Just as I suspected, its a pile of crap.

http://www.canoe.ca/JamMoviesReviewsI/irobot-sun.html

Huzz

It might be a matter of splitting hairs instead of atoms, but the filmmakers behind I, Robot took care to mention that their movie was only "suggested by" famed author-scientist Isaac Asimov.

Director Alex Proyas and the boys knew that "inspired by" would be pretentious as well as false advertising. And "based on" would imply that Asimov's future-shock collection of short stories would somehow be given a cinematic equivalent here.

Actually, even "suggested by" is too strong. This movie is more like "vaguely associated with" because the filmmakers bought the title.

The truth is that Asimov, a Mensa member who died 12 years ago, probably would have been "appalled by" this cartoonish creation, which was a decade in development yet invokes only the most simplified elements of Asimov's written universe.

This is a step down even for Proyas. Unlike his earlier, more sophisticated sci-fi films -- Dark City and The Crow -- his version of I, Robot is just a lame-brain summer romp for 12-year-old boys.

The time frame is 2035. The setting is Chicago. The design elements are interesting enough, a logical blend of funky traditional and slick futuristic. Short of a nuclear holocaust, the future should embody the past in 21st-century cities.

The weakest link here is the look of the robots, especially when assembled like Nazi troops at the Nuremberg rallies. The oldest models seem to be Star Wars rejects or junk left over from Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines. The newest ones recall The Abyss aliens with bodies. The deliberate involving of Third Reich iconography is unoriginal and tired.

As for the story, Will Smith stars as a Chicago detective who dresses retro, especially in an old pair of sneakers. This is part of his radical psychology. Smith loathes and mistrusts robots, which have transformed mankind into a leisure class. Alone among the masses yet harbouring a bitter secret, he yearns for a low-tech world.

Meanwhile, his hi-tech nightmare is rapidly changing. A new super-robot is being introduced by U.S. Robotics, under its buttoned-down CEO (Bruce Greenwood). But the splatter-suicide of a genius robot engineer (James Cromwell, seen primarily in hologram-like scenes) puts the plan into question, the company into turmoil and our fearless detective into death-defying action.

Smith investigates the suicide, which he believes to be a murder perpetrated by a robot named Sonny (voiced by actor Alan Tudyk and created through digital special effects). The filmmakers are proud of him, bragging in the press kit: "Sonny is the most realistic, emotionally complete, three-dimensional CGI character ever created on film."

This is an absurd, even arrogant, claim -- for anyone who has seen Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy knows otherwise.

In any case, acting the oaf, Smith has to deal with Sonny and also hooks up with a robot psychologist (Bridget Moynahan), who spouts brainiac-like nonsense as if she was a robot, too.

With these obvious pieces in place, the Jeff Vintar/Akiva Goldsman script ploughs ahead in even more obvious fashion. Nothing is left to ambiguity or subtlety. Adult viewers might cringe when even basic story elements are explained, over and over again.

It helps not at all that most of the film's performances are so wooden. In the place of depth, Smith resorts to his trademark witty quips, most of which are not that funny in this movie. Moynahan is wretchedly mannered. Greenwood is standard issue as the villain/boss. Cromwell's task was hopeless. Only Tudyk, working on the physical aspects of the Sonny character, as Andy Serkis did with Gollum, brought something fresh to the equation.

But I, Robot is still just a box of popcorn, a summer time-waster, and not a real film worthy of its progenitor, Isaac Asimov.

I knew we were in trouble when I saw the first trailer with its armys of attacking robots. I recall Asimov's tale and the story of a single robot, on trial for murder, who ends up being a sympathetic character who redeems himself in the end. Poetic short story into mega-action summer blockbuster with wise-cracking lead star. Yeah, that's Hollywood.

If y'all can find it, see Leonard Nimoy's version of the story, as presented on the CBS' New Twilight Zone in the 80s. It was perfect. The robot was more convincing too.

Wait - Akiva Goldsman?! No WONDER it's crap! :lol:

Just as I suspected, its a pile of crap.

The truth is that Asimov, a Mensa member who died 12 years ago, probably would have been "appalled by" this cartoonish creation, which was a decade in development yet invokes only the most simplified elements of Asimov's written universe. ...his version of I, Robot is just a lame-brain summer romp for 12-year-old boys. ... In the place of depth, Smith resorts to his trademark witty quips, most of which are not that funny in this movie. Moynahan is wretchedly mannered. ...But I, Robot is still just a box of popcorn, a summer time-waster, and not a real film worthy of its progenitor, Isaac Asimov.Even the TV trailers betray all this. I'm not bothering with it - even on DVD. I've got too many other good movie to watch first.

and another thing, why call it "I, Robot" when it's not? Who except for science fiction fans will know the difference? and since it obviously isn't made for any that have a love of the book, the marketing value of the title is all but lost on teenage boys who will see this piece of poop. So why not call it "Will Smith’s Excellent Adventure Breakin’ CG Robot Heads"? Just as many idiots will come to see it and they can still say its loosely based on Asimov’s book. At least Ridley Scott had the good sense to call his movie "Blade Runner" when he veered away from the Philip K. Dick source material.

