The horrible CGI almost killed this GREAT movie.. almost

Yeah, using CGI monsters was a very bad idea.

Check out the make-up tests and screen tests Amalgamated Dynamics made for the unproduced 1997 version with Schwarzenegger starring and Ridley Scott directing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14QYCShlGHA

IMHO They look super awesome and scary, and it was 10 years before the Will Smith version!

Germany declared war on the Jones boys.

No, the CGI is certainly terrible, but the problem with the film is that it undermines its source material.

Richard Matheson's novel is so full of personality, consisting of many layers that in a very subtle way deal with a myriad of thought provoking concepts, and that provides a fascinating idea of these "monsters" Neville has to put up with. For example, it's brilliant how Robert through research and experiments discovers that there are living and dead infected individuals, and that the living were actually psychologically rather than physically changed, due to their minds being affected by an upsurge of revivalism, and rampant yellow journalism in the final days of the outbreak. Novel ideas such as that (believe me, the novel is filled with many original concepts), and a perfect ending were sadly substituted by trite and forgettable themes in this film.

It was a great opportunity to adapt a great novel to the silver screen, which even after 61 years still feels fresh today; however, we ultimately got an unoriginal, devoid of life, movie that ironically, after not even a decade, feels extremely dated, and not just because of the CGI.

The whole "but it was 2007" excuse is baseless. The CGI was crap then and it's crap now. I watched this film in the theater back then and I was shocked how horrible it was.

I could handle the bad CGI.

What I can't handle is those things they do that a human body can't.

When they made this movie, they should just have watched 28 Days Later 2 or 3 more times.

No matter how "sick" a person is, we can't "growl" as they do, specially on the last few scenes.

No matter how they don't feel pain and can use the most of their muscles, we can't run that fast, neither jump so high, even worse climb buildings like that.

Also, remember that they have lost most of brain functions. And they are starving, and weak. These characteristics won't make superhumans!

i thought it was only me. The CGI was really bad, considering it was 2007.

The CGI was pretty basic, certainly not at the level it needed to be to make this movie work.

I think that directors get overly confident in the effects folk's abilities and rely on them too much. They should have, at least, kept the walkers at a distance and saved their efforts for just a few close-ups that could have been done better.

Same goes for the other problem effects areas.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

It has problems, but I liked it enough.

There's something wrong with Esther.

This really is a film of 2 halves, the first half before the dreadful CGI appeared was fantastic, 4 years after your post and 9 years after its release IMO there are very few films that portray an empty city as well as this one does, with the possible exception of 28 Days Later and even then 28 days actually did use an empty London albeit everyone was asleep as it was stupid O'clock and streets were blocked off where needed it didn't show has much of an empty city as Legend did if only they had gone with the original idea of how the affected should have looked, see here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14QYCShlGHA this would have been a benchmark film

My God,it's full of stars