SF Signal: I, Robot Reviews

I, Robot Reviews

Looks like I, Robot is getting some favorable reviews. I suspect if Asimov fans go in thinking of this as a robot rebellion movie, as opposed to a direct adaptation of Asimov's short stories, they will like what they see. Maybe then the Asimov references (the 3 Laws, Susan Calvin) will seem more like an homage or an in-joke rather than a poor ripoff.

The problem being a robot rebellion movie isn't Asimov, and shouln't be called I, Robot. This movie looks like Will Smith playing Will Smith, only this time with robots. NetFlix flick.

Posted by jp on Friday July 16, 2004 at 2:54 PM

All Wil Smith movies are basically Fresh Prince in <insert your situation here>... To say that he lacked depth would be a disservice to all the one-trick ponies out there, like Jim Carrey...

Posted by Pete on Friday July 16, 2004 at 4:52 PM

Okay Pete - I am going to disagree here about Will Smith - if you saw the Legend of Bagger Vance or one of his other roles - he plays other characters beyond the fresh prince. I also think that calling him or Jim Carrey a one-trick pony is wrong. I won't disagree that the picture is capitolizing on the name to gain market share and maybe the film should have been named as something else. Either way its an action picture - and it summer - no big surprise. I will wait for video as well but that has more to do with the fact nobody else would go with me and I hate to feel like a total loozer to go to a movie alone.

Posted by Tim on Friday July 16, 2004 at 9:35 PM

Locus isn't too impressed:

http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Reviews/07_Westfahl_IRobot.html

Posted by Fred Kiesche on Sunday July 18, 2004 at 7:20 PM

I don't think that either Jim Carrey or Will Smith are going to go down in the annals of history as the greatest actors of their generations. They are what they are - moderate actors who were in the right place at the right time. They get roles that chimps could likely succeed at most the time. Sometimes they actually have to work at it - and they both do pretty well (see The Truman Show, and the aforementioned The Legend of Bagger Vance.) They've both done really terrible films (Pet Detective and Wild Wild West - but then they should have known a movie produced by a former hairdresser wouldn't work out.)

In my opinion, they are both near the bottom of the barrel when compared to other actors that command $10 million + for a movie. But then again, they're no John Reynolds, are they.

Posted by Scott on Monday July 19, 2004 at 12:19 AM

Pet Detective and WWW didnt have polar bears, are you sure they're made by that hairdresser? But then, maybe this one will

Posted by Peter on Monday July 19, 2004 at 8:48 AM

And here I thought Scott was going to mention the triple threat of Hal Warren, 'writer', 'director', and 'actor'. But no, he had to go and pick on poor old Torgo. For shame.

Posted by jp on Monday July 19, 2004 at 8:55 AM

I just saw the movie, and as an Isaac Asimov fanatic, I was appalled. Appalled at how they ruined the whole film, while briefly touching apon a few other books - namely, Foundation's Edge(and/or Foundation And Earth) and a movie of which I cannot recall the name of.

The film itself was good, but it ruins Isaac Asimov's general theme. Logic.

I also hate how they shortened USRMM's(United States Robotics And Mechanical Men) name to USR.

Naturally, anyone who talks to me about this film and says I should watch it usually gets a 30 minute speech.

There is no indication it could've been written by Isaac Asimov except for a short small line that flashes up in the credits. Does anyone agree with me on this?

Posted by Duncan Erasmus on Saturday July 31, 2004 at 4:44 AM

I haven't seen it, probably a NetFlix rental, but I knew from reports that the Asimov stuff was just grafted on to an existing screenplay and Asimov's name being used to pump-up the hype. Sigh.

Posted by jp on Saturday July 31, 2004 at 9:48 AM