posted
Just wanted to be safe and not inconvenience anyone in Puffy's thread who hasn't seen the movie yet. It's safe to assume everything below contains spoilers...
I enjoyed the movie. It was a bit too much 28 days later, but with just one guy, and in NY, and without the shaky digital cam work.
But seriously, it was decent. It didn't go too far down the horror movie path, though it had many horror elements. Will Smith did a really good job of carrying the majority of the film with no human interaction. I thought it did a good job of showing what his mental state was like after so long with no human contact and despair about not finding a cure. It made his breakdown believable I thought after he was forced to kill Sam. I was so sad to see the dog die. That was like the end of the movie for me. I didn't care what happened or who lived after that point.
I didn't really like the bit at the end with the whole "god told me to come here", "there is no god", oh look, a butterfly tattoo, must be a sign because my kid saw a butterfly once. I think he still would've sacrificed himself in the end without throwing in that little subplot.
Still, I was pretty tense throughout the movie. I commend it on that.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the "God" concept in the film. I've seen plenty of movies where the God concept gets stomped on and everybody laughs and the fool who thought God was going to assist him. In this film God does not do anything for anybody, he allows the people to act on their own volition and sort of points them in the right direction. Of course he would have been willing to sacrifice himself but that does not mean he would have thought to draw the blood before doing so.
As soon as he injected Samantha I felt a big knot in my throat, I had hoped he would have the dog the entire time, as I saw no way for him to keep his sanity now that his dog was gone.
I really enjoyed the movie.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was kinda like "Land of the Dead" meets "28 days later". The subplot about the zombies starting to develop a sharper intelligence was a bit... yeah...
Another thing I didn't like was the strength of the zombies. If they have the instincts to avoid the sun, then they would undoubtedly have the instinct not to break their own bones by tackling cars and shatter-resistant glass and whatnot. Not to mention, the human body could only muster up that kind of strength for a very short time before you would fatigue yourself. Then we mustn't forget about bone density and the improbability that a limb would be anything close to intact after some of the things they did with them.
Being night hunters, I doubt they could take in the sustenance necessary to maintain the metabolism they presented in the movie. In a way, I suppose it wasn't ENOUGH like "28 days later".
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the "god" (as in it slightly bothered me) comment and the 28 days later comments. The red eyes and rage similarity was just too much.
I liked the increasing intelligence of the enemy, with the placement of Fred, the second trap when Will Smith cut himself down, the use of the infected dogs, the scaling of the lights to topple them. That intelligence was one thing that 28 Days Later didn't have. I appreciate an intelligent enemy.
Will Smith was really good in this. It was so sad when he strangled his dog. I don't think the injection was to put Samantha to sleep, but merely to sedate her and help with the pain. Then when he saw the symptoms, he had to strangle her.
I thought the ending was much too similar to Children of Men. A woman and child surviving to make it to some mysterious safe haven with humanity's future. And the hero never seeing the promised land.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the injection was to put Samantha to sleep, but merely to sedate her and help with the pain. Then when he saw the symptoms, he had to strangle her.
I assumed the injection was one of the possible cures. I don't think Blackblade was implying the injection was to put her to sleep, though I'm not sure. Which now that I think about it...was it the same one he had given to the women who ended up getting better? Would Samantha possibly have gotten better as well within a few days?
quote:I've seen plenty of movies where the God concept gets stomped on and everybody laughs and the fool who thought God was going to assist him
I've never seen this. Usually it's exactly the opposite. The person ends up being right. Or it's kept ambiguous.
quote:In this film God does not do anything for anybody, he allows the people to act on their own volition and sort of points them in the right direction.
I agree that it could've been handled a lot worse. There was no deus ex machina which would've ruined it for me I think. And it *was* left ambiguous. The hand of god didn't come down to save them. He saw something, and interpreted it as a sign, whether or not it was or not. Or whether it was divine or not. So in that sense, I'm okay with it. I just think the whole subplot was brought into the movie way too late in the game and was unnecessary.
