True. But although it is not as original as I had thought, NOTLD still remains a classic in my eyes.

SPOILERS ABOUND

Honestly I just felt really unsatisfied with it. It started off really promising and the just kinda fell off after Robert's break down. My main gripes were that there seemed to be one "smart" dark-seeker and the others were just mindless drones. I guess the smart one set up that very sophisticated (for a zombie/vampire) trap but it didn't seem right next to the image of twenty of them huffing and puffing, waiting for night. The kid, Evan(?), had no purpose in the movie other than to remind Robert of his own child, that's it. Did the kid even have a line? The end totally jumped the shark when Robert's getting flung around, neck grasped in awful CGI teeth, and no worse for wear. And the whole "knowing your purpose" theme felt a little heavy handed at the end.

The end, while surprising, deflated itself. Not so much of a twist ending as a turn, while I credit it for having the balls to do what it did, it was like Hulk Hogan tagging in some Johnny come lately that I do even care about to make the pinfall.

Did he really think screaming "I can save you!" was gonna do anything? Anyway, th first half alone justifies the movie. Maybe this is a good year for let down endings (I know it's the uncool thing to say but No Country For Old Men is 3/4 of the best film of the year so far). But as a whole, if I want to watch bad CGI and heavy handed lessons, I'll go see The Mist again (which by the by, is a really fun movie if you think of it as The Twilight Zone Presents The Mist).

Just got back from the theater and I fucking loved it. I think it build up the tension perfectly and I actually jumped like a girl in my seat a couple of times. Okay, the ending was a bit Signs'ish but I was thoroughly entertained by this movie.

And Will Smith was really good (don't know if he was Oscar-good, but he certainly carried the movie).

Yeah I just saw this as well. Act I and II are really, really good. Act III is at best mediocre, at worst hackneyed.

I loved the abandoned New York. Wow, that was just beautiful. And the sound was incredible and well paced with the action. Really suspenseful. I slouched in my seat a few times and put my hands over my eyes once actually! And in a PG-13'er to boot! That's impressive.

Francis Lawrence is a good commercial director and if someone gives him a proper script (or a proper third act) he may reach Fincher's level someday. He imbues the scenes will emotional oomph by following the old adage: less is more. He cuts away, and trusts his audience's imagination.

Will Smith was a revelation. They hype was well-deserved. I have newfound respect for him at least. And Sam! I felt like getting a dog when I came out from this.

But the infected did not work on any level. besides the lamentable CGI, the design was more Gollum than ghoul, not scary in light areas at all. And these people were supposed to have lost all human traits? EXCEPT the impulse to cover up ones privates and in women's cases their breasts. My god what idiotic conceit.

And the theme of "God's" plan (which by the way is contradicted twice by Nevile: First God didn't do this, and then he cites the spread of disease as God's fault. Which is it?), which I guess some religious viewers might embrace more painlessly than the average moviegoer, felt completely out of place. Purpose and fate were not themes until Akiva Goldsman writes the actual dialogue explaining it retroactively in the last 10 minutes of the film. What a bunch of hokey sap. "Sometimes you just have to listen..."? Sounds like Goldsman snuck some Batman and Robin hack into this one.

And the kid had no purpose other than to:

a) be "cute"

b) make Neville reminisce

c) accidentally reveal to the infected where they were hiding by, for some mindbuggling reason, making a muffled grunt when the monster's right above him.

I just hate this kinda plotdevice. Write a kid into the story so he can make some stupid mistake that gets everybody killed. Forget cohesive logic he's a CHILD, his actions need not make sense...


But overall good movie, though VERY flawed.

Just got home from watching it.  I usually hesitate to rank it until after I've had a chance to mull it over, but it was enough time driving home to get past first-blush responses.

I don't know what it is about me, but I am rarely scared and almost never jump in movies.  I think it's some kind of delayed reaction in my brain.  As if by the time it registers that there was a "boo" moment, the moment is gone and I'm into what's going on.  It didn't help that the dark seekers reminded me that I watched "Alvin and the Chipmunks."  That sort of a it-looks-real-enough-that-I-guess-I'm-supposed-to-believe-it's-real thing.  CGI took a downturn after the first Jurassic Park, IMO.  Hardly fooled me since.  I also had a problem with the infected dogs being able to get to him and the dark-seekers failed to swarm.  Similar problem with the last scene in the lab.  A lot of missed opportunities there.  They should have done a better job of justifying what they didn't do.

