I just got back from seeing it, I thought it was a crappy version of 28 Days Later.

Much like War of the Worlds which I was really excited to see after the book, this just left me disappointed. Ugh

12/15/2007 9:47:05 PM

Quote :

"I kept waiting for the girl and the kid to turn against Neville."

12/15/2007 9:48:41 PM

Is it worth $8 to see the dark knight trailer on in a theatre?

12/15/2007 11:04:40 PM

nah

12/15/2007 11:06:10 PM

I can't believe they killed the dog

12/15/2007 11:22:13 PM

Great spoiler joe.

12/15/2007 11:39:08 PM

so i got a question


who was he?
like
paraphrase inc:

"zomg youre THE whatever the fuck his name was"


yea yea i saw the time magazine but wtf did he DO?


loved the movie EXCEPT for the ending

12/15/2007 11:40:00 PM

He was a virologist who worked for the military.

12/15/2007 11:53:30 PM

but i mean a famous one? like i want to know his character background that made him famous

12/16/2007 12:05:43 AM

you know... that's a good point. he wasn't the woman who "cured cancer", and he clearly didn't cure the people who got the virus.

12/16/2007 12:13:23 AM

More reasons why this movie sucks.

Oh well, it still made 80 million (what the fuck?) so we can enjoy IAL2 on Christmas 2009.

12/16/2007 12:33:15 AM

this is going to be one of those movies that in five years i wonder why in the hell i ever went to see it in theaters.

12/16/2007 12:52:36 AM

I LOVED this movie. It was great. I didn't read the book, and after reading the plot summary of the novella I like the movie a lot more. I really liked how he didn't try to explain what was making the vampires the way they were.

However, here's my opinion:

Quote :

"I understand the disease had rabies-like qualities so they were all jacked up but how the hell do they have superhuman strength and speed? Neville had said himself that they were basically starving to death."

He says that the vampires have a exceedingly high heart rate and body temperature, which I think could correlate to the super human strength (always high on adrenaline), along with whatever the disease/virus was doing to them to cure cancer.

Quote :

" who was he?"

Roberts was a high ranked scientist with the military. He was working on a cure for the condition brought upon by the cancer-curing drug; a woman created a cure for cancer that turned people into the vampires. This is why he was called 'Savior?' on the Times magazine cover. Everyone was looking at HIM to create the cure for some reason, also why he didn't want to leave ground zero of the infection. The disease is airborne as well.

Quote :

"So, I guess it's OBVIOUS that they would completely not wrap up or address this plot point."

Roberts himself did not see any civilization in the vampires, although he noted that one of them exposed himself to the sunlight and noted this as a breakdown of his survival instincts, so its logical that Roberts would not attempt to wrap up the point.

I also liked that they did not force a sex scene, and they kept showing him as a crazy loner.

K, so things I didn't like;

-CGI: shitty as hell, The Mummy effects were bad.
-The dog scene is quite possibly the saddest thing I've ever seen, even beating Fry's Dog from Futurama.

12/16/2007 1:08:46 AM

Quote :

"I just hope they don't fuck up the ending in some lame-ass attempt to make a 'happy ending' for the masses."

ha called it on the first page!

Quote :

"Roberts himself did not see any civilization in the vampires, although he noted that one of them exposed himself to the sunlight and noted this as a breakdown of his survival instincts, so its logical that Roberts would not attempt to wrap up the point. "

yea, like others have said, i think it was obvious and clear that the vampires set that trap, at least in some way. i could maybe see that the cable was on of Roberts' old traps, but the vamps clearly moved the mannequin and set it as bait. The leader vamp was waiting for him and had the diseased dogs (i guess the diseased always know not to attack the diseased??). When the Roberts captured the female vamp and the Leader stuck his face out into the sunlight, it was clearly expressing anger and emotion. Roberts misinterpreted this action as a sign of devolution instead of a sign of 'humanity'. He had long since seeing them as human at all beyond his attempts to cure them. The leader clearly showed leadership of others and the vamps understood how to do more than just use blind rage, such as toppling the sun lamps.

maybe i'm wrong, but this is my $0.02

at the very least, i htink it has to be obvious that the vamps moved the mannequin

Quote :

"I loved how quiet most of the movie was and the tension before we even saw a vampire was great "

i thought so too, unfortunately we had a few guys that decided to perpetuate stereotypes and talk during the WHOLE. FUCKING. MOVIE. the catchphrase of the movie was apparently "AWWW SHIT!" the fucker even started singing during 'Stir It Up'

I need to start doing Roids so i can talk shit to people like this.

