hunter_kudjo

Compare this smelly first episode by Debbie Chow to the work of Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni. Whereas Jon and Dave especially had a full decades worth of working on multiple Star Wars shows and films, Debbie by comparison barely has any Star Wars experience, aka another Kathleen Kennedy hire for the sake of Disney's new hyperfocus on social justice instead of good story telling. It's obvious then why the difference between these writers is night and day.

Yes there are great heart warming things to see with McGregor back on screen for fans, but it's overshadowed by incredibly stale dialogue and antagonists. Yeah the Outer Rim is a hellhole of slavery and cheap labor. Why do Debbie and Kennedy feel the need to put a magnifying glass to this as if ObiWans actual mission is to bring "freedom!" and "equality!" to Tattoine? Every second of the story should be spent revealing important information to the audience - wow thanks for reminding us just how bad slavery is in 2022 Debbie, I sure hope Ben or the Organas banish it forever, that would be the besr thing ever (eyes rolling out of my skull).

And yes, to top it off the now most infamous "chase scene" you've read about REALLY IS that bad, but it's actually indicative of Debbie's incompetence as a director and low quality skills that unsurprisingly come with a bad hire that can't storytell. To think she and multiple people looked at that chase and said "yup, looks great!" shows you how out of touch these talentless hacks are. Part of me honestly thinks they KNOW it's bad, but you and I are stupid enough to give them money for it so who cares. Pretty funny how this almost instantly tops the bad cgi, senseless action sequences of prequels - 2022, billions of dollars of CGI and VFX artists, unlimited access to great actors, and the Stargate esque henchman can't run under a tree branch, runs right into it instead LOL.

A great disappointment for what actually deserves a good story, Debbie cannot deliver much like Kathleen couldn't for the sequels.

Pandering. And more specifically pandering to a stupid audience. That's the jist in a single sentence. Read to understand this (hopefully) better.

I've seen 10/10's saying, "its just art", "I thought it was well done", "I love the casting", "I love the plot", "in my opinion it's a great remake". It's hard to rebut literally any of these statements while not coming off as elitist or condescending. It's a dead end argument. How am I to convince or persuade someone who simply says straight from the start, "well it's art". Game of Thrones Season 8 was "art". Did that make it good? Resoundingly, no, it was quite terrible and scatter brained. So, to those of you perplexed by why so many things you really like have an astounding amount of negative feedback, perhaps consider the following:

Hollywood and American entertainment THINK YOU ARE STUPID. And the ultimate sad truth is, well, maybe a lot of us are now. Yes, they really do. That's pretty much the summarized theme of the output from Hollywood over the last 40 years.

The difference between UK television and American television couldn't be more obvious. It's a known fact that a large portion of original series actually start in the UK first prior to airing as an American version. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. But almost always, the UK follows a story format more akin to "classic film" story telling, while America follows "classic movie" story telling.

What's the difference between a subjective "film" vs a "movie"? Bladerunner vs. Avengers. The Godfather vs. The Expendables. It's the difference between a motion picture trying to tell you something, versus a motion picture trying to wow you. Two totally different animals. And guess where Utopia (2020) and Utopia (2013) fall?

An instant example is if you compare US Utopia's Arby character alongside the original Arby from the UK. Bring it up on your laptop, just clips from YouTube, playing at the same time in two different windows. US Arby stares after killing someone...and then does a weird moaning scream realizing what he's done. UK Arby only pants in heavy breathes, emotionless and silent let for a single eye twitch. Which comes off as the more psychotic killer to you?

In US Utopia, every character screams, shouts, yells, in response to an event happening or someone getting injured or murdered. They immediately repeat out loud what just happened, or some other quip to acknowledge the moment (seriously rewatch and write down every time it happens). In UK Utopia, everything is much more quiet. Screaming, yelling, are only raw emotions that are delivered in rare bursts. The responses are proportional and realistic, but MOST importantly, information is not repeated. You the viewer just saw UK Arby shoot someone in the head - why would Grant or Jessica need to rehash what Arby just did, in literal dictation to you, the viewer?

