thats why you go to the movies during the week, on a school night. So where are these threaters with all the fingering action :winkwink::1orglaugh

As I said in another thread, there were many things that they hoped could just be explained away with imagination but really should have just been cleared up with a line or two of dialog or something.
Like the monster setting the trap in the puddle with the dummy. Why didn't Will's character go "They aren't supposed to be able to do that!" rather than leave us wondering if the monster really did do it, or if it was one of Will's old traps that he just forgot about (or what ever else our imagination could fill in the blanks with)?
Other than the few times these things occurred, it was a very well done movie.

I dunno why so many say the movie sucked. I thought it was pretty good. Only thing I thought was a little lame was him driving through the streets chasing the deer.

In reality after the few years actually in much less time, the gas would have gone bad. So there would have been no driving around like that 3 or 4 years later.

Then I'm a thief, don't really care

made sense for his character arc...there needed to be some kind of redemption for letting the virus spread. The scene in the lab at the end really fit(and was well done also, with the silence and music). If he lived, I would have been pissed.

people were pissed that the woman and child showed up in the last third, but for me, it made the movie better. I wasn't expecting it, and those two characters were necessary to bring the story to its conclusion. Sure, there's holes in the story, such as distribution of cure, how did Ana get into manhattan if the bridges were all blown, etc...but some disbelief has to be suspended. Jesus.

Standards are so fucking high for movies these days, even from people who have no business being critics. When I was in the men's room after seeing Legend, there about 10 morons in there dissing on it, with the most idiotic critiques I've ever heard. They just sounded like retards, and it made me realize that any movie that requires the slightest amount of thought is rejected. Not that it was a Kubrick film, but the movie was a cut above the standard multiplex horse shit.

The 1970s version of the film was much better. Check out Omega Man.

Let's see...

So in your world - someone who pays the admission price isn't allowed to have an opinion on the movie. Someone who questions basic flaws in plot logic is labeled a "moron" or "retard"?

Standards aren't high for movies these days. I think its the fact that Hollywood has crammed so much second-rate, regurgitated crap down the pipe lately that people have become justifiably jaded and skeptical.

Yes, the movie DID have its moments - the scenes of a desolate New York were well done and Smith carried the movie fairly well (like Hanks had to in Castaway).

But like several have pointed out - why the insults to our collective intelligence by leaving us to feel gullible with the logic gaps...when some things could have been easily explained with a few simple lines of dialogue, had the filmmakers cared to spend a little more time with the details.

The bit I thought was good, was when 'McLuvin' tried to purchase the liquor with the fake ID... Classic :)

Well, you weren't there, I was. Don't take it so personally. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean I'm calling you retarded.

I was referring to the idiots in the bathroom, who to me, are a good barometer for the average movie-going public.

"so that dummy was real? How did he get outside?"

"He shoulda banged that chick, yo"

During the movie, people were laughing at the "Please talk to me" scene, which was not deliberately funny. There just happened to be a lot of idiots in that showing, no doubt drawn in by Will Smith, but they weren't ready for something semi-cerebral.

50 unsatisfactory movies...

OK so...
50 unsatisfactory movies...

To the contrary, despite the questions in basic plot logic I had, I actually enjoyed the (majority) of the movie, as did my daughter.

After seeing the movie, I read quite a few of the discussion forums on IMDB about it - and the majority of people who'd also seen it were asking the same questions about the plot and pointing out the rather obvious flaws.

Agreed, it was better than the standard multiplex crap floating around out there, but at the same time it could have been much better if a little more attention to detail had been made during production. I can suspend disbelief in logic gaps at the best of times, but not when it leaves a glaring, "WTF?" in my mind.

yeah, I see what you're saying. The holes are there, but not enough to detract from my enjoyment as long as I'm into the story and filmmaking. I can also appreciate when a movie doesn't spoon feed you answers and let's you think at least a little.

If you inject the cure into an infected host they will produce antibodies tehrefor an infected host will bcome almost like a factory for antibodies (the cure). Then they can use the cured persons blood and cure someone else. then you have two cured people, then inject their blood into two others....

