Once in a while everyone has had the thought of what it would feel like to be the last man or woman on Earth. Having the world and everything in it for yourself with no one around to bother you as u enjoy the luxuries you never had. What people fail to realize is the loneliness, despair and darkness of the so called utopia that they imagine. Richard Matheson, the author of I Am Legend, brings this dark idea into life by writing a story narrating Robert Neville’s life as the last human on earth. I Am Legend is often connected with the actor Will Smith, and his incredible representation of Robert Neville, the protagonist in the novel. However, most people don’t give enough recognition to Richard Matheson for creating the storyline and being the writer of the original novel. Both, Richard Matheson’s post-apocalyptic science fiction novel, and Francis Lawrence’s post-apocalyptic science fiction movie have many similarities and differences. The movie once again like many others fails to live up to the novel, mainly because of too many alterations in the characters, and story that leaves readers disappointed.
In the movie adaptation, Robert Neville is a scientist who’s not successful is stopping a man-made incurable virus. He is the last human living in a world filled with mutant victims who are infected and are known as Darkseekers. However, in the novel he is last human surviving an epidemic that destroyed humanity turning them into vampires. Everyone that he was ever in contact with either were turned or killed by a vampire. These plot differences in turn effect the portrayal of Robert Neville’s character. In the movie, Robert has himself well together, he hunts for food, works out, eats meals regularly and is generally healthy. In c...
... middle of paper ...
...and leaned against the wall while he swallowed the pills. Full circle, he thought while the final lethargy crept into his limbs. Full circle. A new terror born in death, a new superstition entering the unassailable fortress of forever. I am legend.” ( ). It’s as the saying goes, he truly lived long enough to see himself become a villain.
The movie adaption isn’t very similar to the novel at all. The concept is made out to be another plain doomsday movie, even if it does have some excellent cinematic effects which are accompanied by Will Smith’s terrific acting skills portraying Robert Neville. The movie misses key elements and components of the plot that make up the world and characters that Richard Matheson had in mind when writing the original book. Although the movie is great in the sense of entertainment, nothing is quite like the novel when it comes down to it.
Another thing that I noticed was that there crimes changed and some stayed the same. Vera didn’t try as hard as she could to try and save Cyril in the book and in the movie
There are many examples in both movie and book that compare and contrast to each other. I felt that the book and movie portrayed characters differently. The main character of the book was Jon Krakauer, the book told about the way he felt about people and his struggles and toils. In the movie I felt
Visually, the movie is just what I pictured when reading the book, and that makes it a magical movie to watch. But, the movie lacked some of the passion that is present in the novel. I felt that the book was slightly better than the film, simply because the film did lack of some details. The only disappointment I had with the book was Marlena's weakness. I think I would have loved the book even more had she been written as a more independent and stronger
...m in his life, even after his death remained active as an avenger of his murder, pursuing and tracking down the murderers over every land and sea…"
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
There are few similarities between the book and the movie. Usually most movies are similar to
...round an obsessive character that becomes the reason for his avoidable demise, had he not obsessed over the story of the Headless Horseman.
Each version also has the main characters boarding up the windows. Anyone who thought the birds won’t attack are usually found dead, but in the movie they are found with their eyes pecked out. Also, both the story and the movie have REALLY bad endings! They aren’t very similar, but they both leave you hanging. When you see a movie or read a book you want to know what happens to the main characters. In these two, you didn’t get an ending. They left you hanging and for some people that ruins it all.
All he does is drink blood,” is something Neville asks himself, and this also raises many other questions regarding the natural prejudice against vampires, which is an essential issue since it indirectly displays one of the main messages of the book, which is that unfamiliar or smaller groups are mostly alienated. Moreover, this quote also shows how Neville’s thoughts are now sane and contrast with his thoughts of when he was depressed. His logic and reasoning when wondering about the prejudice against vampires are not that expected, since he is alone and his main focus is to save himself. In this manner Matheson portrays Neville as a character who later develops sanity in his actions and inspite of his situation still displays intelligence and curiosity, which is essential to further analyze his character and
The movie and the story had some of the same characters but some weren't exactly the same. The movie introduced many different characters and changed some of the others. For example, the movie had the plant lady and had the mentor of Anderton as the founders of Precrime while in the book, Anderton was the only founder of Precrime. Also, Witwer wasn't blond he had black hair and Kapler wasn't named Kapler he was named Crow. In the story they had the red head Fleming who did not exist
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
Generally, the film follows the storyline of Atwood's book quite well other than a few exceptions. The changes the movie made probably do work better just because of the fact that it is a movie. Some things are better explained in books than they could ever be explained in a movie.
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.