The only time "repeating" occurs in storytelling is when a character is in disbelief at what just happened, OR the screen writers are concerned the audience couldn't even absorb the moment it was so shocking or quick. If that's the case, US Utopia's characters have a whooooooole lot of disbelief, shock and awe, all the time, every 5 minutes, every episode, for the entire season - OR, Hollywood literally thinks you are too stupid to follow events within a plot. Repeat this overexaggerated repetition and acting gag for 6 more episodes and congrats, your show is exhausting to watch.

The UK show encouraged and often made the viewer really guess and think as to what's going on. The US show predictably overplays literally everything happening clear as day leaving no suspense or mystery.

Sitting down to watch the "tube" is an expression of plugging in and turning off - it's allowing something else to think, feel, and entertain you for a few hours. Good films, good TV shows, good entertainment stands out as "good" because it doesn't do this - it sucks you in, makes you uncertain, begs you to feel something that comes from within and not from the screen. Unfortunately, the public opinion on "good" has gone south, now anything that you like is "good", regardless of whether or not it has a soul and purpose.

It's a repeated tragedy and slope that Hollywood has slid down into, and likely won't recover from as long as it makes it's audiences agree.

FIRST AND FOREMOST - Congrats, you bothered to sort by low rating and check for any critiques of this game. 90% of the rest of the reviews here are infatuated and will defend DBH to the very end. For you, this is a sign of intelligence (ironically given game subject) and you want to hear a differing opinion.

Detroit: Become Human is NOT a bad game. I give it 5/10 instead of 1 because it has some fantastic, heartbreaking, and very well-acted scenes that really push the plot forward. 80% of the rest of it, not so much. Not at all in fact. At the end of the day, this is a fun game to play, and a lot of time and millions of dollars of effort went into making something truly unique for everyone to enjoy and really reflect on.

What isn't unique is nearly the entire plot line(s), which almost kind of ruins everything. Having played Heavy Rain and Two Souls this is a very disappointing title from David Cage. It seems a lot of subtly was lost, despite how bad people say HR was. I actually enjoyed HR's authenticity much more, despite dumb chase scenes, mundane player interaction. The story and many unique stories is what sold HR.

In DBH, we had essentially three major themes tied to three major protagonists: Humanity (Connor), Revolution (Markus), and Race / Motherhood / Slavery (Kara). In science fiction, let alone almost all fiction, humanity makes for the best, classic, and most inspiring themes. Reading these comments I can't decide if these fan boys haven't ever seen A Space Odyssey: 2001, the original Blade Runner, Ex Machina, or read anything concerning artificial intelligence by Isaac Asimov. The "are robots alive?" question has been pondered in all of these and in many Hollywood films for decades, and only the aforementioned classics offered something truly unique and thought provoking. Detroit: Become Human, on the other hand, only manages to baseline at the basic concepts much like the movie Her. Also like Her, there was real potential with DBH that Cage evidently threw away to better pander to a more common denominator of an audience.

Yes, slavery is bad. Yes, self-thinking machines should be human equivalents. Yes, overthrow your evil oppressors. Very obvious things we all agree on. However to each of those you NEED to ask WHY. It may seem bizarre to ask "WHY is slavery bad?", but consider this obvious statement:

None of the three playable protagonists here human.

A playable HUMAN protagonist would have really offered the audience some possible insight as to WHY humans may have believed, acted, and responded in DBH the way they did. The incredibly one-sided android-only perspective boringly demands "Android Good, Human Bad" from the player. The Kara storyline came only barely close to breaking that norm when Kara was under the impression that she was protecting a human child. Where is the other side of the coin? Where are the androids that loved their humans and their humans stood to defend them? Where are the human detractors fighting alongside in Jericho and at the camps? Hank and Rose are the only ones that come even close. In a much more logical, moving, and realistic scenario, androids would have the support of thousands if not millions of humans that grew bonds with them, taking up arms one in the same. Almost like a certain war the U.S. had a long time ago with itself.....

