Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda been a Legend

Rating: 4/10 (21 July 2008)

When I first thought of how to review this movie, and did, it had been awhile since I had read the book. I realize now that what impressed me about the movie was Will Smith's performance and the flow of the movie until the death of the dog. Focusing only on that, I loved the movie. Stop there and the review would be an 8/10. Unfortunately, the movie continued and became the typical mush that seems to dominate the theaters and get a huge box office draw. The question remains, why does Hollywood, and the American movie goer, fear a "sad" ending? Why must the good guy always win? Here, I found myself rooting for the CGI zombies here, and not Robert Neville.
Recently I read the book a second time and in returning to the text I realized that the movie did not just swing and miss in terms of hitting the point of the novel: It never made it to the ballpark. I must attempt to concede two things before I rant and rave about what I did not like about the movie. First, it is understandable as to why the location was changed from Los Angles suburb at time of writing of the novel to modern New York. A change of venue to a city could have added a new dimension of terror to the movie, or show the stark reality of Neville's existence on a grand scale. Yet here the rationale to simply show the city empty for shock value alone, and this means that one misses a great deal of Neville's struggles at night, surrounded and attempting to cope with the situation. Second, the dog. I can understand why having the dog from the start helps the movie, I really can. I mean, Neville does need someone to talk to in a movie since we can not read his thoughts, but in the book the dog's death represented Neville letting go of the past. The dog's death helps him overcome his fears of death, whereas the movie decided to cut and paste and exasperate Neville's struggles. Third, the change from vampires to "super zombies." This I can understand as well, but when asked about this change I believe the director's comment was something like, "Well, we didn't want to deal with the issues that vampires would raise, so we changed them." That is not an exact quote, but it is close enough for a response. First, I wonder if anyone here read the book, since those legends of the vampire that Matheson's Neville faced, and proved incorrect, were central to the book. Avoiding those issues cuts out a great deal of Neville's character and his struggle in the post apocalyptic world. The vampire was a legendary and familiar evil, and debate about the topic would have, at least in my mind added more to the movie not less.
Now that I have conceded these three items, on some level, I can say that the movie lost me in the last half hour. Matheson's classic was 176 pages that became increasingly nihilistic as the novel progressed. With Neville, after the death of the dog that he found, not owned, readily accepting this nihilism, and realizing that he has found his place in the new world. I know that nihilism can be a rough pill to swallow, but the ending of the movie kind of came out of nowhere so that it could be happy. I am most likely not the first, and nor will I be the last to say that if you change the movie this much: Change the TITLE! This was not an adaptation of Matheson's classic, but rather loosely inspired by the book.
Matheson's Neville was a legend because the vampires feared him as humans used to fear the vampire. He was the creature who went bump in the day. When ghost stories were told Matheson's Neville was the antagonist in the new world. The obvious point is that Matheson's Neville would be the subject of tales and stories for centuries in the new world taking the place the vampire held in the human world.
The Neville of the movie did not inspire a legend such as this, he was simply heroic and would be remembered for his act, but the zombies did not tell horror stories about him. In the end humans were more afraid of the zombies than zombies of the human, which is why the movie whiffs when it comes time to hit the point. In changing Neville's profession from factory worker to virologist it removes the terror of fighting the unknown, a huge part of the emotional toil of the book. Even when Neville figures out how to fight the disease in the book, it is a struggle for him. Note to Hollywood: Changing the lead character from a smarter than average factory worker to an expert in the field actually reduces the terror people want in a survival horror film. My first remark upon finding out Neville's profession was, "Oh isn't that convenient." It is cliché to state that the book is better than the movie, since comparisons will always ruin the movie, with a few exceptions. Here though the book is a classic and the movie changes so much that you can not ignore the changes. In fact, they ruin the movie for anyone who has read the book due to the startling nature. In the end I found myself wanting: The nihilism of Matheson's classic; at least someone outside of Neville's compound yelling, "Come out, Neville" as Cortman did in the book; and I wanted Neville to become the legend that Matheson intended. Will Smith's performance saved this movie for me, but outside of that my review is: I AM Disappointed.