We all know why the movie sucked – Mostly due to the horrendous ending. The whole entire movie was building up to the ending and everyone wanted to see what Will Smith would do once he found the cure and how he would fight off those vampire-like human beings once and for all. In the end, he sacrifices himself to make sure the cure survives so that the woman and her son would bring it to the last colonies. The ending was done well, but the whole scenario and the outcome made it just terrible. The alternate ending (original, but many of the test audiences didn’t like it) had him actually surviving and letting the captured vampire-like human being go. The last scene has Will’s character, the mother, and the mother’s son driving off into the distance to reach the last colonies. I do not understand why they chose to have the movie end like the way it ended. Why not actually follow the book for once and have it end like it should have. Many people do not even know this movie is based on a book of the same name written by Richard Matheson. I’ve seen comparisons to the movie and the book goes deeper into the whole context of civilizations and the hunter being the hunted type of deal. AND Matheson’s ending is so much better and puts the title of the book/movie into context. The movie distorted the meaning of the title and many people were coming out of the theaters asking each other what the hell was the point of the title? Well, I would have been asking myself that too, even though the fact is the main character becomes a legend/hero for finding the cure; its stupid, everyone agrees.
I rented out the book a few days ago and I’m about to read the book to see how much better it is compared to the movie. I know there are key differences between the works but they do not confuse the consumer of anything about the plot…except the ending…and except for the fact that some of the vampires actually can talk and are aware. So I am going to read this book and see why the movie was so bad.