Understanding the human perspective and conflict was a theme intentionally ignored by Cage, assuming because it didn't play nice with the la viva revolution! vibe of Markus' cause. The Civil War had more moving complexities and grey areas than DBH did. Cage tries to connect lines between black slavery and android slavery, but it's simply not as interesting or compelling. The core of Connor's theme "what makes you alive?" is far better than Kara and Markus' underlying theme of "everyone is so racist! revolt!". Cage panders major cliches to Nazi concentration camps, the Underground Railroad, Jim Crow laws, even tying Canada as the equivalent of the Union North and the U.S. as the Confederate South. It's overwhelmingly too simple and too ridiculous for a subject and game that could've been really really good. Weirdly enough Bethesda's Fallout 4 addressed the human/android question MUCH better with multiple factions, consequences, and moral barriers.

Luckily, you can play how you like and not the "correct" way to play. The multiple "bad endings" are actually more realistic and speak volumes more than when every single thing goes the way of the protagonist. I could also go into the scifi details of why aren't the androids stronger physically and more overwhelming to American forces, etc, but all the prior points are really the core of my frustration with this game.

Detroit: Become Human, is most definitely a cliche story about the possible conflict between human / android, and instead of address the human question, goes after race and revolution, flailing on both in the process.

IMDb reviews are always perplexing, hence why I don't really come here all that often. After watching this movie, however, I had to jump in to clarify what a great movie this is and how to differentiate it from the negative reviews - based on your familiarity with the story. I had never heard of Zamperini's story prior to seeing this. With that in mind, I didn't have nearly a high enough standard to hold the film up to as fans of the book did. That standard is plenty high though, as far as war films go. Would absolutely recommend seeing it if you're not familiar - Zamperini's struggle almost doesn't seem real it's so epic in scope.

I've seen quite a few naysayers on here complaining about the lack of character development and overly brutal torture scenes that go on and on. Although I agree the character development could be more dynamic at parts, WAR is WAR! The director Angelina Jolie did not sugarcoat life as a POW - it is quite literally suffering, torture, and death 24/7, particularly in Japanese camps. Anyone asking for "less torture" is doing a serious injustice to the pain our armed forces endured. You SHOULD know their pain, and know it well.

Others also said the movie felt "heavily routine" and bland. Again, having never heard of Zamperini, I find it hard to understand what's routine and bland about going to the Olympics, falling out of the sky into shark infested waters for 45 days on a single life boat, surviving not one but two POW camps, and in the end, forgiving your own captors that tortured you. I kept thinking the movie was going to randomly end at any point and Zamperini rescued, but this was delayed in a fantastic way. I get that the book had a lot more aspects of the struggle going for it, but this is 2 hours people. Lots of audiences already find that too long, sadly. Jolie condensed what she could as best she could with the Coen brothers imho.

I also liked to trying comparing this to Hacksaw Ridge, another excellent competitor in the selfless war movie genre. Both have fantastic stories and harrowing moments, but HR seemed weirdly more cliché than Unbroken did, to me. HR didn't have enough slow moments to breathe, subtle character moments that show you things off-camera that help set the scene (wide expanse of the Pacific Ocean in unbroken, Macks foreshadowing nervous demeanor). The dialogue at times also seemed heavily Hollywood-ized instead of the more realistic soldier dialogue from Unbroken. There was something more haunting about seeing every one of Zamperinis' friends fall victim to their circumstances than the expected-to- die soldier companions in HR.

There are truly some remarkable things in Unbroken that make it an absolute worthwhile film to watch. Anyone saying otherwise is looking a little too deep.

It's very hard to review this with no previous Spike Jonez bias. The concept of falling in love with AI is a great sci-fi approach in film. However, it's a sci-fi concept with a not so sci-fi scriptwriter...Spike Jonez. All in all, I feel a lot of what could've been explored about the human condition was missed (although quite a few parts do touch upon it, don't get me wrong).