So, instead of hanging on the edge of my seat, I sat back, relaxed and enjoyed what will probably be the first of many 2012 films.  (I got a guilty-pleasure thrill out of the advertisement for the Batman-Superman film)  I loved the overall message of the story, though I wish someone would make a film that shows curing cancer and AIDS and what ever else causes a huge resource/over population problem that sends us into a different kind of disaster.  This premise had more immediate results, of course.  It was truly amazing to watch long-term isolation in a hastily-abandoned metropolis (or Gotham, as the case may be ;p).  Fascinating.

Will Smith is the show.  He is one of the greatest actors with decades left to clinch the title.  Beyond that, he is an inspiring model of a human, man, and father.  Throughout most of the movie, you didn't need any words to know exactly what was going through his mind.  The adaptation is clever, intense, and very enjoyable, but it's hard to imagine any of that being possible without Will "I saved 'Independence Day'" Smith.

I still can't rank this beyond saying it's definitely in my top 100 films.  But, I can confidently say that it is above average as a film.

This might be Will Smith's best acting performance, as to whether or not the Academy feels this way is another matter.  I've grown a little tired of him in recent years, playing the same street-smart faster-talker that he played in too many movies.  This movie proves he can do so much more.  I felt for him in regards to his dog and in regards to his frustration in the entire situation that he's caught up in..

At the same time, there were some problems with the story.  For instance, WTF did all those deer come from?  And the lions?  I'm sure that the Central Park Zoo has a lion exhibit, but how did they get out of their cages?

A little Easter egg, of sorts:  at the beginning, when he's driving around and you see all the billboards for Broadway shows and movies, there is a poster for a Batman/Superman movie.  

I haven't seen too many new movies recently, but I'm glad I saw this one.


Phil

I really can't agree with Will Smith being a great actor. Sure he is a great box office draw and makes the studio's tons of cash but is that enough to be a great actor? I hope not, otherwise we will start talking of Die Hard 4 being a classic film just because it made a pile of money.
Yes Smith carried this film, but really he had no choice, i could think of at least two dozen actors who could have carried the film just as well if not better. He does have a habit of playing the same smart alec guy in everything, which aint really the sign of a 'great' actor.

The direction was fine in most parts but he made a serious blunder in the opening sequence which really should have set the tone for the first half of the movie and for me he failed. When Will Smith is wandering around trying to shoot a deer and see's the lion the scene is shot with a Steadicam (or shaky cam as a better name). Now shaky cams are great devices for action sequences as they give the viewer the impression they are right there amongst the action, one of the bystanders actually watching so to speak - used to great effect by Paul Greengrass in the second two Bourne films. But in a film about the (we think) last man on earth? Why would anyone use such a technique that makes us feel we are there watching Will Smith when he should have set the scene up in such a way that he looks like the last man on Earth not one of the two last men on Earth (the other holding the camera)?

But as most seem to agree the worst was to come, the monsters were crap - for a movie costing this much i cannot believe how bad they looked and the Ending? Well for all the good work done in the first two acts (and there was some good stuff in there) the end really ruined it. Great story, could have been a brilliant film but they stuffed it up. I would rate it no more than 6.5 /10.

The movie was a HUGE missed opportunity, for me. It's hard to understand how the people who keep adapting this to screen keep missing the actual point of the novel. The lovely irony, now gone, tossed out in exchange for an ending that although does incorporate the title at last, STILL misses the point of it.

Both the Price & Heston versions have their faults and pluses, as does this one. And changing a novel as you adapt isn't a bad thing in itself....as long as you're improving it. Which didn't happen here. Now it WAS a step up from the Protosevich version written for Ridley Scott ( which featured a slam bang ending chase with subway trains and then the head Tribal Drum Thumping Boogie Man gets struck by lightning during a fight on a lighthouse, for God's sake), and the first half of this version IS pretty gripping. But as soon as the CGI rejects from The Mummy appear, it's all downhill.

To it's credit - they DID go back and reshoot the ending to show what we have now. The original filmed ending seemed weak ( based on the descriptions from the FX team who worked on it), and it was a brave move to end a Holiday film as they did...but still the film COULD have been much better.