I am Legend vs 28 Days Later

by a random John

Mild spoilers follow. This probably won’t be a worthwhile discussion if you haven’t seen movies. Actually, it might not be worthwhile at all…


1st Act

The unexpected discovery of an empty London is much creepier than goofing off in an empty NYC that has clearly become routine. 28 Days Later wins by a landslide. Plus the Ford product placement is distracting.

2nd Act

We know that Will Smith’s character can’t get infected but that his dog (the only other character) can. No surprise what happens. Also he lives in a fortress that has been safe for three years, so there is a lack of suspense, but the search for a cure provides some interest. In 28 Days Later there are a handful of characters at this point and they can all get infected and this is new to all of them. They don’t know if they can survive till the next day and they haven’t worked out any sort of routine at this point. 28 Days Later wins this round as well.

3rd Act

This is where the wheels come off of both films as far as I’m concerned. The main characters lose it in both films, but in 28 Days later the craziness at least has a purpose. In I am Legend the acts of stupidity serve to break the routine so as to put the characters in additional peril. Very forced in my mind. If certain things had happened a day earlier then all would be well. Plus how do you get on and off this island? This round also goes to 28 Days Later, but not because it’s third act was great. It was horrible. But not nearly as forced.

Key Nitpick

Everybody from Brazil knows who Bob Marley is. He’s much bigger there than in the USA. Asking a Brazilian if they’ve heard of Bob Marley is analogous to asking someone from the US/UK if they’ve heard of the Beatles.

The verdict? 28 Days Later is the better one man alone in a big city zombie movie.

20 Comments

  1. Good call on the Marley gaffe. She spoke with hardly any accent as well.

    Comment by Eric Russell — December 28, 2007 @ 2:17 am

  2. Dang, you just wish they kept to the book in I Am Legend. So much better suspense.

    Comment by Dan — December 28, 2007 @ 6:23 am

  3. Totally agree about both films. Both were excellent until that third act. With 28 Days is was just running out of ideas and getting sloppy. With I Am Legend though I was just left scratching my head. The whole film veers off in an other direction with this inexplicable and bizarre religious angle. And most of what they set up the first two acts (are the ‘zombies’ conscious or not) is lost. The Charleston Heston version, for all its cheesiness ended far better.

    Comment by clark — December 28, 2007 @ 11:28 am

  4. I should add that I think ultimately I kind of dig the second act of I am Legend a bit more than the second act of 28 Days Later. The whole Castaway vibe and his slowly loosing his mind works well. I just wish they hadn’t made the zombies CGI. Bad decision.

    Comment by clark — December 28, 2007 @ 11:30 am

  5. I actually enjoyed I Am Legend a great deal; the abandoned city was haunting and great. But the ending was pretty bad, and they showed the vampires too much. 28 Days Later really kind of lost it at the end, I must say, but the ferocity and fright of that movie is superior to I Am Legend (except for the first time Will Smith ventures into the dark).

    Comment by Supergenius — December 28, 2007 @ 11:46 am

  6. I thought the story of the Vincent Price (Last Man On Earth) version was better than the Heston version (Omega Man) or this Will Smith version.

    The Vincent Price version is closer to the book (so I hear) and even though the pace is much slower it has some pretty creepy moments (like when his vampire/zombie wife is clawing at the door saying “let me in”).

    I agree with your analysis of and comparison of I Am Legend and 28 Days Later though. 28 Days Later was better despite a crappy third act.

    Comment by Geoff J — December 28, 2007 @ 11:56 am

  7. Clark,

    I agree that the cgi for the zombies was a bad choice, especially given how much screen time they got. It isn’t clear to me that they should look THAT different from humans.

    Comment by a random John — December 28, 2007 @ 12:36 pm

  8. I remember very clearly the earlier version with Charlton Heston, which was very well done. I love movies like this. Did it end the same? I haven’t seen 28 Days Later.

    Comment by annegb — December 28, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

  9. It’s been a long time since I saw the Heston version. The ending of the Heston and Smith versions are close. But the tone is more consistent in the Heston version and the ‘zombies’ aren’t quite so monstrous. More like rabid people slowly dying but still semi-intelligent but paranoid.

