boe_dye's infectious review >8^P

Rating: 6/10 (27 December 2007)

The movie get's an "eh" from me.
I appreciated the story well enough, and will smith did his normally fantastic job as an actor. to date i don't think i have ever seen him in anything that i did not like.
However, what really did it in for me was the stupid looking CGI. is Hollywood ever going to learn that computer generated imagery is like make up, it's best used to enhance what is already there, not try to create something that's not.
it took near 2/3 of the film before me and my wife realized that all the "creatures" looked like the mummy (the brandon fraiser one)
Would it have been so hard to take a cue from movies such as resident evil, or perhaps 28 weeks/days later and made freakishly evil looking dogs?
Truthfully i don't think i cared much for the movie. while i do know that the story was written way back in the 50's (don't quote me on that), i guess it's just that i have seen successors beyond this that makes me feel like i have heard the story over and over again.
If you want a simple explanation of what this felt like, would simply be to say that it felt like castaway meets 28 days later.
And the story wasn't all that bad but the ending, and apparently i am in the majority on this, was so random and quick and really didn't help the strength of the film any. Now from what i understand, the same thing happens in all three versions of this film, which apparently is the same thing that happens in the book. quite honestly with all that was going on at the time i think that this movie could have deviated from it's predecessors and done something different. it certainly was strong enough to stand on it's own two feet and do that. and it certainly wouldn't have seemed so anti climatic.
So i would say that it while it wasn't bad, it certainly is not worth seeing in theatres (not that it's much of a point to say now as it has nearly run it's course)but might not be bad for a rainy night DVD rental.