and there isn't much time left to make her that meaningful for such a dramatic ending where she helps kill the main character. It would be completely out of place and awkward. In order to give this story the book's ending, the entire film would have to be nearly identical to the book.
I don't think the book's ending would work on the film unless they changed the movie to highlight Robert's "brutality" in seeking a cure, or at least potray him as more of a hunter than the movie does.
Well said!
Your descriptions brought to mind another book that is supposed to be adapted to a film "The girl with all the gifts", which also has a great ending that I hope they don't ruin.
Are you thinking of a different thing than me? Because there is a film that was released in 2016 titled that
I watched it btw, from what I remember it was pretty good
So I’m supposed to believe that the smart vampires were mad that he killed the cannibalistic vampires? Seems like they would be able to understand that
I mean, what if you were the smart one and your mother was the cannibal, would you be pissed if a human killed her, trying to find the cure for an extinct species? When you have the antibodies to make them non-feral? Would you sympathize?
Last Man On Earth is better, but I like this film.
I love the Matheson's novella. Will Smith is a great actor--it's difficult to hold-up a film where you're basically the only main character. If the filmmakers had done two things--stuck with the spirit of the novella ending, and utilized practical effects to bring the vampires to life--there's no doubt in my mind this movie would be considered a sci-fi/horror classic.
When I saw the alternative ending, that’s how I viewed Robert. He was the dark seekers “legend”
I don't think you put enough emphasis on the catastrophic use of CGI in this movie.
Yes, the ending was bad and made me angry as well, even without knowing the ending of the source material, but I was already lost before that.
As soon as the infected were actually shown, the horror was gone for me. The infected just look that bad. They were not even remotely scaring me, aside from the cheap jump scares. I don't understand why they had to be shown that frequently anyways. This movie is a perfect example of how bad FX can ruin an atmosphere. I can't imagine it could have been worse with actual actors. So well, your analysis still holds, but even if there had been other decisions plot-wise, it wouldn't have worked for me. Which is sad, because I also really loved the first half of this movie.
It sounds like the book was trying to have its cake and eat it too. I’m not sure if that plot actually works the way you’ve described. If they are so smart why does it take him so long to realize? That’s nonsense. And if there are two different types, smart and rabid, the smart ones will understand why you he guy killed rabid ones. Sometimes in an effort to have a twist, writers leave logic at the door.
Robert Neville of the book is an ordinary guy with flaws. Most of the intelligent vampires he meets early on, including his neighbour (with whom he has conversations), terrorize him nightly. He believes vampires are beyond saving and starts killing them during they day when they are hibernating. He doesn't distinguish between the undead and living as they are all literally out for his blood. The civilized caste of vampires come to see him as a figure of death and set a trap using the girl, who is infected but supresses her bloodlust with science.
Yeah this book being written in the Fifties must have been a commentary about the political concerns of the time. I wonder if it is not about Macarthyism where the notion that someone could become a communist (a Vampire) generated fear in the American psyche (Robert). This book could be a commentary on the ensuing witch hunts!!
I appreciate this video because this is what I thought about a few other movies with one such being Little shop of horrors. In the play the plant wins and takes over the word. In the most recent adaptation there was an entire six minutes of film where it shows after seymour gets eaten, other people fall for the same thing he does and the plants spread throughout the world before becoming large enough to dominate. Instead of this ending being shown, the ending we got was seymour defeating the plant and living happy with Audrey who also survives and never pays for what he's done and a new bud of the plant closes the film on a cliffhanger. Now that could very well imply that the same thing can happen again as a wink to the audience but it doesn't hit as hard as the intended ending. It was removed due to audiences who have seen it finding it too disturbing and wanted the happy ending. Now I love the movie but feel like I would have enjoyed it much more had they stuck with the original ending because it leaves off on a dark note that makes you feel something, Makes you think, lingers on the mind a while after watching it and makes the movie more memorable. So many movies have it where the heros always win. The humans always triumph because....they do. Meanwhile life doesn't always work that way and with movies ending in ways where those we root for make it then we've pretty much have watched a reskin of the same film over and over.
I loved this video but one thing: I distinctly remember in the beginning of the movie there is audio that plays that talks about the virus coming from a cure for cancer, not measles. I could be wrong, but I do remember that and it was even a thing I used to tell people who talked about the movie because most people don’t remember that or didn’t catch it at all but it is right in the beginning of the movie.
From Wikipedia: An attempt to genetically re-engineer the measles virus to cure cancer becomes lethal, infecting 99% of the world's population, turning those it does not kill into vampiric, albino, cannibalistic mutants called Darkseekers, who are extremely vulnerable to sunlight and prey on the few who are left unaffected.
I know that guitar rift anywhere “you’re my best friend”- queen 1:40
The CGI killed this movie. They should have gone with practical effects. They also totally botched the ending when he realized the darkseekers were able to love and saw him as a monster.
