Yes, this film is dated. However, I respectfully submit that Mr & Mrs Corrington (with input from Seltzer, Sagal & Heston) knew that most visions of the far future are going to appear deficient with the passage of time. See "Soylent Green." Accordingly, they set the film in roughly the same time period that Matheson used in "I Am Legend." In the novel, the story covered the period of 1975 to 1979.<br /><br />In this way, the 1971 film is best viewed as a kind of alternative reality for the way American culture was evolving in the turbulent late '60s/early '70s. When so viewed, the film is not only clever, but is really inspired. *** SPOILER ALERT****<br /><br />Matheson's concept was to try to use science fiction to give some credibility to the vampire legend. That had been tried, to a point, in "House of Dracula," when the scientist isolated a microorganism that had "infected" Dracula. Matheson went further and in so doing over-extended the premise. The novel is very poignant in parts. However, its primary problem is that tried to create a kind of moral equivalency between Neville and the vampires. That weakened the strength of the narrative. In the novel Neville drank canned tomato juice, like the vampires drank blood? Parts were just silly: vampire women disrobed to lure Neville outside after dark; the head vampire resembled Oliver Hardy. By the end, Matheson was apparently trying to persuade the reader that the vampires were just an "alternate" form of life, infected with "vampirus," that was just trying to survive and deserved pity. For, in different circumstances, "normal" is relative and Neville became the fearsome legend for the "new breed" of humanity, i.e., he became the new "Dracula." <br /><br />Not so for the 1971 concept; no "relativism" here. The world war to which Matheson only alluded was made explicit. Neville became a high-level military scientist (who better to have access to a potential vaccine?), not Matheson's layman who was trying to teach himself about microbiology.<br /><br />The victims of the virus became vicious, homicidal, collectivistic, anti-technologists, beyond reason and compromise. Colonel Robert Neville, US Army Medical Corps, became the object of their fury. His antagonist: Jonathan Matthias, TV newsman/pundit, adept at influencing an audience. Media Monster. He is the fallen one, who creates the Mansonesque "Family," rejecting all traditional American values. It is the counter-culture. <br /><br />Colonel Neville, by contrast, is the establishment. Hard-drinking, exceedingly well-armed (thank you, NRA!) and not averse to zapping the zombies. However, he is compassionate and enlightened. He falls for an Afro-American woman (the late Rosalind Cash) and tries to help her (Heston also marched for civil rights in the early '60s with Rev. King).<br /><br />By the end, we realize that He is the savior. If we partake of His blood, we will be saved. Christians call that the Eucharist. Ultimately, he sacrifices Himself for the good of humanity, so that the normal world, America, will be re-born. The little girl survivor senses it, He is God, or at least a man chosen to be God's agent on Earth. He is, of course, also a soldier, one who is willing to lay down his life so that others might live. No relativism here.<br /><br />Very nice fusion of ideas, Mr & Mrs Corrington. You took Matheson's basic story and made it much better. Neville became the legend he deserved to become. The Ultimate Hero.