John O.

I've wondered what happened to the three laws of robotics ever since they started showing commercials of the attacking robots....

I 110% agree.

When I saw the initial promotional material for the movie at the local cineplex, it was one of those large cardboard cutouts of the I Robot logo with no info at all on the plot of the movie. I was actually thinking it was going to be a decent movie based closely on Asimov's books. After all, that's what they did with Lord of the Rings.

But no, this is pure Hollywood commercialism at its worst - take an existing name, slap it on some garbage movie, and use the name to attract hordes of unsuspecting dupes and separate them from their hard earned money. Well, not me!!

Huzz

I knew we were in trouble when I saw the first trailer with its armys of attacking robots. I recall Asimov's tale and the story of a single robot, on trial for murder, who ends up being a sympathetic character who redeems himself in the end. Poetic short story into mega-action summer blockbuster with wise-cracking lead star. Yeah, that's Hollywood.

If y'all can find it, see Leonard Nimoy's version of the story, as presented on the CBS' New Twilight Zone in the 80s. It was perfect. The robot was more convincing too.

Actually, it was Outer Limits, both in the 60's and the 90's. In the 60's version, Nimoy played a news reporter. In the 90's version, he was the robot's defense lawyer.

That would be Outer Limits Season 2:

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&dept=0&WLBS=fsweb5&sku_id=0665000FSM2042575&catid=&newdeptid=13

Huzz

Just one question:

Can somebody explain to me why CGI seems to getting continually worse?

CGI wasn't half-bad in JURASSIC PARK. But it's actually getting LESS convincing each year. Based on the trailers, I, ROBOT looks to have been done by the same guys who did the first season of REBOOT.

Just one question:

Can somebody explain to me why CGI seems to getting continually worse?

CGI wasn't half-bad in JURASSIC PARK. But it's actually getting LESS convincing each year. Based on the trailers, I, ROBOT looks to have been done by the same guys who did the first season of REBOOT.
Have you seen the trailers for "Catwoman" yet? It reminds me of those old "follow the bouncing ball" sing-a-longs with Mitch Miller. I think there's just so much GD CGI being produced these days that a good portion of it is necessarily being farmed out to the 4th stringers. And it ain't purty.

I wouldn't mind if the quality of the CGI were not perfect as long as the plot, characters and acting of the movie were worthwhile. But in I Robot, there are no redeeming points at all.

Huzz

Brent , i agree !! only reboot ( for the time it came out ) was better .
hb

Hey, hb! You comin' to the next club meeting? It's going to be the quarterly contest. 2nd Saturday of the month. :)

- - - - - -

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards (http://members.aol.com/Griffworks/shipyards.html)

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing (http://q.webring.com/hub?ring=startrekscalemod)

for those interested but not familiar with Asimov's work, here's a good site (http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html).


The 1940 Laws of Robotics
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

cool huh?

Actually, it was Outer Limits, both in the 60's and the 90's. In the 60's version, Nimoy played a news reporter. In the 90's version, he was the robot's defense lawyer.

And I'd also like to point out that it was not based on Asimov's I, ROBOT, but by a short story of the same name by Eando (Earl and Otto) Binder.

Just one question:

Can somebody explain to me why CGI seems to getting continually worse?

CGI wasn't half-bad in JURASSIC PARK. But it's actually getting LESS convincing each year. Based on the trailers, I, ROBOT looks to have been done by the same guys who did the first season of REBOOT.

One thing that impressed me with "Firefly" was that the CGI ships and effects seemed to have weight and heft that was realistic, as opposed to the first "Spiderman" where spidey just didn't look real swinging on a thread,therewas something totally artificial about it.

Don't know if the difference come from technology or artistry.....

Well at least they spelled the title right. Or did they? From the commercials, the emphasis seems to be on will smith, so the movie should be called You, Robot.

You, robot, get your butt over here, and smash up some stuff so I can chase you, and all.

It looks like another summer of the cgi turkeys. Producers cannot yet believe that computers can make bad movies.

I have no interest either. It appears to be nothing akin to Asimov's story except the title.

The Outer Limits treatment was always one of my favorite episodes as a kid. Sure, the main character is a bit dated, but the story captured the essence of the source material.

As far as CGI goes, it amazes me that there is such a difference in quality. I understand that you get what you pay for. Still, the effects in I,Robot look really awful and I'm sure they had plenty to spend. I thought the CGI in Spiderman II was nearly flawless.

Just one question:

Can somebody explain to me why CGI seems to getting continually worse?

CGI wasn't half-bad in JURASSIC PARK. But it's actually getting LESS convincing each year. Based on the trailers, I, ROBOT looks to have been done by the same guys who did the first season of REBOOT.