I have Honours in Immunology and Microbiology.

I bet the ones who disliked i am legend LOVED little miss fuckshine. Now THAT's an overhyped movie.

Yes the dumbass didn't need to die. He could have jumped in the store cupboard and thrown the grenade into the contained area before locking the door. I saw it yesterday and thought the same thing. He didn't need to die!

I agree. I don't understand how anyone could have not liked the movie. It was a great story line, well made, incredible effects, suspenseful, unpredictable and Will Smith was so good it was almost like it wasn't a typical will smith movie (and this coming from a guy who always saw him as the annoying fresh prince of bel air). And the dog was awesome.

And what were the 'holes'? His objective was to find the cure which he did. He passed it on to the survivors to mass produce.

No, he didn't need to die, true.

From a storytelling perspective, yes. It was more satisfying for his character to die, as a form of retribution for his failure to stop the spread of the virus. The happy ending goes down easier knowing that he died to protect the cure.

Ever watch a movie and you just know a character has to die? This was like that for me, and it was cemented as soon as I saw the introduction of the new characters near the end.

I have not seen character development for animal like that since Bambi. Sam was really the only character in the movie I cared about.

Yes, I was expecting him to die I just didn't want him to! I wanted him to get to live and make it to meet all of the other survivors too. I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy the movie. I did. But as for the retribution, he didn't come up with the virus did he, that was Emma Thompson's character via her cancer cure? I'd just have been happier if he'd have protected the cure and survived too!. :1orglaugh

he had to die to become a martyr... religious spin.

solid proof youre a woman

This man speaks truth. Listen to him.

This one doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Beat him with bags full of rolls of quarters until he sees the errors of his ways.

:1orglaugh Yeah.

when the dog died... that was the saddest shit I've seen in a movie in a VERY lone time :(

Fair enough, but that means when/if someone steals from you then you have reason to complain.

Just saw that movie a few nights ago, it was fucking awesome.

Thats what I want to know too. Didnt make any sense to me.

The dummy in the trap was the dummy at the movie store. I think they used the bright yellow jump suit on him (compaired with normal clothes on the rest) so that people would remember that Will had just talked to it the night before.
Thats why Will was says "If your really alive you better tell me" or whatever and then started shooting the dummy.

I didnt really have a problem with that part, but the Lady getting her SUV onto and off the island does bother me.

The only way into manhattan I can think of that isn't a major bridge are the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and the small ramp at the West side highway ramp from the 95(near the GWB). Still, all of the entrances were supposed to have been destroyed.

the producers needs to stop robbing ticket holders when they get paid millions of dollars just to put their names on films. thus making the cost of the movie go up

and also the actors who get paid way to much

the cost of going to the theater now is out of control. the real crooks are the ones who run the theaters and charge way too much for popcorn and some soda.

nothing makes me happier than watching a bootleg hollywood movie. i have one site i hit that i love. watched walk hard in bed yesterday.

and its not the same as stealing members areas. you don't need to pay for porn if you know where to look thanks to all the tube sites.

if a movie is that good, like pan's labyrinth or beowulf, yeah, i'll hit a theater. but just to see some crap that hollywood pumps out for the holiday season, not thanks. plus i hate having to deal with assholes who talk and answer their phones during the movies or think taking an 8 year old to an r rated movie at 9pm is a good idea.

if anyone is being ripped off its the consumer.

Enemy At the Gates was good... so was Saving Private Ryan.. and Band of Brothers

Here is the thing though. You aren't be forced to go to the movies. It is not like you can't live without movies. Movies are a luxury item. If you want to watch a movie you can choose to pay $10 for a ticket and go see it in the theater with a bunch of other people who sound like a heard of cattle munching on food or you can choose to wait until it comes out on DVD and pay $3-$4 to rent it and watch it at home.

If people are willing to pay $10 for a movie, shouldn't they be able to charge it? If I run a pay site and people are willing to pay $40 a month to be a member should I lower my price to $20 just because it is a nice thing to do?