And digging deeper, if the purpose of the butterfly tattoo *was* to be a sign sent from god and that she was right, then I'm kind of annoyed at it. I agree with Will Smith's rant in the movie. Did god also send a virus to kill 99% of the population, leaving the majority of those left alive as zombies? Why didn't he send the lady and the kid one day earlier when Will Smith's dog was still alive? Why would god choose the cure to cancer as a vessel for the worst plague ever brought upon mankind?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So yeah, the trap where Will Smith is caught and hung up after seeing Fred is what my friends and I were discussing after we saw it.
I thought it was rather clear that the zombie-folk set it, continuing the recently mentioned theme of their growing intelligence: showing that they learned how to set that kind of trap when he did it to them. The counter-argument by some of my friends was that it was a trap that Will had set that he had simply gone crazy about and forgotten about. I find this unlikely since it seemed like he set a new trap only when he needed a new zombie, and that the only way that particular trap would work is if the zombies stumbled into it at night, as it was in the middle of the street.
Also, did anybody else think the Fred in that trap was going to be a survivor and a continuation of the joke that he should watch his sweater because someone might steal it, because when Will sees it as he drives by it sure looks like it moves.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the trap was very cool. I also think that if Will's character had been in a better state of mind he might've been more wary about it.
The whole thing with their intelligence is interesting. And not just in relation to this movie. Why are zombies always stupid? Why don't they retain their initial human intelligence?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We keep calling them zombies, but aren't they really supposed to be vampires, if anything?
Anyway, I figured zombies are normally unintelligent because they're supposed to be, you know, dead. Its only fairly recently zombies have become more about infected living people, right?
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole intelligence + sunlight vulnerability made me think vampires rather than zombies.
I did enjoy the movie, though. It seems rather silly to me, though, that they wouldn't have figured out where he lived after 3 years of this stuff going on.
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really felt like the movie script got changed at some point. It felt like there were two movies happening there. In particular, I thought throughout the majority of the movie that Will Smith and that one screaming vampire/zombie (the one that exposed itself to the sunlight & led the other zombies in killing Will) were developing some sort of relationship. I thought that we were going to find out that the vampire Will took was the mate or daughter of the screaming vampire, and the vampire leader was pissed.
Abhi got the same vibe that your friends did, Starsnuffer - that Will was going crazy and got into his own trap. I thought that the vampires set it, especially since the screaming vampire was ready to sic his dogs on Will (speaking of which, why didn't he go out and attack as well?).
Anyone else irritated by the ending? Why didn't Will toss the grenade and climb into the fireplace/hiding hole too? What good is one tube of blood going to do unless the Vermont place has an equivalently good virologist/immunologist to change the cure into something that will easily infect the vampires? It would have to be at least airborne, and quick infect all of the vampires (or else the ones that are still vampires will be attacking the ones who are becoming non-vampire).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Abhi got the same vibe that your friends did, Starsnuffer - that Will was going crazy and got into his own trap. I thought that the vampires set it, especially since the screaming vampire was ready to sic his dogs on Will (speaking of which, why didn't he go out and attack as well?).
If you watched carefully, there was a newspaper clipping that said, "The dogs can come out at dusk." The people had to wait until the sun had actually set, so he sent the dogs after Will Smith as he himself could not yet come out.
I am positive Will Smith got snared by the Zombies as he was freaking out that the maniquine had moved locations. Remember the orange sweat shirted one was at the entrance to the video store and now here suddenly he had moved to a completely new location which was why Will Smith was yelling that if it was a person he/she better say so right away before he started firing.
At first I thought it was one of the zombies wearing clothes so that it could tolerate the sunlight and get Will Smith. Would that have been possible for the zombies to find a way to cover themselves and to come out during the day time?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
consider me joining the ranks of those that are dissapointed/confused with them not developing the "leader" vampire more...
