I will say this. If Hollywood had named the Independence Day movie "War of the Worlds" I would have boycotted it.
But it was "War of The Worlds". Crossed with "Earth vs.The Flying Saucers". You should have boycotted it because it was big budget recycled crap disguised and hyped as a "new movie" event. I'm happy there are critics out there who point these kinds of things out so some of us don't waste our money.;)

You'll be missing a good movie then. I thought he was great in Independence Day and MIB, though the rest of his work is pretty much worthless.
Didn't care for him in ID4 - neither liked nor disliked him, hated the oneliners he was given to read. Like his one-dimensional character (Nice-Guy American Everyman), he's just sorta...there.

OTOH, he gives top performances in Enemy of the State, MIB, and Six Degree of Seperation. I've heard he was good in Ali and Bager Vance as well, not movies I'm interested in. Even in fluff roles, he comes across as an amiable guy.

MY hesitation over I, R is not based on critics' reviews and not at all on CGI but on familiarity with at least some of the screenwriting of Akiva Goldsman. He has shown a propensity toward heavyhandedness and cliches (his one Oscarwinning screenplay, A Beautiful Mind, was an adaptation rather than an original work - which doesn't make the job easier, but he did have a template from which to form a stronger script than his usual), and his sci-fi/genre work has been just godawful. His humor, as well, usually is groanworthy (at least to me).

All the criticisms I've read of I,R from career critics to regular audiences like you guys have largely confirmed that Goldsman has turned in his usual work. Otherwise, I'd have seen it already for Alex Proyas' work. As it is, I can't work up the enthusiasm.

After a few tries, you come to know what to expect from a writer or director, and which ones to avoid.

I will concede that it may be a good sci fi movie when viewed independently of its title, but this movie is not the "I Robot" story that Asimov wrote, it is not even close. Its use of that name is intentionaly misleading. That is shameful.

Huzz
That was my point exactly regarding the "borrowing" of SciFi Novel titles. It leads one to believe the movie is an adaptation of a fine novel, not a bastardization of a title into something almost completely different than the original story. I think that Mr. Asimov (or is it Dr.) should be raising hell about this.

I think that Mr. Asimov (or is it Dr.) should be raising hell about this.
I'm sure that Asimov would be raising holy hell but, sadly, the good Dr. has gone the way of all flesh.

So it sounds like the 'standard summer Will Smith saves the world from non-humans movie'.

I'm sure that Asimov would be raising holy hell but, sadly, the good Dr. has gone the way of all flesh.
Dang, I didn't know he pasted away.

Around '92, I think.

I can't say too much more about the movie without ruining it.
However, I will say that it IS a thoughtfull exploration of the "three laws" that Asimov wrote. One in which the three laws eventually are exposed as crucial to the very plot and unexpected ending as well.

This may not be the "I, Robot" whose title Asimov sold the rights to years ago, but it's a good sci-fi movie.

I think some of you should just plunk down the matinee price of an early movie and actually see it before passing judgement.

I don't know who "Akiva Goldsman" is dreamer, but perhaps he's improved or put his name on a cleverly edited version of some hired underling, or maybe he's gotten better. This screenplay was pretty well written - however inexplicably the job got done.

Before we weep to many tears over these titles let's remember that these writers sold the rights to these works. They could have negotiated more control had they really wanted to.

All that aside, every single one of us who have actually seen the movie seem to like it. I think that should say something.

Dang, I didn't know he pasted away.
Yes, he liked to paste things in scrap books, so he pasted away all the time. :)

I haven't seen the movie yet but my friends who have say it's a pretty good action flick. I do plan to see it.

I think what most die hard scifi fans resent is the fact that hollywood is using everything it can think of .....including the taking of a title of a great book to support the movies they crank out because they don't have enough faith in their work to stand on it's own merit.

Had hollywood had chosen a different title, say something like AI:Murder or or something. Then the SciFi market may have received it more openly. I will say this. If Hollywood had named the Independence Day movie "War of the Worlds" I would have boycotted it.

I don't understand the Hollywood concept of doing a "remake", then chucking the original out the door and keeping the title.

The Manchurian Candidate will probably be a good movie, haven't seen it but Jonathan Demme certainly is no slouch, and it certainly has an impressive cast. I know enough from previews and fluff news pieces that since it's set during the Gulf war, it's extremely unlikely that the unfortunate patrol will be ambushed and taken to Manchuria.

Besides Manchurian, "Walking Tall" comes to mind, it had literally NOTHING in common with the Joe Don Baker original that was the first R-rated movie I ever saw.

It seems like it would be more honest to make your own different movie, and call it a homage or "inspired by". A cynical person might think it was just done to stir up more press by fans of the originals.

I know enough from previews and fluff news pieces that since it's set during the Gulf war, it's extremely unlikely that the unfortunate patrol will be ambushed and taken to Manchuria.

From the clips I've seen, they've done a bad-corporation-for-bad-commies switch, so their not taken to Manchuria, but to Manchurian Corporation.