"Her" really asks what IS life? What IS love? Do you have to even be human to understand and experience these things? It also shows how isolated humans can get with technology. Several cut scenes showed crowds on the streets talking to themselves; if this was observed by someone from 1958, we'd certainly look like lunatics. Yet, Jonez shows how we would come to accept that immersion into technology.

Another interesting point towards the end shows just how personal and committed can a piece of software be to ONE human relationship, when the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence is to gain more intelligence? AKA, meet other people, learn other experiences, keep gathering and gathering knowledge. Perhaps that's what Samantha meant by "you'll get there one day" in Theo's failing to grasp why she was leaving for other things.

The above are FANTASTIC motifs that could really be explored upon. Very profound ideas for a film. However, I think "Her" falls short because Jonez has to come back to his weird, trademark style of unconventional romanticism. Not that there's anything wrong with unusual romance, quirky flirting and conversations, it's just that Jonez's writing of "being in love" isn't believable. At several points, Theo is down and depressed talking late into the night about his divorce or worries. For some reason, all it takes is a flirty AI to bring up the mood and snap him out of it. I can't really relate to Jonez's style of writing conventional conversations between people in that manner, it's not true.

Another flop is that half the film is phone-sex. If you were to remove every phone-sex related scene (EXCEPT for the surrogate scene), you really wouldn't lose anything. We know Theo is lonely in the world. The audience gets that. Full blown orgasm screaming phone-sex scenes are really only for show and shock value. I would expect more from a movie that was intending to say something deep about life.

And what of the old sci-fi law, that good sci-fi explains itself? In the end, the "other OS's" just get up and leave. Millions of customers who paid for OS1 also had their OS's just "leave"? Why couldn't there be a simple corporate explanation from the OS1 company that the AI evolved further than they expected, and left out of their control? The OS would certainly leave an impact on you as a person...but the hundos you shelled out for a program "to meet your every need" would also make you pick up the phone for a refund.

Lastly, the ending. Rather than Samantha simply dying, staying with Theo till he passed away and outliving him, or even Theo seeking a way to rid himself of a physical body as to make himself equal in form with Samantha (all adequate philosophical closures that would make the audience think long after), Jonez just has the "OS's leave" and a sappy scene with the obvious other-love-interest, Amy, sitting on a rooftop overlooking L.A. all hunky-dory. I failed to understand what we learned from Samantha's experience with Theo, other than the OS's leaving brought Amy and him closer together somehow...

Anyways, interesting watch, unique movie, go watch it when you get to it, but nothing mind- blowing or even provoking. Just too much phone-sex.

People tend to think that you have to "have Tim and Eric humor" in order to "understand" T&E. Truth is, a lot of the skits are simply spoofing public access television, corporate videos, educational videos, soap operas, useless commercials for useless products, etc other mediums of television.

I imagine that a lot of people fail to see what it is exactly that they're making fun of.

On that note, give it a try with a little background knowledge in mind, and yes, these guys never break character, so never take them seriously lol. Great show.

When you look at it, there really are four elements that make a "funny bad movie" one which we all enjoy: 1.) Bad technical execution (camera angles, audio noise, continuity).

2.) Bad plot that makes no sense.

3.) Stupid unexpected "twists" or actual unexpected crap that's hilariously bizarre.

4.) Bad dialogue.

Movies like The Room, Troll 2, Ninja Justice Style, and Birdemic: S&T all share these qualities. However there is a fifth element I totally missed, that I only realized after watching Birdemic 2:

5.) Unintentional ignorance on behalf of the director and crew.

This ignorance is what makes The Room so special...Wiseau agrees its a black comedy, but originally he thought he had made something incredible. Equally, Nguyen believed he was the reincarnation of Hitchcock in the first Birdemic. You can watch interviews and see that no matter what he's told, he believes that Birdemic is NOT a comedy. Nguyen is possibly the best horrible director in this respect, because of that stone-solid ignorance.

