This film was rather well done. One of the most interesting aspects, to me, was watching the psychological effect of total isolation on Will Smith's Dr. Neville. Two scenes in the film were particularly tear jerking and touching, with Smith demonstrating again that he can clearly be one of the best dramatic actors in modern cinema. Overall, this is an excellent film; it's thrilling, frightening, and touching and pretty much everyone but the most bitterly cynical people will really enjoy it.
I only have one complaint, but to me its a big one...
The infected. Yes, they were extremely frightening until they attacked! I've read that the director originally started filming the infected as live actors with special prosthesis but felt they weren't convincing enough, so he decided on entirely CG characters using live actors only for some motion capture work. I think this was a remarkably dumb choice in his part. Actors with prosthesis can still be incredibly effective at playing convincing, sometimes superhuman, monsters. Reference the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "28 Days Later", "28 Weeks Later", and "The Descent." The infected in the 28 Days films were absolutely entirely convincing, especially in the sequel, and were played almost entirely with real live actors in makeup utilizing CG for detail and enhancement. The infected in "I Am Legend" were clearly CG, which I found to be very disappointing. Also, these are supposed to be humans who have been infected with a virus causing their appearance and behavioral changes. Well, if you are going to base your monsters on humans you should try your best to keep movement as realistic as possible. The first time you see one of the infected scream, its clear that the size of their mouths don't make mechanical sense when compared to the shape of their faces with mouth closed. Its that kind of error that breaks the "suspension of disbelief" in audiences. Once the audience gets its first full glimpse of an infected human, they lose much of their ability to frighten. Still, my opinions about the quality of the infected CG doesn't really detract from my opinion of the film as a whole. The infected are only a fraction of the focus on this film, and there is so much else left to love. The lack of reality in the CG is trivial compared to the depth and reality of the psychological isolationist elements in the rest of the film.
I do have a theory regarding the situation with the infected. I think the studio wanted this film to appear to a broad range of people, including families, and possibly they allowed the CG to be a bit obvious to actually reduce the level of fear in younger viewers? *Shrug* I don't know.
I only have one complaint, but to me its a big one...
The infected. Yes, they were extremely frightening until they attacked! I've read that the director originally started filming the infected as live actors with special prosthesis but felt they weren't convincing enough, so he decided on entirely CG characters using live actors only for some motion capture work. I think this was a remarkably dumb choice in his part. Actors with prosthesis can still be incredibly effective at playing convincing, sometimes superhuman, monsters. Reference the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "28 Days Later", "28 Weeks Later", and "The Descent." The infected in the 28 Days films were absolutely entirely convincing, especially in the sequel, and were played almost entirely with real live actors in makeup utilizing CG for detail and enhancement. The infected in "I Am Legend" were clearly CG, which I found to be very disappointing. Also, these are supposed to be humans who have been infected with a virus causing their appearance and behavioral changes. Well, if you are going to base your monsters on humans you should try your best to keep movement as realistic as possible. The first time you see one of the infected scream, its clear that the size of their mouths don't make mechanical sense when compared to the shape of their faces with mouth closed. Its that kind of error that breaks the "suspension of disbelief" in audiences. Once the audience gets its first full glimpse of an infected human, they lose much of their ability to frighten. Still, my opinions about the quality of the infected CG doesn't really detract from my opinion of the film as a whole. The infected are only a fraction of the focus on this film, and there is so much else left to love. The lack of reality in the CG is trivial compared to the depth and reality of the psychological isolationist elements in the rest of the film.
I do have a theory regarding the situation with the infected. I think the studio wanted this film to appear to a broad range of people, including families, and possibly they allowed the CG to be a bit obvious to actually reduce the level of fear in younger viewers? *Shrug* I don't know.