Quote :

"I've got a bad feeling that this movie will be just like one of Will's last movies - I, Robot. They will borrow the book's name, borrow some vague rule set at the begining of the book, then let the ad placements go wild."

YES THANK YOU

Quote :

"Don't know what to think of this movie yet. In the preview he says the year is like 2012 yet he's using this year model mac and driving this years mustang. Not saying I won't watch a movie based on that it just made me laugh."

haha yea, ti should have been at least an '09, i guess he could have just like the '07 model. also, the newscast at the beginning only took of part of the screen when it would have obviously been in HD if it was filmed in '09

12/16/2007 1:48:38 AM

The wiki page has some interesting stuff...

For the peeps asking about cgi versus real people in makeup and the questions about the super strength:

Quote :

"A week into filming, Francis Lawrence felt the infected, who were being portrayed with actors wearing prosthetics, were not convincing. His decision to use computer-generated imagery meant post-production had to be extended and the budget increased. Lawrence explained, "They needed to have an abandon in their performance that you just can’t get out of people in the middle of the night when they’re barefoot. And their metabolisms are really spiked, so they’re constantly hyperventilating, which you can’t really get actors to do for a long time or they pass out."[14] While the infected become vampires in the novel, the film depicts them as "dark seekers" (Anna's term for them)[17] who consume living flesh, with a design inspired by the concept of their adrenal glands being open all the time. The actors remained on set as a guide, but were replaced by CGI.[2"

Quote :

"Abbey, a three-year-old German Shepherd, played Neville's dog. Another dog was used for scenes where Neville plays fetch with his companion, as Abbey refused to perform these scenes."

haha, primadonna dog??





also, superman and batman movie coming soon? there was that big billboard in times square.

12/16/2007 2:01:02 AM

^ It's just a comic. I have had to tell people this all day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman/Batman

That was the logo that everyone saw. Just DC trying to sell more comics.

12/16/2007 2:44:18 AM

decent flick but the CGI looked like ass. its like we have taken a step back in terms of CGI. hell the 1993 Jurassic Park CGI looked better than this movies. I figured by today we would have seamless looking CGI effects, yet these stood out like a sore thumb. i dont know why the director would opt for some terrible looking CGI instead of real people.

spoiler









the CGI of the woman on the table was seriously terrible

12/16/2007 2:45:38 AM

^^except for the fact that talk of a superman v batman movie has been on the table for a bit. Bale and superman guy both have stuff in their contracts saying they would do it if it got greenlit. the comic came out a few years back, would dc put a billboard up in times square fro a comic? i think the implication is that there could be a superman v batman movie by '09

12/16/2007 3:18:33 AM

Movie was AWESOME. Great suspense. I was just mad about a couple of things but I don't want to ruin it like some of yall already have for people. Going to be the #1 ALL TIME December movie for a weekend...even over any of the lord of the rings! WOW. Oh and Will should make 30 mil a movie after this performance.

12/16/2007 5:33:23 AM

yea, it was pretty obvoius that the vampires set the trap for him and had some civilization to themselves, but he just never saw tha tin them

12/16/2007 7:18:12 AM

The movie was good, but I prefer the story of the novella. I knew they would completely abandon main parts but they abandoned it more than I thought they would, especially with the ending. I'd have much preferred the ending in the novella.

And where was Ben Cortman? I was looking forward to him in the movie, haha.

Guess I'll have to keep waiting for an accurate adaptation from the book and just enjoy this movie as a separate entity with the main character just having the same name from the book.

