I Robot

Saw I Robot today and this is a fun summer movie. Very well done with just the right notes struck by star Will Smith.

One thing I couldn't shake while watching this movie was actress Bridgit Moynihan seemed to be channeling Sandra Bullock. I kept imagining Sandra in this role....thats how similar the acting styles were.

Also apparently Shia LeBouf's role in this film playing a street-wise teenager (he's seen in an opening scene with Smith and then pops up all of a sudden later when the Robots cause trouble on the street) was drastically cut. His character made no sense.

But overall the film is very well done. A nice treat on a hot day in NY.

 

I saw it last night and recommend it if you like action movies.
Interesting comment about Sandra - I tend to agree.
I think it takes place in 2023 so it is only 19 years from now
Great movie - I could even see it again.....
Tomorrow Bourne again opens-

 

Saw it tonight and - not surprised, but disappointed. The same, tired action-shtick formula applied to an Asimov classic. The inclusion of the Fresh Prince guarantees lots of mugging to the camera, gratuitous "playa" dialogue, and just drop-dead, plain-awful acting. No real relation to the original story and its thought-provoking themes...just more car crashes, some semi-interesting Silicon Graphics sequences and that's about it...

Take the same, stupid, tired character this guy "creates" for every film he does and do it again...nice work (and very easy money) when you can get it...

Okay, okay - "Ali" wasn't too bad....

JMHO,

Ben

 

I agree with you about Will Smith. He's not exactly one of my favorite actors. He's like one-dimensional, and like he's always "on".

Be that as it may, I will see this movie. But, perhaps, I should read the book first?

 

'I Robot' was one of my first SF book loves. I was hoping they would make a movie of it one day. From what I have heard, they still haven't.

Looks like they should have included the disclaimer tag line:

"Any similarities to the SF Novel 'I Robot' are entirely coincidental....blah......blah...."

Looks like they'll screw up anything to make a quick buck.

 

Most of the reviews I've read for the movie say, "Based loosely on the Isaac Asimov collection of short stories...."

 

I always want to have the authors original vision in my mind before I see a movie so I always read the book first.

 

Have the robots of I, Robot violated the little-known fourth law of robotics: A robot shall not look like Bjrk--unless it's in a music video?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=794&ncid=790&e=10&u=/eo/20040716/en_movies_eo/14531

Check the link out.....and no credit given to Chris Cunningham by the producers of I Robot.

 

2035 IIRC.

I saw it, and can't add much to what was said in the New York Times review: overall disappointing. Enjoyable in some parts, but really just more robots pasted onto a run-of-the-mill detective-story-of-the-future. It seemed as if Alex Proyas phoned in the direction, or perhaps got lost in the problem of trying yet again to make excess CGI look not-so-fake. The "predjudice" aspect felt forced and awkward. As to the actress, what bugged me was that she always seemed about to cry, even when it wasn't called for. I'd say her acting range ran from tearing up to full-on weeping.

John K.

 

It is what I refer to as a good popcorn movie. An enjoyable way to spend a few hours in an air-conditioned theater and put your mind on cruise control and not have to think too much. IMHO it was an enjoyable film, not great art and it didn't have what I call the watch moment. When you check your watch and realize you are only half way thru the film.

 

I'd watch it, but the fact that they used Asimov's novel as their title (yeah, I know he did just the same, but then again, he was Asimov!) and then deviated 100% from the original plot line makes me wonder...

Nah, I won't watch it. I hate Will Smith anyway.

 

And I think he was very successful. These are the best CGI robots ever. Far better than any of the CGI critters in the last two Star Wars flicks IMO. By far the most impressive thing about the movie. However, if you go into this movie with low expectations, it is a lot of fun.
No, this is not a serious film based on a novel. THIS IS A SUMMER POPCORN MOVIE. I had fun and will definitely own the dvd when it comes out.

 

I've always wanted to see a movie based on this novel. By bringing out this joke what chances are there of any serious movie based on this title coming out anytime soon?? They have just destroyed another good book for the sake of grabbing a few quick bucks. It's pathetic as well as being fraudulent to a degree!!

