I AM LEGEND (2007)

'Favourite book ever' is a very bold statement and should not be thrown around lightly, but I can honestly say that Richard Matheson's 1954 novel is one of the best books I have ever read. I am not the only person who rates it so highly either. Before the most recent cinematic effort, it has been adapted into two films with different names, The Last Man on Earth (in 1964, starring Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (1971, Charlton Heston), it has been very influential in the growth of the zombie genre and in making popular the idea of infectious disease being an apocalyptic possibility. George A Romero cites it as an influence for Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later clearly relies heavily on the book.

This particular adaptation, and I must stress that it is loosely based on Matheson's book, has been in the pipeline for a long time, at one stage during the 80's Ridley Scott was to direct with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead , but ultimately it fell to Francis Lawrence (Constantine) to direct and with Will Smith as Robert Neville, the last man alive on earth. Set in New York City, 2012, a viral cure for cancer has mutated and turned human-kind in to zombie like creatures, hungry for blood, vulnerable to daylight. Neville, colonel/scientist in the army, goes about his daily survival tasks (hunting deer in Times Square) during the day, while at night, hiding in his modern fortress of an apartment while he tries to find a cure for the plague.



The first part of the film sets all of this up, and I must say, it does it very well. The explanation of the virus is done nicely, with Emma Thompson in a nice cameo as the doctor responsible. We then leap forward 3 years. Manhattan as a wasteland looks brilliant, abandoned cars, overgrown foliage, eerie silence, it really does feel like a ghost town. Very much like the opening section of 28 Days Later, but less apocalyptic, more as though people gradually gave up. The idea of hunting deer in the centre of New York is also a nice little touch. Neville's isolation is ramped up as his only companions are Sam, his dog, and mannequins that he has named and left in local stores, engaging in banal chatter as he yearns for a semblance of normality. Well executed flashback scenes showing the chaos that erupts when the disease takes hold, add a bit more meat the story and also more depth to Neville's character.

At this stage I think it's worth mentioning Will Smith and his central performance. The choice of actor in this film is perhaps even vital than most other films, as the whole thing rests on their shoulders. This would not be a role for Keanu Reeves. Smith has come a long way from his days as the Fresh Prince and the drivel that was Wild Wild West, he really is an accomplished actor and he shows it again here. He does the pumped up action man stuff well, as you would expect, but it's the other moments that really stand out. There is a constant look of resignation on his face, no hope whatsoever. There are some very touching scenes where he tries to pluck up the courage to approach one of the mannequins, just to say hello. He also manages to portray the maximum amount of emotion possible in a scene with a dog. Turner & Hooch has nothing on this.

So far so good. Then the 'Darkseekers' (a.k.a. the infected) come on to the scene, which of course is when it should really hot up. Now I have two criticisms of the creatures, one is cosmetic and the other is a lot more important.

Firstly, for a reason only they will know, the makers of this film decided to have computer generated creatures. It just doesn't look right. The creatures are essentially zombies, and we have been so used to seeing the undead over the years as actors in (advanced) make up and prosthetics, the action feels physical and textile. It's what we know, and it's what we like. The CGI here isn't exactly top class, and you can tell it isn't real, it takes away from the threat of danger. It's all rather distracting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The second point, is the decision to make them zombie-like. One the main reasons that the book is so interesting and arresting is that the creatures (in this case vampires) are by appearance, almost exactly the same as humans. Your neighbour John, still looks like John, sounds like John, still engages in the same banter that you had with John, but now he wants to kill you and is beyond saving. The enemy in this film is faceless, generic, bland, we've seen it all before. A huge chunk of originality has been removed and left in a wheelie bin outside.

So once the scene is set so well, it becomes a standard action/monster film that rattles along to its conclusion, which, I admit is not in the usual cannon of Hollywood cop-out happy endings and is quite satisfying, but does massively deviate from the 'Legend' that is meant in the source material, which as possibly my favourite ending to anything, is annoying to say the least.

So I was excited when I first heard about it, I was excited when it first came out, I was excited after the the first half an hour, but then it all quickly evaporated. 28 Days Later was influenced hugely by the novel I Am Legend, but the irony is, despite a promising start this adaptation feels like a dated rehash of Danny Boyle's film which is packed full of more originality and fresh ideas.

Right, I'm off to read I Am Legend again.

THE BOX (2009)

Donnie Darko is one of the most opinion-splitting films in recent years. For every person that thinks it's a modern classic, there is another that thinks it's a pile of pretentious drivel that disappeared up it's own backside. Whatever you think of the film, it did put Richard Kelly on the map and made him 'One to Watch' for the future. His follow up Southland Tales wasn't particularly well received, both critically and at the Box Office. Which brings us to his most recent effort - The Box.



Based on a short story, 'Button, Button' by the legendary Sci-fi/Horror writer Richard Matheson (who also penned I Am Legend, also brought to the screen in a number of different incarnations), which was also subsequently adapted into an episode of the Twilight Zone, it begins with a simple concept that seems as though it has the potential to run a lot deeper. 1976, Richmond, Virginia, suburban couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) receive a visit from Arlington Steward (the once again brilliant Frank Langella), a mysterious, facially disfigured man. He gives them a box, containing a button, and a choice. Press the button and they will receive $1m in cold hard cash in a brief case (as is always the way in the movies - no one writes a check or asks for bank details), but someone in the world, that they do not know will die. Or they can leave the button and go about their life normally with no change. It's a brilliant idea to base a film around as the couple wrestle with their conscious and decide what to do. In all honesty though the execution lacks - the writing is clunky and the acting is average at best, plus the financial situation of the couple never leaves any doubt as to what they will decide to do, so much of the tension is lost.

 Once the decision is made, the film becomes a very different beast. A Twilight Zone episode. A sub-plot about a Nasa research centre, Langella's mysterious 'Employees', a supposed after-life of some sort, it all just goes a bit mental.....not in a Dusk 'til Dawn, enjoyable kind of way though.

I had no idea what was happening for much of the second half of the film, and I'm not convinced I was meant to. I'm all for being mentally challenged at the cinema and being asked to form my own ideas on whats happening on screen, but this all felt as though Richard Kelly was trying to be a bit too clever. Having said that, I was never bored, I really was eagerly waiting for it all to unfold, but I wasn't fully emeresed, as though I was watching from afar, slightly removed.

Often with these 'ball of string' films, it's the end that is important as the plot unravels. The Box is interesting because it is both unsatisfying and satisfying at the same time. There is a resolution of sorts, and it's not the happy ending you might want, but much of the mystery is left unexplained and I couldn't help but feel annoyed - like being given complicated directions to a recommended pub, only to arrive and realise it's a Wetherspoons.

I saw the film a couple of days ago, I'm still playing it over in my mind, and now I don't think the majority of the film is actually important to Kelly. It's more about the decision made by the two leads and what that says about human beings. And when you look at the film on that basis it is very thought-provoking and interesting. But was it really necessary to bury that central idea in a messy extended episode of the X-Files?