12/16/2007 11:08:46 AM

all i know is after reading some of this thread...apparently the movie has fucking vampires in it

which the movie better explain PRETTY FUCKING GOOD

12/16/2007 11:22:38 AM

No the movie doesn't have "vampires" in it. The "dark seekers" in the movie are more similar to a deformed version of the people infected by the rage virus from 28 Days/Weeks Later. The only vampire-like thing they possess is being vulnerable to sunlight.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2007 11:33:52 AM

Quote :

"was just mad about a couple of things but I don't want to ruin it like some of yall already have for people."

i think the well-established rule on tdub is that if you click on a multi-page thread about a movie that is already out, caveat emptor, it should be obvious people are going to talking about the movie w/ possible spoilers

12/16/2007 2:15:22 PM

People who say this movie is awesome:

You remind me of people who say that a steak at Ruby Tuesday's is the "best steak you've ever had."

Learn to have some fucking taste.

12/16/2007 3:48:46 PM

saw it last night on IMAX

12/16/2007 3:50:25 PM

i will not go as low as to say this was as bad as children of men

but you people that are "awesome"ing it remind me of those other people

12/16/2007 4:06:35 PM

good movie

but this...

Quote :

"The dog scene is quite possibly the saddest thing I've ever seen, even beating Fry's Dog from Futurama."

WRONG

12/16/2007 4:06:42 PM

this movie blows.

12/16/2007 4:51:56 PM

this movie sucked hard core. worthless from start to finish

12/16/2007 5:47:31 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

12/16/2007 6:12:02 PM

Just saw it and enjoyed it. Will Smith did an incredible job. However, I have to gripe a little.



Purely from a tactical standpoint...



WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD YOU EVER GO OUTSIDE WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE SIDEARM?! This just absolutely drove me insane. I'd have one handgun on each leg, one shotgun, and one assault rifle. Hell, I'd be strapped like the Punisher. And you can't tell me that he couldn't carry all of that - he was built like a brick backhouse.



*sigh* And another thing, when the monsters attacked the house, why didn't he go into his arsenal closet and pull out something? Like, oh, I dunno, that M249 SAW he had in there? I was glad to see that he had the foresight to mine the block, but this still annoyed me.

12/16/2007 7:00:04 PM

maybe he did some of that in the first 2 yrs

12/16/2007 7:10:33 PM

Possibly, but why stop? The danger would only increase as time goes on.

12/16/2007 9:00:53 PM

Quote :

"i will not go as low as to say this was as bad as children of men but you people that are "awesome"ing it remind me of those other people"

You're an idiot. Children of Men was one of the best movies of the year.

12/16/2007 9:12:23 PM

Quote :

" *sigh* And another thing, when the monsters attacked the house, why didn't he go into his arsenal closet and pull out something? Like, oh, I dunno, that M249 SAW he had in there?"

that'd work for like the first...actually no, it wouldn't. there were simply too many of them to fight like that...i dunno, he was screwed in any case. Too fast and too resilient to be mowed down.

12/16/2007 9:15:51 PM

Quote :

"People who say this movie is awesome: You remind me of people who say that a steak at Ruby Tuesday's is the "best steak you've ever had." Learn to have some fucking taste."

12/16/2007 9:24:08 PM

Quote :

"In the preview he says the year is like 2012 yet he's using this year model mac and driving this years mustang."

The year is 2007 and I have a 2003 Dell and a 1996 car. So the only catch is that he obviously hasn't even so much as upgraded his RAM in 4 years. Otherwise he would have had to throw the old mac away so he could buy a new one.

^Yeah, and all I ever hear from people on this board is how awesome Cloverfield is going to be. People follow the hype.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 9:42 PM. Reason : -]

12/16/2007 9:41:11 PM

saw it this afternoon.. I thought about the trap as well and came up with the scenarios you all have described but after thinking about it it still doesn't make sense

I highly, highly doubt neville set that trap himself and simply lost his mind. they spent about five minutes showing how he would talk to the mannequins to cope with his loneliness... they wouldn't just let all of this go and make him suddenly crazy.

so we have to assume the vampires set the trap and "learned" from him. ok, I guess that works BUT he had already captured something like 40 other (remember the pictures on the walls) vampires! I think, therefore, that this is what the filmmakers were trying to drive home