1) they develop him as apparently having some control over the other vampires, intelligent enough to use dogs and traps, but then they don't go anywhere with it... 2) unless I'm mixing up vamps (quite possible) I thought he was the one that peeked out into the sun (perhaps where he got the idea for the snare) but instead of seeing potential intelligence Smith interprets that as further degeneration...
seeing what I saw would lead me to think that perhaps the vamps were re-developing back to a more advanced society. as from the flashback scenes it seemed like the initial onset of the disease was immediate feral statehood, so now it appears that they are heading back towards some sort of society.
so I'm left here musing whether this is a good thing (i.e. that the vamps will eventually calm down and become a normal society again) or a bad thing (they will remain aggressive, but just become more and more capable of wreaking havoc)
but in any case, I thought the overall movie was enjoyable, but could have been better.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saw this movie. I'm shelving it in with Horror/Sci-Fi. I think that if you enjoy the "Event Horizon" type of movie, then you might enjoy this.
(Did I put enough qualifiers in that sentence to dissuade people from jumping all over the generalization?)
Meh. I thoroughly dislike horror movies. The good parts, in my opinion: the plot was decent, the effects were good (emptying streets in New York was a great effect), and the story wasn't drawn out. It was a good story, with a relatively redeeming ending. I'm just not into horror stuff.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually dislike horror movies, but I thoroughly enjoyed this one. I felt they very effectively captured the atmosphere and suspense of the presented story. Will Smith also did a fantastic job in his role.
There were a lot of minor plot points that bothered me, but I felt they were ignorable.
Edit: on the God issue, I actually really liked that the threw that in there. Will Smith's character obviously had one take on it, and the first other living person he encounters has an entirely different one - because it came out fairly quickly, I didn't feel like it was forced at all. I found both their attitudes realistic given the circumstances.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this more than I expected to. The visuals in the first 45 minutes alone were worth the price of the ticket.
However, I read the book last week on a plane, and besides the title and the main character's name I can't see any indication that the same story was being told here. And it's not just the ending that they filmmakers totally Hollywoodified, either. Bleh. Why can't they realize that moviegoers can handle a bittersweet ending?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I talked to a friend of mine about this movie last night and he made a very good point...
That grenade would NOT be sufficient to kill that entire room of zombies. Grenades just kinda... pop... and throw shrapnel everywhere. They don't make a ball of fire that would fill an entire basement (at least, so I gather from my extensive FPS experiences).
Also, I don't know HOW I knew it, but I knew long before it happened that his wife and daughter died in the helicopter rather than from the virus or from zombies.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were probably lots of chemicals in the room. Lots and lots of very flammable chemicals. Or something.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saw the movie about an hour ago, have just skimmed these posts, so if I repeat anything, o’well.
What I liked: 1. The feelings and emotions it gave of possibly being the only normal human being alive. 2. The possibility that the un-human beings had feelings other than kill the other humans off and eat what you get your hands on. 3. The possibility that these un-humans maybe even cared for others like themselves and obviously having a sort of “pack” animal mentality. Even to the point of having communication without words, and the fact that they evidently had a leader. 4. The struggle for hope, even after years of having none. 5. The movie was very intense. 6. The movie had me thinking about all the different psychological, social, and warfare takes they could have put in the movie. Makes me want to read the book to see if it addresses any of my wonderings. 7. The title
What I didn’t like: 1. Some of the CG could have been better, like the lion scene. 2. Didn’t like the superhuman, unnatural strength of the un-humans. 3. The dog having to be killed – I like her. 4. The ending, would have like it to stop with the lady and son getting out of their car, staring at something, but us not really knowing. 5. O, and what about the un-humans putting on a lot of clothes, sunshades, etc, and trying to come out during the day? That would have been interesting if they added something like that...