 

I wouldn't. The film doesn't follow the book at all from what I've seen. I hate when the make a movie "adaptation" of a book that bears no resemblence to the book it's based on. It's just to get the Asimov fans to see it. I wish they would have named the movie something else.

Sean

 

The movie probably has more in common with the Alan Parsons LP "I Robot" then it does to the Asimov book.

Sean

 

When I walked out of the theatre after seeing Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings I predicted that many sci-fi/fantasy books that previously were considered unadaptable to the big screen would in fact be in the cineplex within 5 years. I specifically remember mentioning Asimov's Foundation series. Well, I was darned close.

 

The CGI robots were very good. "Sonny" the main robot...had very human-like expressions and movement.

Going into this movie I knew it had nothing to do with the book and I watched it just as a Summer Popcorn movie. In that regard it works.

Hard-core Asimov fans will be disappointed.

 

I kinda figured it would be like this just from the previews I've seen. Maybe the only thing they left intact were the Law of Robotics.
But help me recall...wasn't there a Twilight Zone episode based on the original I, Robot. Was Leonard Nimoy the cop in this, or am I slipping into an alternate Universe again?
But I have to ask other SF/Asimov fans this...Have you ever seen the film version of Asimov's first story "Nightfall."
I saw this at a video store in New York a long time ago, and snatched it up quickly because I the story. It's one of my favourites. Even if David Birney was in it. As it turned out: IT IS THE WORST SF FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. And that's saying a lot. In fact, I'd say it's the worst movie I ever seen. ANYONE ELSE SEE IT? AGREE?

 

It actually doesn't, either... Eric Woolfson himself said he took significant liberties from Asimov's original work.

 

They should have. One of my friends (who keeps up on this kind of stuff) told me that the movie studio had a script about robots gone bad laying around, and they used that instead of paying someone to adapt the novel when they purchased the movie rights to I, Robot. I'll wait for the DVD to see this one.

 

I was being sarcastic when I said that. Still, the album follows the intent of the book much better then the film seems to.

Sean

 

My wife and I saw it... or saw the first half of it anyway. We had to turn it off it was so bad...

We also saw the robot movie with Robin Williams: Was it called the Bicentenial Man or something like that (originally the Positronic Man) and weren't thrilled with it.

I'm a HUGE Isaac Asimov fan and have been nothing less than disappointed by the film adaptations of his work so far...

There's SOOOO much material available for use from IA that surely SOMEONE must be able to do something worthy with it in film form...

 

Asimov books (let alone sci-fi novels in general) are very hard to adapt for the big screen. For those of you so easily "disappointed" in movie adaptations - they are different media, after all, with different dramatic and narrative requirements - I suggest you stay away from them lest you constantly be disappointed... .

 

Not neccessarily...

ENEMY MINE was first a short story, then a wonderful film; things were added, changed, but overall the heart of the story remained intact and the end result was great. So much so, the story was copied just about verbatim on ST Enterprise just last year.

THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN was a great movie. Chriten's JURASIC PARK was also made into a great film. And two fairly decent sequels.

BLADE RUNNER...is a classic. So was MINORITY REPORT.

TO SERVE MAN, originally a classic short story, made an outstanding and forever famous episode on Twilight Zone! ("It's a cookbook!") as did several others.

SOMEWHERE IN TIME (based on a novel written by Finney (the Body Snatchers' guy---and oh, yeah---THE BODY SNATCHERS (original>>not the 80s remake) was even better than the original serialized story.

Even before that, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, THE TIME MACHINE, and other H.G. Wells classics made decent films even in the archaic days before CGI and digital computer effects... the point is, it all depends on the story, but more importantly, the integrity of the studio making the film and of course the director. Steven Speilberg obviously did a special tribute to the genre and its author. So if a great story's integrity remains in tact, regardless of cinematic changes, it can be a great film...oh, yeah, AC Clark's A SPACE ODDYSSEY...that went over fairly well, didn't it?