If you are like me and somehow haven't seen this movie yet, don't bother. It didn't age well.
I'll start with the good. The cinematography was excellent, and many of the introductory shots were reminiscent of the Last of Us video game series - eerie but beautiful. Will Smith did well, though I felt he over-acted at times. Perhaps that's the fault of the director.
As for the rest of the movie... oof. The 2007 CGI obviously doesn't carry over too well in 2021, but even if it were modern CGI the movie still has several major problems.
The premise itself is a bit ridiculous - they've found the cure for cancer, but apparently it can only be delivered by injecting it into a virus, and then into humans. In a society where scientists are so stringent on publishing results, especially for something as large as the cure to cancer, it's a bit hard to believe that a virus that ultimately turns people into vampire/zombies would so quickly be used on the general population, let alone the entire world.
The scene that truly ruined the movie for me was the lead up to the dog, Samantha's death. We see that the lead Darkseeker sics three dogs to kill Neville, and that a mere thin line of sunlight is the difference between death and survival. The sun fades, the dogs attack and bite Sam, and Neville manages to fight off and kill them. And then... the Darkseekers do... nothing? Perhaps they watch on as he has a dramatic moment with his dog and they climb into the car. Why?
From there, we get some classic deus ex machina - literally, as Anna claims it was God who sent her to save Neville in the nick of time from his suicidal plan (side note: he wants to kill a bunch of them, and chooses the option of hitting them to death with his car rather than use his literal armory of automatic weapons?)
I could go on and on, but let's just leave it at: don't watch this movie in present day.
This was definitely carried by the actors, particularly Guy Pearce's outstanding performance as Special Agent Rakes.
I'm not sure if this is due to the writing, editing, or both, but it was difficult to understand the point or theme of the film. The plot felt like it was trying to do too much, and many points contradicted themselves.
The Bondurant brothers (save for Jack) are presented as ruthless bootleggers that rely on fear and violence, but in the epilogue, they immediately become happy, family-oriented people simply because the Prohibition ended? Forrest (Tom Hardy), the sensible invincible that survives having his throat slit and being shot in the torso four times, catches pneumonia by walking into a frozen lake? It's hard to believe that he'd be unable to handle his liquor after literally running a moonshine business.
Maggie (Jessica Chastain) and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) seemed to only exist to serve as love interests, which is disappointing for a film in the modern era.
Near the end, we're told that Rakes has an army of ATU officers, yet somehow the entire Bondurant family is able to drive straight into the blocked off bridge and only one person dies for it. Has anyone heard of taking cover?! I can understand that those weapons were not as accurate as modern ones, but it felt like watching a shootout between Stormtroopers.
We can see that Sheriff Hodges (Bill Camp) disagrees with Rakes' methodology, but it's confusing that Cricket Pete's death is what turns him to rebel against a federal agent. We see someone get tarred and feathered, Rakes sent two men to kill Forrest (and we're led to believe they rape Maggie), but because he snaps the neck of a guy that survived rickets - that's where he draws the line? If he had shot him instead, would that be okay?
And why does the entire law enforcement squad let Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) walk past them to murder Rakes, immediately after they've all shot at each other? Do they only enforce alcohol crossing that particular bridge, and nothing else?
2.5/5 - it's not awful, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
Breathtaking cinematography, great editing, an excellent score, and impressive acting from Hanks and Zengel. I especially appreciated their use of nonverbal cues/body language to communicate to each other/the audience. Sure, the plot was fairly predictable, but it was nevertheless engaging and a pleasure to watch.
The cast did a fantastic job with their performances, and Eddie Redmayne did particularly well in capturing the essence of Hawking. I wonder how sore his back must have been to hold that physicality for so long.
Spoilers below.
However, as it is based off of Jane Hawking's book, the plot oscillates between quick summaries of Hawking's key moments, and a love plot. As a result, this feels like two plots competing against each other.
Too many (for me) of these moments are done as montages, and it's difficult to stay engaged with the film. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to be some sort of editing or technical flex, but it just completely missed the mark for me. Ending with a montage of montages we've just seen? What purpose did it serve?