    Comment by clark — December 28, 2007 @ 5:43 pm

  10. The book is better in that there is an important point between folks that are still quasi-normal and then the real vampires. The main character kills the quasi-normals and thus is as bad as the vampires. I thought the Smith version was going to be going that way. (The main vampire clearly is chasing Smith for stealing his girlfriend) But the third act just drops that entirely.

    Comment by clark — December 28, 2007 @ 5:47 pm

  11. I am Legend. Haven’t seen it yet, opted for renting, but the fact that they cgi the zombies seals that decision to me. In the book part of the drama in the interplay is that some of these zombies are people he knew ‘before’. I don’t see getting that kind of humanity from cgi.

    Comment by mo mommy — December 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm

  12. I agree with the post arJ, I Am Legend was terrible.

    Comment by Jacob J — December 29, 2007 @ 12:29 am

  13. I Am Legend wasn’t very good. Can’t say for the other film. I was curious about it for awhile but 28 Days Later was too dark for me … so my interest in the sequel went down a bit.

    Comment by danithew — December 29, 2007 @ 10:48 am

  14. I actually like the third section of 28 days later. I was expecting to see a pure zombie thriller, reworked and sylishly done. The change in the story line makes the film far darker, bringing in the horror of human conflict and desperation ontop. Haven’t read the book, so can’t compare, but 28 days beat I am Legend hands down. Better scenes, more tension and far less cheesy attempts at emotionional sentiment that wasn’t explored enough for you to care.

    Comment by David H — December 29, 2007 @ 11:54 am

  15. While overall 28 Days was much better, both are highly flawed films.

    Comment by clark — December 29, 2007 @ 1:54 pm

  16. mo mommy,

    Having invested as much time as I care to in I am Legend I hit the wikipedia to figure out what you’re talking about. In short there’s none of that in this film. You don’t see any vampires/zombies that are people he knew and there aren’t two types of vampires. They’re all the bad vampires but never called that and no garlic or stakes are used.

    Comment by a random John — December 29, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

  17. I don’t know. Comparing the two movies seems pointless to me, as it’s based on superficial similarities. 28 days later is a horror film, and I am Legend is more of a suspenseful semi-science fiction tale. Despite the similar surface details, they are from two totally different genres.

    Comparing them is like comparing “Some Kind of Monster” with “A Hard Day’s Night” because both feature bands that have guitar, bass, drums and vocals.

    Comment by Ivan Wolfe — December 30, 2007 @ 7:37 pm

  18. I disagree, I Am Legend is the poor American version of 28 Days Later, which might not have been perfect but at least it was entertainment, whereas I Am Legend was a waste of time. The Marley gaff was the worst, so ignorant and patronising, Brazilians have their own reggae, don’t need some American explaining it to them.

    Comment by Emanem — January 6, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

  19. Apparently the script for I Am Legend was quite different when it was trying to be a Swartzenegger project. The rabid humans were more like orcs from Lord of the Rings and were quasi-civilized. It also was supposed to be much, much closer to the book. Arguably the Smith vehicle left out the key aspects of the book in preference to making Smith like Hanks from Castaway. I think those aspects of the film were actually pretty good. It’s just that the monster aspects of the film were horrible.

    Comment by Clark — January 7, 2008 @ 10:51 am

  20. I entered the theater expecting more of a Castaway kind of movie (based on the previews), but was (at first) pleasantly surprised to see that it was more 28 days later-like, however, as the movie progressed, it proved to be just another sad American/Hollywood CGI-fest and predictable, formulaic cliches and loud noises to get your attention. 28 days later is a far more gripping, organic film that captured the darkness and fear of such an apocalypse quite well - at least until the middle/end of the film. I did prefer I am Legend on the flashbacks to the developing crisis and the self-documenting scientist working to cure the disease. I still wish the original director (of 28 days later) would make a “28 minutes later”. Now, THAT would be a movie to see. 28 days later still wins IMO overall. Sadly the CGI stupidity really overshadowed the better aspects of “I am Legend”. “I am Legend” is probably on par with the sad sequel “28 weeks later” in terms of screwing up a good thing.

    Comment by David — January 7, 2008 @ 3:38 pm