I was so physiced when this movie was announced but then I watched it in theaters.
I saw the movie with the alternate ending years after watching the theatrical cut and it was much better. Not great but good. Also I worked throughout the outbreak of COVID-19 in NYC and while it wasn't as apocalyptic as I Am Legend, those early months were weird being the only person out on the street.
The original movie ending wasn't as good as the book's, but was still better than what the eventual ending gave us. The movie actually did set up the Darkseekers as intellligent, or at least more than animal intelligence. I saw it telegraphed from a mile away (using infected dogs as weapons, the copied rope trap, using the mannequins to trick him). In that sense, it was going in the right direction. However, the ending through me for a loop, because it looked like they were again just treating them like ravenous monsters. Only later, when I actually looked into it, did I realize that the ending had been changed because the original didn't do well with test audiences. I couldn't understand why they just abandoned all of that setup to show the Darkseekers as intelligent and having emotion.
The biggest crime was the overuse of bad cgi. Esp the slack jawed look.
9:08 Looks on my screen somewhat like the book has a yellow decal saying "GOLD MIND FUCK" just after you say that was the kind of ending it has. XD
Great mention btw. Didn't know it came from a book. That would've been a much more interesting ending. Like you said, I had a recollection that Will Smith was good in the movie but couldn't remember the ending... cuz forgettable. I did recall it had an alternate ending as well... which I also couldn't remember haha
There appears to be two cribs at 1:06 - 1:07. I thought he only had one child. Also, the child in film was six years old at the time, why would there need to be a crib at all?
Always love your take on everything. Thank you.
Macabre, I’d like to see you critically discuss the good and bad of X-Men Dark Phoenix and give your opinion of whether the harsh criticism of the film was warranted. I feel the movie was way overly criticized because A. The film was dealing with studio interference, and B. Simon Kinberg the director did the best that he could with what he had given to him as a writer and director. Personally, I felt it’s a movie that’s far more deep and sentimental in terms of themes it touches on than the critics gave it credit for. Yes, I know the box office reception for the movie was shit. But at the same time, I do not think the movie is garbage. I’d rather hear you discuss all the positives and negatives and hear it from someone offering a bit of an unbiased view on it, because I feel the film has two sets of people: those who despise it just because they want to calling it “emotionless” when it clearly wasn’t in my opinion because of several critical moments, and those who love it giving it an 8 out of 10.
I do feel like a lot of films get a bad rap due to things that were out of the creative's control. Sometimes I can't believe just how badly studio execs fuck up films.
@@MacabreStorytelling yeah. I personally feel if Disney hadn’t interfered telling Simon Kinberg he couldn’t do what he initially planned, the movie would have been a financial success. But Dark Phoenix is a better film than people give it credit for. I remember when I first saw it and the credits rolled up, I left the theater nearly sobbing because the character of Jean Grey is near and dear to me and I thought the movie put the spotlight in her character in a great way. For me, the story itself isn’t weak. Yes the villain could have been more recognizable, but it wasn’t by any means as bad as critics said it was. I personally feel it’s a trend amongst movie critics to hate everything for stupid reasons
The real flaw:
How did she get on or off the island by car? The bridges and tunnels were blown up.
I didn't read the book: so what is the relationship between the infected and the undead? Why do the infected care that Robert killed some undead? They are portraid as instantly agressive torwards Robert, how can I (the audience) symphatize with them (and feel sorry for them)?
@034bloodas It said: Undead are infected who died and came back to life. The infected found a way to not die (and become undead). They are (way) more intelligent than undead. The video portrays undead as the zombies in the movie and infected as the woman. From this picture the infected seem much more similar to humans than undead. So why do they care abou the undead? If it were flipped: humans (=we, =homo sapines, =Robert) would'nt care about undead humans...
Your comment really hits the nail for me. To preface, I haven't read the book either. I believe it would be effective and sympathetic to show more intelligence from the Night-seers throughout the movie. Not something tacked on at the ending. Some basic communication and, if Robert is the stuff of 'legendary' nightmares for them, fear. Less of them standing around breathing rapidly and doing nothing in particular. Also, if the undead and infected were one and the same. Over time they do grow more intelligent, for instance Anna would be a younger second generation night-seer. She could sport a more relatable almost human look, being born and not rapidly transformed by the virus. Maybe how I would interpret it at least.
M Night Shyamalan really needs to do this movie and do the novel justice.
Yes lol
Huh, guess I got everything mixed up on alternative ending. Though what had happened was the dark seekers come in and the leader gets his mate and they leave but the lab is going to self destruct. Neville locks out the woman and kid to go find other humans or something and Neville lets himself explode because he couldn’t live with the guilt of all he’s done. Living with the knowledge he killed so many of an intellectual and emotionally conscious species that could evolve into something greater than even humanity (hence the butterfly tattoo on the female dark seeker). And that he’ll never be able to be apart of their advanced society to come. We also don’t see what happens to the woman and boy, leaving an open end for the two (being dark seekers or they gtfo and head to Vermont empty handed.)