Posts: 82 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie was ok but it left me very disappointed towards the end because it started out so well. I especially liked the way the first half of the movie was shot. The scene where Will is hunting the deer and peers around the corner and raises his gun just in time to see a lion spear the deer was very well done. Also the part of the film where Will is in his car driving and turns to see Fred standing where he hadn't placed him. The way they shot it so it initially looked like Fred was moving was very cool; easily the best scene in the movie. The second half of the movie, specifically right before Will gets rescued was the start of lots of bad things. I didn't get how the girl could use a little flare and scare away all the zombies, but when Will uses tons of spotlights to defend his house they prove useless.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. Why didn't he think that maybe the vampire-zombie sticking his head out into the sunlight might be because the female he captured was said vampire-zombie's girlfriend or something? He was seeking out humanity in mannequins, for crying out loud, and he didn't take the chance to be like, "Hm, perhaps vampire-zombies are more human than I thought."
2. Why and how did the measles cause all of this? Isn't pretty much everyone in the US vaccinated against measles by now? Why would anyone choose the measles virus to use to create a cancer cure?
3. Why didn't he put the dog in a case like he did all the rats? Why did he have to strangle the dog, while he kept the vampire-zombie-chick? That scene made me cry.
I liked the movie overall. But those things bugged me.
posted
1: When I saw this scene I thought he thought it was a possibility, but didn't want to mention it because he was afraid of it.
3: I think that he didn't want to see sam turned into a zombie-vampire.
The thing that bugged me the most was Neville's goal. He had already developed a virus strain that would kill the zombie-vampires, wouldn't that be good enough for now, to start killing them and taking back the land. Then later trying to develope a cure.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: However, I read the book last week on a plane, and besides the title and the main character's name I can't see any indication that the same story was being told here. And it's not just the ending that they filmmakers totally Hollywoodified, either. Bleh. Why can't they realize that moviegoers can handle a bittersweet ending?
quote:Originally posted by MEC: The thing that bugged me the most was Neville's goal. He had already developed a virus strain that would kill the zombie-vampires, wouldn't that be good enough for now, to start killing them and taking back the land. Then later trying to develope a cure.
I'm pretty sure that at the time he didn't know that there were any people other than him left around.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed the film, and think Will Smith is a solid actor, although he seems to get wrangled up in films that rather needlessly diverge from their more-solid sci-fi roots (I, Robot and this movie right here being two).
Also, I'm not sure if it's just because of the soundtrack, but that Ironman trailer looked kickass! And I don't even like Ironman that much!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MEC: The thing that bugged me the most was Neville's goal. He had already developed a virus strain that would kill the zombie-vampires, wouldn't that be good enough for now, to start killing them and taking back the land. Then later trying to develope a cure.
I'm pretty sure that at the time he didn't know that there were any people other than him left around.
I guess that does make sense.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ending reminded me of M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village." It just seemed like the survivors were isolated and closed off. In my mind it left no sense for hope, which is the exact opposite of what they intended to convey I think. Then again, I spent half the movie with my hands over my face. I'm not a big fan of scary movies they bother me too much. I just didn't think this one would be so scary.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The basic premise of "Robert Neville is the last human in a world filled with vampires who want to eat him" remains, but the specifics are all different, including the ending.
In fact, they kind of killed the entire point of the original story.
In the original, Robert Neville is not a scientist, but eventually learns over years of intense struggle, trying to figure out the bacteria which makes these vampires tick. In the book, the vampires are full on vampires. With garlic allergies and everything.
In this version, they were "dark seekers". Blah. Bad name, and they weren't that interesting as a variation.
Now, the thing about this movie... it may have just been that I've read the book, but everything was hinting to something other than what ended up happening.
Everything was pointing towards the vampires.. well, some of them at least, having stopped being monsters, and having become intelligent.
Particularly the boss vampire. I mean, come on! It was obvious the thing was intelligent.
But, in the end, he just screamed a lot, and they all acted all monstery.
I mean, what I'm getting at is this: The movie seemed headed for a very different twist, particularly when Robert was about to be eaten.