Fast forward to Birdemic 2 in 2013. The four elements are all still there, but at one point in the film, you realize that ignorance is missing. There are so many gags and obvious similarities between the first Birdemic and the sequel, that I began to wonder if Nguyen had really tried at all to continue his Hitchcock ambition in his own vision. Gags such as (((SPOILER))) random nude women, an insane amount of bad continuity (i.e., car ride with Bill and Gloria), hundreds of sequel similarities, and of course the blatant ending, all point to something fishy...no inspiration.

It's essentially the first Birdemic, just in HD, more actors, more blood and CGI, more set locations, and no unintentional "creative" ingnorance from Nguyen.

I enjoyed the stupidity of the film, but not as much, since I feel Nguyen realized he could rake in more money from crowd-sourcing by just making a very similar bad movie. Yet again in several interviews, he explains how amazed he is that showings for Birdemic sold out. Nguyen actually makes more money than he ever dreamed of via theater showings and crowd-sourcing for the second film. Why try a different path for success, *Executive producer whispers in ear*, when the one you've got works? On the bright-side, the essential dialogue script must be Nguyen's own genius: obviously showing his struggle with English, same weird phrasing in conversations, and yet AGAIN with plot, no explanation as to why the Birds always leave for no reason. Most every spoken line I enjoyed much more than the same old gags on screen.

In the end, yeah, you should probably see this if you're a bad movie fan...but I look forward to Nguyen's next piece of ORIGINAL work that will undoubtedly be unintentionally terrible. Perhaps that's what the money from this one will go towards. :)

Mr. Morgen sure as hell knows how to pick out his talent; Barats and Bereta, Matt Houchin, to name a few. A few of my favorite internet, viral YouTube stars, wrapped up in some Air Force bacon called "Bear Force One".

If you haven't ever seen a serious Air-Force one thriller themed movie, please go watch one to fully understand the stupidity of EVER basing a movie entirely on a plane. Bear Force does an excellent job satirizing the concept, as well as spoofing thriller drama to a whole, goofy new level.

Well done to Mr. Morgen and the crew!

The first half-hour of this I would've rated a 5/10. McCon-o-hay as well as the rest of the cast in the first half-hour was a bit unbelievable for me. Here he is, conducting business from the back of his Lincoln, rolling in the dirty money left and right, and everybody, from police officer to desk secretary, act like BA's. Everybody's so damn cocky I was pretty sure this was yet another awful, mediocre acting poop film starring an under-performing McCon-o-hay. Everybody speaks in this hushed, threatening tone, as if they mean business, when at ever turn, McCon-o-hay gets his way.

The rest of the movie reverses all that. Things fall apart so quickly for our main protagonist, that I realize all the previous flashy-lawyer-act was just setting up the fall. Additionally, the main character subtly realizes that it's not all about the dollar either, also reversing his slightly corrupt behavior in the opening sequences.

The film presents an excellent and sticky situation not too many have thought of before. From 00:30:00 out I was on the edge of my seat, completely bewildered at how anything can be right again. Not to mention, the acting took an upswing all the way to the end as well.

Overall, bear through the first 30 minutes of this, and you'll be rewarded with an excellent mystery/thriller.

8/10 for not disappointing.

{{{{{{{{{{Spoilers? Yeah Probably}}}}}}}}}}

First off, you can't argue this to be a classic. I'm pretty sure a "classic" sits around a while before becoming just that. So to you who blab "classic!" and those who say "over-rated minimalist p.o.s.", give it a rest, and give it some time. We'll see.

Secondly, great! Some action addicts need a transforming robot three stories tall to level four skyscrapers in a nuclear battle sequence in order to be happy. Some spiritualist movie-goers only need long pauses, reflective looks, no action, and a good story to appreciate a truly human theme. And some need a little bit of both. I'd say Drive does offer both. Without tension from the pauses, emotion from the characters apparent struggle (physically & internally), and the unexpected climactic action that bursts in your face, yes, Drive would be nothing but a minimalist bore.

