Forget the Theatrical Version, Watch the Alternate Ending

Rating: 7/10 (18 October 2008)

Simply put, the theatrical ending is the happy, Hollywood ending. The alternate (note that it's also the original) ending makes the movie make sense, better captures the spirit of the book, and is just better.
I enjoyed the movie in theaters. Perhaps because I never read the book nor seen the other versions so I had absolutely no expectations. Since then I have read the book (a must read) and at least seen Last Man on Earth (no masterpiece either). Though I realize what the movie did wrong I still like it.
From an adaptation standpoint, it's really lousy. Except for the name, a dog, and creatures that come out at night there's very little in common. That's not necessarily bad. It's an updated version of an old book written in a different time with a different mode of thinking. This does bring it to modern times. As a movie, it's good. Not great, just good. The first half is a great movie, it's the rest that falls apart.
Neville is enjoyable, though the dog seems to be the best character. You can tell that his quest to stay sane may actually be driving him insane. The scenes of isolation are fun. The scene in the building is definitely scary. Sam's death is sad. I think if they had actually shown what happened to his wife it would have ruined the scene(s). The CGI used to make NYC empty looks fantastic. If the movie had kept up the first half it would have been great.
The movie starts to descend when Neville attacks the Darkseekers on the seaport. First, the CGI for the creatures is terrible. Why is it that CGI looks worse 14 YEARS after Jurassic Park? I heard that they actually did go with make-up and prosthetics but it didn't look convincing so they went to CGI. Could it really have looked that much worse? The creatures are fine in the dark when you hardly see them. But they're simply not scary to see especially so clearly. It's not scary when it's clearly not real. And why are they suddenly superhuman? Why are they jumping and climbing like Spider-Man? Adding Anna and Ethan makes it weird(er), not simply because of the plot holes it brings up. Showing up at just the right moment seemed like deus ex machina, not that the scene really was going anywhere. It's almost like they didn't know how to end it so they added those two and this Vermont colony to give it some semblance of an end destination.
Then there's the big climax. Where do I begin?
It needs to be put into context. Originally, Neville realized that the creatures had made their own society (much like the book) and gave back the female. He apologized, they all left, and he realized he had been the monster. That version humanized them, proved Neville wrong about human behavior being completely absent, and explained a great deal of their behavior. But the studio didn't like that so they came up with the feel- good ending the theaters saw. Then they really were just monsters, mindless, uncompromising, wanted only destruction, and Neville is the undoubted good guy. The Hollywood ending. The lousy attempt to copy the ending to Smith's earlier movie Independence Day.
But it doesn't make sense. It needlessly created more plot holes. How could they remake his own trap? How can the Alpha-Male control the others or the dogs? How can they plan an attack? Why are they so against him suddenly? Even by Hollywood standards, having Neville blow himself up to save humanity is too narcissistic. And going to Vermont is like the theatrical ending to Blade Runner. It's completely out of sync with the dystopian world seen before that.
The reason it was changed: the Iraq War. The movie is a response to it, but the different endings give different responses (think the minor change in the ending to the '78 Body Snatchers remake versus the original). The original ending brings into question our (USA's) true role there. That maybe, the US could be the monsters just as Neville is and our enemies may have some motive beyond total destruction. The theatrical ending is pure patrioticness. "We will fight and we WILL win." We are undoubtedly good and they are undoubtedly bad. Yes, because Heaven forbid that humanity (specifically America) isn't absolutely perfect and our enemies aren't simply monsters. How dare the line between good and evil isn't clear cut and (shockingly enough) blurred. Notice how the colony is so over the top Americana with the perfect little white church and the large US flag in the background. It's completely designed to pump you up and make you feel good. This undermines the theme of the book and the fact that humanity did this to itself.
The alternate ending doesn't fix all the movie's mistakes, but it makes it far better. If it had ended as originally intended it probably would be seen in a better light. I recommend to anyone to see the alternate ending. Even if you didn't like the theatrical version it's worth a look. It gives the movie an entirely different tone and at least touches on the book's themes. Theatrically, it's a 5 out of 10. Half is good, half is bad. The original ending kicks it up a few notches so the ending has some saving grace.