And stealing it is the same thing as stealing a member's area. There are plenty of movies you can watch for free on TV (they have commercials though). TV is like the porn industries TGP. You get it free, with some restrictions.

Actors make what they make because people are willing to pay to see them. If you have an actor who makes 15 million a movie it is because the movies they are in make a lot of money. Sure many of them are crap and sure these people could survive nicely on half the salary they make, but why should they. In the end the actor is worth that price to the studio. It is no different than a big TGP selling its top spots. Those spots are worth that price to whomever pays it.

In the end I just say the same as always, if you want to download stuff, fine, but that means if someone steals something from you, you don't get to complain about it.

so what about ppl who read books and magazines at book stores and don't but them? are they stealing?

how about ppl who read the newspaper that someone else leaves on the train?


actors and producers are way over paid, maybe if they didn;t command such large salaries i wouldn't mind. but im not going to fork over any money for some piece of shit film. and if it is that good, maybe I'll get the dvd.

the dummy was dressed the same as at the video store which was wearing an orange sweatshirt. it took me a while to even realize that it was from the video store as i was watching the movie.


so.... there you have him... the "creatures" are clever enough to set him up and ambush him in a fairly sophisticated, military-like way but were too stupid to figure out that he lives right down the street. they possessed the intelligence to understand the significance of the maniquins to him, how to use them as bait, knew where he would be, when etc but otherwise, couldn't find him even though they were aware of him, his habits, where he went etc.

then in the end... hundreds of them overrun his house because "they found him"

it all made very little sense.

Well, you don't really pay attention, do you?

First of all, grand central station is not exactly "down the street" from Washington Square Park. It's a fucking hike.

Second, it was obvious that he always got home before dark, so he couldn't be followed. The reason they found his house is because Ana was followed as she drove him home....in the dark. Good detective work, right? If you're going to argue a point, at least be aware that you didn't pay attention to the movie or can't infer things that are actually made just clear enough for the average monkey to understand.

Maybe you don't know about New York neighborhood proximities, I'll give you that one.

oooooh... i see. i was't aware that the producers intended everyone to study up on New York before watching the movie.

that makes sense now.

you dumb fucking retard.



and yeah... he got home before dark moron. since your too fucking stupid to figure shit out...

let me help you.

they set him up and ambushed him. according to your logic, that shouldn't have happened because they should know anything about him because he gets home before dark and therefore shoujld be oblivious to his existence.

as the movie plainly showed in the ambush scene, they watched him from inside buildings and as the ambush shows, they were aware of him, his habits (visting the video store, the significance of the manequins to him, where he travels) etc.

do you need anymore help having shit spelled out to you, you pathetic jackass??

Well, first off in all of my life I have only known one person who could stand in a book store and read a whole book while standing there. Most people read a few pages to check it out and see if they want to buy it. Magazines can be different because you can read a whole magazine there in the store. I guess, in a way, it is stealing because you are getting the content for free.

With the newspaper left on a train or even in a waiting room or whatever, well, someone has already bought it and left it so it's not stealing.

Actors and producers may be overpaid, but they are because they can be. If you could command $15 million a year for whatever your job was would you just choose to take $2 million just to be nice? As I said, nobody is forcing you to pay the price of a movie ticket. You guy rent a movie or buy a movie on pay per view for a few bucks or you can wait until it is on TV and watch it for free.

well, if someone buys a paper and leaves it for me, its ok then if i watch a video cam bootleg from someone who buys a tickets at the theater.

i mean, he did pay for his admission, he's just taking it with him, like if 1 person buys a paper and shares it with his office by leaving it in the lunch room.

and as far at the book store is concerned, you can go back everyday for an hour and read a book or 2 a week no prob.

given what was people have said about the

1. plot holes
2. what the original story was about
3. the delays to get this film to market

i suspect that we will find out that the movie originally followed the plot of the book
but it did not test well with test screening
so they re cut it together re edited to it current form
the plot holes are a result of trying to salvage as much of the original fotage as possible.

It the "total recall" thing all over again