The book was so much better than the movie.
Don't get me wrong; I liked the movie. But I'm glad I saw it first, because I'm not sure I would have liked it so much after the book. They are so very different--only the premise remains the same. The character, plot, setting, and even the very feel of it are starkly different.
For those of you who don't already know the premise, Robert Neville is quite possibly the last living man on earth, after a plague has wiped out the population, leaving only vampires. During the day he works on the upkeep of his house and slays sleeping vampires. At night he drinks whisky, tries not to remember his dead wife and daughter, and listens to the vampires outside howl for his blood. He also begins researching to isolate the cause of the sudden onset of vampires, and to figure out what makes them what they are. That in itself is fascinating, but the story gets even better. I will say no more so as not to give anything away, but I will tell you that it became almost impossible for me to tear myself away from the book.
This book meets the criteria for the Decades Challenge. It is supposed to take place in the 1970s, although it was written in 1954.
Keep It Short #8
2 hours ago