1) the vampires were getting desperate to the point that they were risking venturing out in the sunlight just to harvest
2) the inexplicable part--suddenly they are smart and can set somewhat elaborate traps using intentional triggers to capture Neville (the mannequin, and also they suddenly know the personal relationship Neville has with the mannequins)
3) leads to Neville being captured and put in a very dire situation
4) leads to the dog dying
5) leads to Neville losing his grip, venturing out at night
6) leads to the rest of the film

the trap really did set off the chain of events for the film to conclude, but the origin of the trap just didn't play out in the end for me at all.
----------------------------
yes the cgi was bad but I didn't really notice enough to think too much of it.

probably the most intense non-deliberately-horror movie I'm seen in the theatres since War of the Worlds... man that shit is hard to watch in a dark room with loudass sound

the dog dying killed me.
----------------------------
I wish they would've told us what had happened between his flashbacks and present time, but I guess you can only fit so much in---I don't even know if they addressed that in the original work

all in all I'd give it maybe a 2.8/4. better than 2 and a half but probably not 3 stars

12/16/2007 9:47:20 PM

^^ /agree about cloverfield.

12/16/2007 9:48:27 PM

^^ Yeah they had a lot of potential to build that up (The background story). In fact, they could have added an extra 30 minutes on if they wanted to. It would have been great. However, that would take it beyond acceptable "popcorn movie" time, and thus they wanted it short and sweet with a happy ending.

12/16/2007 9:58:36 PM

Quote :

"You're an idiot. Children of Men was one of the best movies of the year. "

One of the worst movies I have seen in a long time.

12/16/2007 10:11:48 PM

children of men was not AWFUL... it wasn't great plot wise but some of the cinematic elements were astounding. they tried too much with the film.

to call it "worst in a long time" is a stretch though

12/16/2007 10:15:55 PM

oh the scenery and cinematic style were fantastic. No problem with that at all.

12/16/2007 10:20:06 PM

so I wonder when the sequel will come out. Maybe a prequel would be better since they could bring back will smith and clear up the vagueness of the flashbacks.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2007 10:20:23 PM

No reason to make more movies just to explain this one.

I liked the concept of the movie. But I hate the trap that the "infected" set. It was stupid and inconsistant to the rest of the movie. I reminded me of 28 weeks later when that main infected guy showed the ability to comprehend and think despite being an enraged infected guy.

After being frustrated by some of the stupid twists the movie took, i was half expecting Will Smith to inject himself with a weaker version on the rabies infection so he could get superhuman strength and fight the infected.

12/16/2007 10:38:50 PM

Quote :

"1) the vampires were getting desperate to the point that they were risking venturing out in the sunlight just to harvest"

see, thats the thing, i dont necessarily agree with that. roberts seemed to draw that conclusion simply from the one guy sticking his face out, there was no other evidence to draw such a conclusion. i think that the viewer, being detached from the emotion of Roberts, was meant to realize that the vamps were showing signs of social qualities. the vamps easily could have moved that mannequin at night.

Quote :

"No reason to make more movies just to explain this one."

$. most viewers may not pay to see a se/prequel but that doesnt mean the studios dont think it could be a moneymaker, and there are enough dense moviegoers that it could be.

Quote :

"I liked the concept of the movie. But I hate the trap that the "infected" set. It was stupid and inconsistant to the rest of the movie. I reminded me of 28 weeks later when that main infected guy showed the ability to comprehend and think despite being an enraged infected guy."

how was it inconsistent? we only saw the infected once before that point, the movie had given us no foresight into their behavior or actions other than through Roberts' eyes.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : a]

12/16/2007 10:44:55 PM

^ you could be very right. I was just trying to hammer home what I thought the filmmakers wanted us to think.

I simply did not have enough information, as a viewer, as to what the hell the disease did, how it developed, and how human society devolved. will smith throwing numbers around to the chick did nothing to clarify things for me.

[Edited on December 16, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2007 10:47:22 PM

where do you people keep getting the S from in your 'Roberts'

its a fuckin first name

ROBERT NEVILLE

12/16/2007 10:49:09 PM

I seen it

Pretty good, had slightly higher expectations though for some reason

and to those who said Children of Men is better


you are out of you fucking mind

12/16/2007 10:51:20 PM