I didn't enjoy the score, I thought it overwhelmed many scenes and didn't add anything - the actors did well in conveying emotions with or without lines. Combined with the fairy-like lighting in many scenes, the film felt garish.
Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Movie comment on I Am Legend
AgentKay
If you are like me and somehow haven't seen this movie yet, don't bother. It didn't age well.I'll start with the good. The cinematography was excellent, and many of the introductory shots were reminiscent of the Last of Us video game series - eerie but beautiful. Will Smith did well, though I felt he over-acted at times. Perhaps that's the fault of the director.
As for the rest of the movie... oof. The 2007 CGI obviously doesn't carry over too well in 2021, but even if it were modern CGI the movie still has several major problems.
The premise itself is a bit ridiculous - they've found the cure for cancer, but apparently it can only be delivered by injecting it into a virus, and then into humans. In a society where scientists are so stringent on publishing results, especially for something as large as the cure to cancer, it's a bit hard to believe that a virus that ultimately turns people into vampire/zombies would so quickly be used on the general population, let alone the entire world.
The scene that truly ruined the movie for me was the lead up to the dog, Samantha's death. We see that the lead Darkseeker sics three dogs to kill Neville, and that a mere thin line of sunlight is the difference between death and survival. The sun fades, the dogs attack and bite Sam, and Neville manages to fight off and kill them. And then... the Darkseekers do... nothing? Perhaps they watch on as he has a dramatic moment with his dog and they climb into the car. Why?
From there, we get some classic deus ex machina - literally, as Anna claims it was God who sent her to save Neville in the nick of time from his suicidal plan (side note: he wants to kill a bunch of them, and chooses the option of hitting them to death with his car rather than use his literal armory of automatic weapons?)
I could go on and on, but let's just leave it at: don't watch this movie in present day.
Movie comment on Lawless
AgentKay
This was definitely carried by the actors, particularly Guy Pearce's outstanding performance as Special Agent Rakes.I'm not sure if this is due to the writing, editing, or both, but it was difficult to understand the point or theme of the film. The plot felt like it was trying to do too much, and many points contradicted themselves.
Maggie (Jessica Chastain) and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) seemed to only exist to serve as love interests, which is disappointing for a film in the modern era.
Near the end, we're told that Rakes has an army of ATU officers, yet somehow the entire Bondurant family is able to drive straight into the blocked off bridge and only one person dies for it. Has anyone heard of taking cover?! I can understand that those weapons were not as accurate as modern ones, but it felt like watching a shootout between Stormtroopers.
We can see that Sheriff Hodges (Bill Camp) disagrees with Rakes' methodology, but it's confusing that Cricket Pete's death is what turns him to rebel against a federal agent. We see someone get tarred and feathered, Rakes sent two men to kill Forrest (and we're led to believe they rape Maggie), but because he snaps the neck of a guy that survived rickets - that's where he draws the line? If he had shot him instead, would that be okay?
And why does the entire law enforcement squad let Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) walk past them to murder Rakes, immediately after they've all shot at each other? Do they only enforce alcohol crossing that particular bridge, and nothing else?
2.5/5 - it's not awful, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
Movie comment on News of the World
AgentKay
Breathtaking cinematography, great editing, an excellent score, and impressive acting from Hanks and Zengel. I especially appreciated their use of nonverbal cues/body language to communicate to each other/the audience. Sure, the plot was fairly predictable, but it was nevertheless engaging and a pleasure to watch.4.5/5
Movie comment on The Theory of Everything
AgentKay
The cast did a fantastic job with their performances, and Eddie Redmayne did particularly well in capturing the essence of Hawking. I wonder how sore his back must have been to hold that physicality for so long.Spoilers below.
Too many (for me) of these moments are done as montages, and it's difficult to stay engaged with the film. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to be some sort of editing or technical flex, but it just completely missed the mark for me. Ending with a montage of montages we've just seen? What purpose did it serve?
I didn't enjoy the score, I thought it overwhelmed many scenes and didn't add anything - the actors did well in conveying emotions with or without lines. Combined with the fairy-like lighting in many scenes, the film felt garish.
2/5, purely for the performances by the cast.