See, with the intelligence of the vampires, it seemed as though... they may have had a society. And that revelation, particularly with the boss vampire demanding his girlfriend back, would have turned it into a totally different movie.
But then they abandoned it for the random survivors bit. Bah. They had a grand opportunity, to have Robert captured by the vampire society, and trapped in the belly of the beast... or at least, reveal that they weren't just monsters somehow
Anyway, in the original, it turns out that some of the vampires have regained control, and Robert Neville has been experimenting on and killing both the monsters AND the ones who are back to normal. To sum it up, he's a legend because he becomes the anti-vampire, the horrible monster in the minds of the vampire survivors, the mythical daywalker who kills them in their sleep, as vampires were supposed to have killed humans in theirs. He becomes legend.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anybody else want to punch Neville in the face when he was ever-so-slowly backing towards his car? Regardless of his mental state OR his leg injury -- FIGURE IT OUT! A trap was set. Your amazing dog won't leave you. If you don't get in the car, your dog WILL die. I was getting so mad. And then, to top it off, like minutes later he's hobbling around the house perfectly fine. Grrrrr.
I thought it was obvious that Uber-Vampire wanted his woman back. I figured Neville would have thought that too, but I think he'd just been in such a bad situation for such a long time that he can't really humanize the vampires, he just sees them as monsters at all times. Which, I mean, they are, but still. I was looking forward to there being some sort of evolution amongst the vampire people as the guy was obviously in command, and yet they were acting monstery when convenient for the plot.
Also, I agree with the random God plot....I think it had a place in the story, it just felt "tacked on" rather than integral to the plot.
The name makes more sense now that the book plot has been described.....I couldn't really figure out why he was a "legend".
On the plus side, Will Smith was AMAZING, the first half, with all the empty New York shots was AMAZING. If they made a full movie about Smith in NY, basically a post-apocalyptic day-to-day survival a la The Road by Cormac McCarthy, it could be awesome. Or a 28-days later type movie where the zombies aren't all stupid or are trying to do what they can with their new society, that'd be equally interesting.
posted
My view was that the story and... well, the whole script, wasn't that good. Will Smith made it a good movie, though.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
After watching it a second time, I can think of a few things that would have really improved the movie. Perhaps I'm biased towards the original plot, but then again, they DID basically set it all up, so it wouldn't take a lot of work to change.
In the first two thirds, when he was alone/with the dog, I'd add several minutes. Not much more than several minutes, though.
First, in the scene when he was checking off houses, take a minute to explain why he was there. Searching for survivors? Supplies? Or, more likely, searching for the vampires to kill them?
All they needed to do to make it clear, perhaps, was to, when he found the room with the quarantine, perhaps make it very dark in there, and have a vampire(s) in the room.
Then, have him quickly shoot them, except, say, for one, which he takes back to his lab.
Now, a few other minutes I'd add to the first two thirds, connected to this change, would be showing, say, more than just the one female monster. Perhaps the bodies of one or two others early on, to establish the fact that he captures them for experiments much earlier in the film. Perhaps merely show tha tthe ones he'd had before were dead when he got the Big Daddy's girlfriend, and the big wall o' pictures. Or perhaps putting their recognizable faces (making sure they were recognizable) ONTO that wall.
Basically, a couple extra scenes, no more than five minutes.
Now, for the third act.
I can imagine several ways to do it.
The first way changes the entire third act. When he's trapped in the car, and the boss vampire is getting close to him while he's trapped, instead of having Miss Deux Ex Machina show up, have the vampire... grab him, and pull him out, not killing him.
Have him wake up in a cell, or something. Then, thanks to his previous actions, which I have already emphasized in the slightly expanded first two acts, and go with his realization that they have a society, etc etc. Make it similar to the book ending.
That's one way. And a way to make the vampires seem a bit more like victims. Especially if you add a female vampire who's not very monstrous, to talk to him.
Now, it does have the weakness of not showing his full degeneration, and or show his relations to real humans, but it's an interesting ending.