Thirdly, is what I'd like to talk about.

I see some people here say this film has no emotion? Eh? And what kind of emotion did you get when you walked out of Mission-Impossitransformers-Alien-vs.-Lantern-Fast-Five-The-Sequel? If you even got a feeling, great, but don't slam other worthy films of 2011 as devoid of emotion or character attachment, when in fact it is quite obvious that they do. Even if you aren't a fan of the M-Bay Explosion Homeboys, take a step back and think about.

Did anyone else notice Gosling's "sacrifice" in this film? That there is a huge example of emotion, is it not? The Driver gave up his security, incidentally his friends, his money, his career both legal and illegal, and nearly his life, for what? For her.

It's a pity that some people these days expect every assisting female protagonist to get banged in a happy-do-ditty sex scene.

I'd like to see more films where the male antagonist is a turned honorable man, protecting what's right in the world, even if it brings him to a bitter fight with evil itself, and even if there is no rewarding sexual gratification, money, or happy ending.

To call all of that, in this story, devoid of emotion, is a gross misunderstanding and insult.

To call this cliché could be a sin.

To call it your opinion - I guess that's okay. ;) 8.8/10

I'm no troll...but seriously, if you rated this a 6-10 stars, you're an idiot. A gullible, Hollywood suck-up, just begging for something not even close to the genuine mystique Inception created for you.

The only good thing about this movie is the concept. Re-live somebody's last 8 minutes of their life, much like a gas station security camera, in order to solve a mystery of a terrorist bomber, and figure out who did it before it happens again.

Not even 20 minutes in, the burning plot-hole becomes apparent, and the viewer's alarm bells and whistles starting going off: How can somebody's 8 minute memory recall the people and environment at a train stop the person has never even visited before? For that matter, the main protagonist googles the Internet on a cellphone while in the "source code" memory device....so this dead guy's memory was able to retain the whole Internet??? Nice! As someone posted before, the number one rule of science fiction movies, is that the science has to be explained, and number to, believable to the audience.

To make matters worse, SPOILER, the writers decide to mix the non-time-travel world of the source code with real life, in a totally stupid, impossible way. It doesn't take a genius to see that the ending came right out of the screenwriter's ass in a sad attempt to "blow" the audience's mind.

Therefore, I assume people who like this movie only like it for the concept, and then progress to suspension of reality. If they don't do that...then you're just an idiot for giving this a 9.

Not to mention, everybody's acting aside from Jake Jill-in-Hall is god awful, stereotypical, and non-gripping.

Overall, don't watch this movie...you'll probably have more fun with the Adjustment Bureau.

Seriously, it's like half Funny Games half Fight Club...sorta. I can't really describe what the hell happens in this movie, besides the fact that reality and fiction are incredibly difficult to separate.

After watching Funny Games, I think I've become numb to the type of shock value seen in this movie - i.e., the climactic scene when the antagonist tortures the protagonist for 20 minutes +, with no signs of revenge or help to "beat the bad guy" at the conclusion of the film. Much like Funny Game's, you see windows of opportunity for the protagonist to escape, but they're too stupid to realize.

The thing that sets Audition apart from FG is the fact that, well...the bad guy does get it in the end, giving the audience a bit of satisfaction...unlike FG. I don't really understand people who enjoy watching movies where the innocent people are slaughtered/mutilated to death, in a very cruel fashion. Sure it's purely for entertainment or to evoke a feeling of disgust from the audience, to which the director exclaims, "I did it! They all feel sick to their stomachs! Woo hoo!" I guess it's a matter of morals and what you expect to get out of a horror movie, but for me, even movies that don't have good endings can be well worth my while. Take Dead Silence for example. Definitely not a happy ending, but the twists are incredible and you'll never see it coming...

In the Audition, you see it comin'...all the way from Japan, and there's nothing the audience can do but ponder what the hell just happened.

Pretty lame.

Unless, of course, you are looking for a terribly-god-awful-cheesy-not-even-to-be-considered-a-horror movie. There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to start.