Ok, I am new in this forum but here goes. Remember, as Gilligan once said, "Sticks and Stones may break my bones so please, don't throw sticks and stones."
My son (19) talked me into going to this on Friday. We were planning on Bourne Supremacy but figured it would be sold out (it was). Now, I have owned the Asimov book for probably 20 years but just never seemed to put it to the top of my to read pile so went in knowing the 3 laws and not much else.
Sat through the movie and I have to agree, glad I didn't read the first part of this thread before seeing the movie. I enjoyed it. Good story, good plot, surprising twists, good effects (my son, the PC guru, even said they were better than some of the others we have seen recently) and I didn't even buy any popcorn.
After the movie I picked up the book that has set gathering dust for so long and started to read. So far, I am enjoying the book. Do I care that it is different from the movie? Not really. Heck I loved Jurasic Park (both the book and the movie) even though they had very little in common with each other (besides the characters names and dinosaurs). My point is that if this movie can inspire me to finally read a classic, maybe it will generate some more new Asimov fans even if it is different.

And don't even get me started on critics. Usually, if a movie is panned, it is my kind of film (but that still won't get me to go to Catwoman). I just go to the shows that interest me. Some are good, some aren't but I go on my decision, not others.

My 2 cents...

If this movie were made as it is but with a different title, it would still need the "Suggested by the book by Issac Asimov" credit that appears at the end. There is enough of Asimov's stories there to make that a must.

Saw it Friday night with my brother. It was a bit too long, and came close to a misstep when it tried to get a little too philosophical toward the end, but I liked it well enough overall. Liked the look of the robots; they looked very much as I might imagine consumer-level, mass-produced robots might look if they became available in the next few decades. I liked the way some of the older models looked like animated crash-test dummies.

Were the robots all CGI? I was impressed that in the close-up shots of "Sonny," one can clearly see moving internal parts. I wondered if Sonny's voice was an intentional homage to HAL 9000.

Qapla'

SSB

If this movie were made as it is but with a different title, it would still need the "Suggested by the book by Issac Asimov" credit that appears at the end. There is enough of Asimov's stories there to make that a must.

Saw it Friday night with my brother. It was a bit too long, and came close to a misstep when it tried to get a little too philosophical toward the end, but I liked it well enough overall. Liked the look of the robots; they looked very much as I might imagine consumer-level, mass-produced robots might look if they became available in the next few decades. I liked the way some of the older models looked like animated crash-test dummies.

Were the robots all CGI? I was impressed that in the close-up shots of "Sonny," one can clearly see moving internal parts. I wondered if Sonny's voice was an intentional homage to HAL 9000.

Qapla'

SSB

I also like the fact that that was one of the first things shown during the credits, they were very upfront about it and didn't hide it after all the ego-bloated people had gotten their credit. That struck me as a quite responsible thing to do.

I was a bit concerned about that possible right turn into the metaphysical, but they never went there. In a way I expect that perhaps that tantalizing or concern might have even been used to subtley keep people thinking(or worrying about a left turn in the plot) and thereby keeping the ending a little more surprising.

So it seems pretty unanimous that this one's a good movie, at least by those of us who have seen it.

Anybody know how it did over the weekend?

Anybody know how it did over the weekend?
It came in second behind "The Bourne Supremecy" at No. 1 and ahead of "Catwoman" in the third spot.

It came in second behind "The Bourne Supremecy" at No. 1 and ahead of "Catwoman" in the third spot.

Bourne Supremecy is good company, but I'll take my own advice and not comment on Catwoman.

I will say though that one thing that may make me wait until it's on DVD is that I've heard it takes AN HOUR before Halle Berry slips into the catsuit for the first time.

An hour!!!

Reminds me of what I was thinking when watching the last version of Titantic for the first time - ie "when is this damn thing going to start sinking?!?"

I wondered if Sonny's voice was an intentional homage to HAL 9000.

Qapla'

SSB

Not sure about an homage to HAL, but the voice was Alan Tudyk, aka Wash on Firefly.

Ha, ha ha! Mine is an evil laugh!

Not sure about an homage to HAL, but the voice was Alan Tudyk, aka Wash on Firefly.
Didn't realize he was in Firefly (I missed the whole series, such as it was). I knew, of course, that it wasn't Douglas Rain's voice. But there was one scene where Sonny is talking to the woman who is preparing the nanites that will end his "life", and he is asking her what she thinks will happen to him once he dies -- both the dialogue and Sonny's voice reminded me strongly of when HAL (near the end of 2010) asks Dr. Chandra if he will dream.

Qapla'

SSB

I'm torn about seeing it. Had I but known that AKIVA the Butcher was involved. I still havent recovered from his Lost In Space disection. I do like some of Will Smith's appearances. Wild Wild West was my least favorite. Just couldn't see Will playing Jim West.

Maybe I'll see the dollar version in a couple of months.

I saw it, and thought it was pretty good. I thought it paid homage to asimovs work pretty well, and could have easily been another shorty story from the novel.

The effects were good, and Will Smith, did not play "Will Smith". If you're expecting a typical performance from him, you won't get it, I thought he did a decent job in the role.

Just read the movie got the approval of Asimovs estate, and his daughter Robyn (Robbie), thought her father would have enjoyed the piece.

Charlie

Just came back from it. Don't wait to save $3 over matinee prices, go see it ASAP!!

And while you're there... look closely at the coffee table in Smith's apartment... izzat a C-3PO model I see? I used to pose mine just like that... and the size looks right.

No interest in seeing this version at all after rereading Ellison's 1980 script for I ROBOT, which was faithful to Asimov AND very cinematic. However, the Will Smith film did inspire a funny little bit on engadget.com:

Isaac Hayes' Three Laws of Robotics
A robot must risk his neck for his brother man,
and may not cop out when there's danger all about.

A robot must be a sex machine to all the chicks,
except where such actions conflict with the will of his main woman.

A robot must at all times strive to be one bad motha-shutyomouth!