A second manner of change is a bit less drastic, keeping much of the third act as is.
He's saved, as before, and most of the rest goes on like it did, until the explosions happen.
When he finds the blood on the wall while searching for the duo, have it actually BE them who got killed in the explosion, instead of just random blood. Something tells me this was the original plan anyway.
Then, after a rather similar struggle, have him down in the lab, and have the Big Daddy, instead of charging the glass over and over, do it once, realize it wouldn't work so well, and finally have some sort of confrontation, revealing their intelligence.
And his desire for his girlfriend back. Who, of course, is now mostly normal. (Also: add one minute scene earlier on where he does the new experiment on her. I know they made it, you just need to add it on.)
Have him get captured, and taken to their lair to be executed. His cure may work, but they aren't interested. They're FINE with how they are now. They can handle it. They just need to get rid of him, the Mengala-like horror who kills them in their sleep and experiments on them like a monster. Have one of the vampires, perhaps even the one he tried to save, tell him what's going on and take pity on him, giving him the cyanide or whatnot, and allow him to go out with style, with a little voiceover as he dies showing his realization that he's become a legend.
It'd work, and these changes would increase the impact of the movie quite a bit. In my opinion, at least.
What do you guys think of my amateur film student thoughts on the matter?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else sort of get reminded of the virus that affected the Reavers from Serenity? Most people affected from it die and a small percentage became raving lunatics? The specifics aren't there but when Will Smith was talking about how the virus affected percentages of the population I thought of Reavers.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte: TBH the whole, "The bad guys really are not as bad as you thought, and you just need to look with new eyes" concept has been driven into the ground ever since John Milton penned Paradise Lost.
For me, sometimes it's nice to just have bad guys that are...well...bad. There is no saving them, at least not at that moment. I wish they had fleshed out the whole intelligence thing JUST alittle bit more but made the vampires no less vicious.
If we see into the vampires and find even a FEW are not so bad we stop fearing them as an audience, and then they have to create a new obstacle for Will Smith.
I looked at the vampires as essentially people with rabies but they still retain some of their problem solving capabilities. The vampires were terrifying for me precisely because they could do everything Will Smith was doing. They were ferocious and by sheer force of numbers could batter down barriers, and overwhelm parameter explosives. They could also systematically climb light poles and destroy them.
When the head vampire just stared into Will Smith's eyes and then slowly but surely climbed into the car and opened his mouth when he had closed all the distance that was PERFECT timing.
However I did like your idea of fleshing out more the idea that he captures the vampires. Unfortunately if you introduce the vampires before the scene with the deer running into the dark building you lose some of the dread and anticipation. That scene was POWERFUL stuff because Will Smith was terrified and we had only a tiny understanding why. It took him SO long to get through the main floor, up the stairs, and around that corner, and finally into the room across from the initial group of vampires.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First: Did he search through that apartment building before that scene or after? I forget. You're definitely right, though.
Anyway, as for the vampires being bad: To be clear, in my idea, the main change is that they'd reveal their intelligence, that they're not mindless. But they'd almost be worse for it. They'd still be attacking him, but when they captured him, they'd have no interest in his cure, and would want him dead.
Or at least, perhaps, in a grand paradigm shift, we realize that from their perspective, Neville is the bad guy. He's the monster the whole time, just as much a monster as they, and that is how he becomes a legend. As the anti-vampire.
I'm not suggesting, really, making the vampires less evil. But placing the cruel twist that these ones are evil in a more human way than a mere monster, and Neville is the one evil in the manner of a monster.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for him "not noticing" all the clues that they were more human than he gave them credit for, I figured that was because he couldn't deal with it emotionally if they were people. Even after Anna came and referred to the woman as "she", he still consistently referred to her as "it" or "that". Which makes sense, if you look at how many of them he's captured, tortured, and killed. When Anna's in the lab, he tells her that what he's injecting the woman with, "will almost certainly kill it". I could see why he wouldn't want to see any humanity in these people.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The bad guys really are not as bad as you thought, and you just need to look with new eyes" concept has been driven into the ground ever since John Milton penned Paradise Lost.