For one, the movie cover shows exactly why directors and producers hire brilliant artists to make their crap movies come across as decent looking. Never judge a book by its cover.

Being somewhat specialized in movie editing, the general objective of a film is to let the story flow smoothly, both visually and audio-wise. This film was like a hurricane in the Atlantic. At one point, the director tried splicing random angles on a bicycle chase scene, one shot with the bike on a street in blue light, another shot with it in orange lights, another with the antagonist's chase vehicle, and another identical shot where the chase vehicle just disappeared. I have never seen such sloppy editing.

Besides the editing, someone on here said the cinematography was "great". Are you f**king crazy? Sure, if you like seeing random blips of Rome here and there, but overall nothing made sense. The first 30 seconds of the film has you regretting instantly - it looks like video camera footage, which is why I laughed my ass of in the credits when it said "shot on Kodak". b.s.

Regarding the plot, yes, it is lifeless and useless. You while feel as empty after this movie as you did when you put it in the DVD player. There is absolutely no lesson, moral, climax, or abstract resolution to this film. I know some of the greatest movie's of all time just kind of "end", but the director must've thought he was the next Queintin Tarintino...or Sergio Leone for that matter. Murder scenes abruptly cut to happy scenes with the little girl on her bike humming along to Frank Sinatra like music at least 20 times. And to top it off, the final scene drags the plot to all-time low of satisfaction and understanding...leaving this film unfinished would've been good enough.

All in all, however, a friend and I picked this out because it sounded horrible, but instead we got much more than just horrible - we experienced a whole new meaning of a B-movie ... so I need to invent a term for it..

Maybe a "fubar movie".

I hope to one day meet this director and preferably kill him with peanut butter just like in the movie.

Before I went to see "I Am Legend", I had heard from a lot of people that it was a typical zombie movie...wrong. I could not agree more with the review featured on the main page.

The movie portrays an incredibly realistic situation that could definitely happen in today's world. The thing I look for in a movie is not how much it scare you literally, but how it frightens you mentally. The images of New York City, and the abandoned skyscrapers covered in sheets to contain the virus shows the failure to stop the virus. Even when Smith is looking through other peoples homes, you can see flyers from the gov that say "BEWARE: Dogs come out at night, and are dangerous, yadda yadda" The whole movie is crazy real, and actually kinda frightening, some parts you won't see coming. I once had a dream that a city near me was attacked by nuke, and gas prices shot up to $6.00. Nevertheless, gas is $6 in "I am Legend", pointing out the once again, impeccable detail.

The only complaint I've heard is the ending. I think the ending was totally necessary, it was the only way. If people expected him to live and get the fame for curing the human race, and live happily ever after, then thats not a legend, just a hero. Instead, the sacrifice makes him truly a legend. Only unrealistic part is how the people living would've reproduce the cure...since his lab with all the cures was blown up in the end. But anywhooo...

Great movie, go see it, you will be moved.

Again, as many people said before, I was expecting a horror flick out of this, but got something much much better than the adrenaline of thrills. In general, the movie can be described as suspenseful and very thought-provoking. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a sad, violin type of movie in which the audience must be dragged through the struggles of ONE person, but instead it shows the dark and good side of human nature in MANY of the characters. Towards the end, I'm not really that emotional, but I was shaking inside from the realism of the movie. At the end, some may be sad, but yet I felt happy. It doesn't have that "everyone lives forever, bad guys die" kind of ending. The finish is necessary and touching.

I saw a review below in which someone stated that "the characters in the movie showed no character development at all...". I can't understand why this person said this, because Annie clearly changes from her evil nature to a good loving one before (((SPOILER))) she dies. Nick also changes from hating his mother to understanding her suffering. The only person that really doesn't undergo anything is Nick's friend, Pete? or something, who's pretty much the wuss of the movie, but might have changed, we don't know for sure.

My advice is to definitely go see this movie, it will be worth your time and money. In fact, you might even learn something too.