Here's a fun little bonus... there were animated comics that fleshed out the world of I Am Legend. In the 3rd one the story follows a girl who leaves her family's shelter to find her lover and gets infected. After she turns, she retains sentience but doesn't recognize uninfected people as people. Ends up killing "monsters" who've replaced her family, then finds her lover who muses how much stronger they are after the sickness passed. At least someone on the team was aware that they weren't mindless rage zombie vampires.
The man survived 3 years with a dog, (Even when it started as a puppy.) Didn't survive 1 day with a woman and kid.
Based.
@@arlaghdoth4434 *EXCUSE ME, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ASKING....*
This is ironically a movie that I think could be fixed in a sequel.
Proposed plot: Set a few years after the initial movie where the Darkseekers have started developing societies, that can be hinted at throughout. The remaining human population with the cure on hand begins to distribute it to the Darkseekers, however as they turn human again they never feel right and have frequent nightmares, but not direct memories as a Darkseeker, not to mention being depressed to see the changed world. Throughout the movie they could have the humans learn that their position is pointless and learn about the intelligence of the Darkseekers, as well as learn about their destructive nature of turning them back. Eventually the humans give up and either decide to remain a small colony or to attempt to reverse the cure and join the Darkseekers. Then they could write into the dialogue about how the cure is seen as the most dangerous weapon to the Darkseeker society, and the legend behind Neville is his development of the weapon.
Of course this is a thought provocative way to fix the one flaw in an entirely new movie, that will never be made, but it's an interesting change on how to address it.
I thought the flaw was that the movie didn’t have Will’s love interest P.diddy in it🤷♂️
That's cool you did this film. I was a paid background actor on the bridge scene when it blew up. It's cool how they did it. We got 400 and some great food on that film
The dog was the true star in this flick.plus get into an armored car and drive away put on a CD so you don't hear the crunch of the undead as you drive around
After reading the book I can't even watch this movie anymore.
The novel is seriously intense, really really recommend
Just once I’d like to read/watch a piece of work that doesn’t end in butterflies and rainbows
Every Hero is a Villain to someone else. Now I regret not reading the book.
Dude, this was the series that got me in. Can you continue this one? I love it!
As you said, the infected are also presented as somewhat intelligent in the film. They use a mannequin to trap the main character so they can get him at night, they are capable of following direct orders and organize as a group to attack his home. It's not the same as in the book where there are two versions of infected and one is more intelligent than the others, but they are presented as somewhat intelligent - which is part of why I dislike the ending where they are mindlessly slaughtered even more, and why I'll always prefer the other ending they filmed for the movie. Not as great as the book but still better than what we got.
I didn't understand one thing about the book... If Nevil only killed and experimented on dead vampires why the living ones that survived the germ pick on him? Ok, the book reveals that Robert harbored a sort of sadism towards those creatures, but even the infected survivors enjoyed raiding the undead in the end. If Nevil had mistakenly captured one of those who have adapted to the virus why couldn't the latter have defended itself by demonstrating its "immunity" to the virus or, in the case the subject was primarily killed by Robert, why didn't Robert notice its immunity ?
this movie couldve been one of the G.O.A.T.s if they leaned more towards the novels story, I mean just look at some of the best movies they're almost always based on a book, still one of my fav movies tho!
I Am Legend's story is a victim of the zombie craze that swept through around that time. Producers boiled a lot of things down to that trope. That's too bad, because this would have been a ridiculously good movie that could have made the zombie revival something worthwhile, had it kept to its roots. Instead this is a movie that people know as, "the one with those zombies-ish things where the dog dies. Man, what a pretty dog. That part was SO sad. I love dogs."
I didn't get it. What happened in the book? 🤔
I watched this in the theater when I was 7. First time I cried at a movie was when Samantha died so I think about the movie a lot. I liked the ending because I was too dumb at the time to realize the obvious flaws with it. I wonder if they had gone with the ending from the book how different my experience would have been. I wonder how my dad would've reacted to an ending like that. Lol, kinda bugs me that we got the shit ending.
Anybody with combat experience would have set their defensive promoters staggered and far enough away not to create an inherit breach of their own fortifications. So, if that was felt with, they would not have made it in, or even close.
Thanks!
❤
How does robert not know the darkseekers in the novel are sentient is what I would like to know. Do they not all behave like ruth? Could they not try communicate with him too? Is there something I'm missing
To support the book ending they would have needed to frame the vampires quite differently, either by not showing them much at all or by showing them in a more subtle way that doesnt make them look like feral monsters.