Have you read Paradise Lost? The bad guys are exactly what they appear to be, and are suitably punished for it. Or are you referring to Adam and Eve?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The bad guys really are not as bad as you thought, and you just need to look with new eyes" concept has been driven into the ground ever since John Milton penned Paradise Lost.
Have you read Paradise Lost? The bad guys are exactly what they appear to be, and are suitably punished for it. Or are you referring to Adam and Eve?
You are of course welcome to your interpretation but in PL it seems that Satan although certainly a doer of wicked things, acts in part because of mistaken beliefs on his part and is dillusional.
He mistakenly believes that angels are self begotten and not created by God and therefore are not obligated to do as He says.
I mean I certainly wouldn't say Satan is nearly as sympathetic a bad guy as say Magneto, but it seems like the idea of a Byronic Hero steams in part from Milton's Satan. It's just today it has been fleshed out to the point that right and wrong are often impossible to distinguish and everything seems grey.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right and wrong being impossible to distinguish and everything seems grey... like... in real life? Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Right and wrong being impossible to distinguish and everything seems grey... like... in real life?
Go seek a philosophy degree, it's a great way to tear down barriers and conclude nothing. I hear philosophers are also real popular with the ladies.
Joking aside, I'm not entirely sure how I would label the vampires as portrayed in the movie. They are certainly pushing a chaotic agenda. Of course they want to survive. Obviously they are not in complete control of their actions, and are acting more akin to animals then people.
They are definately bad guys, but I don't think they are evil.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw the movie today. As many have pointed out, the first half of the movie is pretty good.
I tend to pay attention to the vibe from the audience, and at the end of the movie, so many people laughed. Outright laughed. When they get to the colony, and she delivers her "emotional" speech, the audience laughs.
There was no emotional connection, and I think a lot of people felt that a happy ending was tacked on where it didn't belong. The audience was taking the movie pretty seriously, up to the point where other people entered the picture. Once the girl comes in and saves him, things really start to go downhill.
From what i have heard, keeping things closer to the book would have been a good move. I know I went into the movie not expecting a happy ending, and was disappointed when it turned out that there were other survivors, and disappointed when it turned out that the survivor colony was real. I had held on to hope that it wouldn't be there.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I never would have added the survivor camp.
Though the sight of a quant New England town with soldiers, a huge wall ,and those cool white wind generators was pretty neat.
I wish all quant New England towns had all of those. Well, maybe not the soldiers in combat fatigues.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are of course welcome to your interpretation but in PL it seems that Satan although certainly a doer of wicked things, acts in part because of mistaken beliefs on his part and is dillusional.
He mistakenly believes that angels are self begotten and not created by God and therefore are not obligated to do as He says.
I studied Paradise Lost along with a study of Milton's theology, and so maybe I do see things a bit differently. The delusions Satan is under are a result of him being separated from God. For Milton, reason is a gift from God and the further away you are from God's blessings, the less rational you will be. Milton was also big on hierarchy, and maintaing your place in it and therefore Satan's desire to rise above his station is evil. I don't think Milton intended for Satan to be a sympathetic villain, it's only because he's so darn good of a writer who portrays Satan so well that we kind of get caught up in him. For most people, Paradise Lost goes downhill after Satan leaves the scene. (me included, I love Satan as a character) Yet again, part of Milton's theology - he believed in a depraved, fallen world evil will always seem more attractive to us than righteousness.
It's difficult to dissect the things Satan says and get at the root of it. But, if you go back to the epic debate section, and look at what is being said - you have the other fallen angels arguing for different things. Moloch wants to go to war, Belial argues for sloth and just lazing around, and who is it that has the Better Homes and Garden argument? The one who just wants to fix Hell up and make it nice? I forget his name. But then Beelzebub puts forth the solution engineered by Satan and it's pure evil. To tear down and destroy everything God has created. It's just evil...there's no redeeming facet to Satan at all. He wants to kill Adam and Eve for no other reason than he has set out to destroy everything God has built.
And, I don't believe the parts where he posits that maybe he wasn't created by God. (Father of all lies, remember?) He also talks about how God's yoke was so terrible and servitude so bad, but later in a soliloquy admits that in fact service to God was light and pleasant. He's lying to the fallen angels to get them to do what he wants, he doesn't really question where he comes from.
Naturally interpretations vary, and I'm the first to admit I don't know everything about Paradise Lost - I spent three months on it and I know I could have spent twice the time and still not feel like I have a handle on it. But, I really don't see Satan as sympathetic at all. Not if you follow Milton's other writings and see how he's working out his theology in the epic. It's pretty clear what he's trying to accomplish and how his characterization of Satan fits into that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle: Those are some very interesting points. You've convinced me that perhaps Satan as a bryonic hero was not as developed as I thought in PL. But having said that, even the idea of Satan losing his ability to reason because of God absolves him of some of the responsibility for his current behavior. Did he know that severing himself from God would have that effect on him? He obviously can't know it does currently as it takes reason to be able to know if you have it.
Taking some of the control for Satan's actions away from him makes him more sympathetic IMO then if Satan were the traditional villain who enjoys being evil, and has reasoned out in his/her own mind that evil is the path that suits them. In short, an insane Satan who does evil things is easier to forgive then an evil Satan period.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade - definitely. This conversation of ours is one of the reasons I love PL so much, it's fascinating and rich. And by the way, I think Mammon is the Better Homes demon.
Anyway, yeah, I could geek out and argue Paradise Lost for hours, it's so much fun
Believe me, we talked about this, over and over - how much of Satan's behavior is really his, if God is controlling everything after all? There's a part where one of the fallen angels even questions that - he asks if maybe all this was God's idea - and wouldn't that be a hoot?
Cool stuff. I loved my Milton class.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I finally saw the movie today after reading the story for the first time ever just over a month ago.
I was initially disappointed in the ending of the story, but later I realized that given the way Matheson had built the plot, it was really the only appropriate ending. And I didn't entirely buy the fact that an Army grunt would be able to make so much progress in the biology of the infection, even over the span of roughly 3 years. Not alone, and not with only textbooks and medical journals to guide him. But there's a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required when reading SF (and as far as I'm concerned, this was more SF than horror) so I went with it.
As for the movie.... had I not read the book, I would have really enjoyed it as is. Instead, I found myself comparing and complaining way too much. I liked that they made Neville one of the main scientists involved in dealing with the effects of the virus from the beginning, because it made the existence of the well-stocked lab and all of his experiments much more plausible. But really? I liked the addition of Sam and the mannikins insofar as they gave him someone/something to talk to and show how disconnected he was becoming. I admit that I thought the Fred trap was one he set and forgot about. I missed having Cortman and the others trying to lure him out, and I was really upset at the helicopter scene... that REALLY felt like a cheat, maybe more so than the sudden perfect-timing appearance of Ana and Ethan.
By the way, what IS it with all these Apocalyptic movies absolutely TRASHING New York City???? I realize that Santa Monica wouldn't be as immediately identifiable to viewers, but come ON already. And Goodlet wants to know what that white stone arch across from Neville's house is. I'm guessing Central Park, but as I've never been to New York, I don't know for sure.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LargeTuna: OMG i was with my friends rooting for there to be no survivor camp too!!!
I was also a member of this camp. I *wanted* to feel the anguish and loss of there being no camp. I loved the first half...I think the audiences would have handled and appreciated a story closer to the book's.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Have you read Paradise Lost? The bad guys are exactly what they appear to be, and are suitably punished for it. Or are you referring to Adam and Eve?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