I think the problem is in the approach. Remember, when JURASSIC PARK went into production, they weren't planning on using CGI. At that point, no one had even been able to product a realistic spaceship with computer graphics. They used CGI because they wanted realistic dinosaurs and CGI turned out to be one of the best ways of achieving it.

Now, since CGI has been established as a means of producing realistic images, film makers automatically use it and assume it will look good, no matter what.

I remember reading about the effects for THE RIGHT STUFF. The effects team started producing the X-1 footage using the current state of the art, shooting a model with a motion control camera against blue screen and matting it into cloud footage. But they looked at the early footage and said, "this doesn't look like any airplane footage I've seen." So they went outside, created clouds with a smoke machine, slid the model down some guide wires and shot it with a hand-held camera.

.
I remember reading about the effect for THE RIGHT STUFF. The effects team started producing the X-1 footage using the current state of the art, shooting a model with a motion control camera against blue screen and matting it into cloud footage. But they looked at the early footage and said, "this doesn't look like any airplane footage I've seen." So they went outside, created clouds with a smoke machine, slid the model down some guide wires and shot it with a hand-held camera.
And it looks great. Sometimes, the old ways are better.

CGI is just one of many tools that the visual effects guys have at their disposal. Its the newest one on the block days and people are making the mistake of assuming that because its newest, its the best in every application. And that is simply not true.

Its about using the best tool for the job, not the newest one.

I remember reading about the effects for THE RIGHT STUFF. The effects team started producing the X-1 footage using the current state of the art, shooting a model with a motion control camera against blue screen and matting it into cloud footage. But they looked at the early footage and said, "this doesn't look like any airplane footage I've seen." So they went outside, created clouds with a smoke machine, slid the model down some guide wires and shot it with a hand-held camera.
The Lydecker Method. Goes all the way back to the beginning of filmmaking. Also used in the Superman and Commando Cody serials in the 40s.

I'm debating seeing I, Robot today...GREAT popcorn, and I may possible see a longer Alien vs Predator trailer. Otherwise, it appears to be a 'Fresh Prince of BelAir turned cop fighting Robots.' Writers need to stop having Wil Smith perform the same behavioral attitude in each movie, regardless of his 'acting' skills.
..Hell... I need an escape - I'll go.

...effects seemed to have weight and heft that was realistic, as opposed to the first "Spiderman" where spidey just didn't look real swinging on a thread,therewas something totally artificial about it.


And Roger Ebert said exactly the same thing.

To my eye, that still remains the great failing of CGI.

I have NEVER once seen a CGI creature that could JUMP realistically. Even when the characters are well rendered (such as in Jurassic Park), their absolute inability to jump in a way that is even slightly believable turns me right off. The last remake of THE TIME MACHINE was just hideous for this (among other) reason.

Spiderman looked like he was swinging on that web with a rocket strapped to his butt. Everytine a CGI creation jumps, it suddenly becomes weightless.

Somebody should get all of these CGI gurus, lock them in a room, and make them watch every episode of WILD KINGDOM before they are allowed to animate with CGI.

I think the problem with special effects in general and CGI in particular is that you can never get it 100% right. No matter how careful and thorough you are, there is going to be some missing light interaction, or a pattern of movement that doesn't translate to a mathematical formula. It is always best to get as close as you can to the final effect in front of the camera.

On the GANGS OF NEW YORK DVD, Martin Scorcese tells about when George Lucas visited him during the shooting of the movie. He showed him around the giant, elaborate sets he had built. Lucas looked them over and said, "You know, we can do this in the computer now."

No you can't. Look at the new STAR WARS movies. You can easily tell what was shot in a studio and what was shot on location (or at least on an exterior set), no matter how much digital manipulation they used on either.

No you can't. Look at the new STAR WARS movies. You can easily tell what was shot in a studio and what was shot on location (or at least on an exterior set), no matter how much digital manipulation they used on either.And you can easily tell that the director was so hung up on the special effects that he lost sight of the story. I didn't really have a problem with the CGI in "Spider-Man 2". Yes, it's obviously CGI, but I thought it was much more well integrated with live-action than during the first film. And I'll stand by my "sometimes the old ways are better" in relation to the first "Spider-Man". The entire sequence of Peter Parker pursuing his Uncle's murderer could have been done "live", with a combination of sets, blue screen, and stunt doubles - and that sequence would have been much more exciting and emotionally engaing as a result. As it stands, it is extremely cartoonish and pulls the viewer out of one of the most important parts of the story. I can't imagine that the CGI used in that sequence was cheaper to accomplish - it was just easier. CGI should only be used when there is no reasonable alternative to accomplish the effect in a realistic way. I think the LOTR movies are a perfect example of CGI being integrated almost perfectly in every scene - but only when those CGI effects are needed - there's plenty of model work and old fashioned in-camera effects that work just fine and don't take the viewer out of a great story.

Somebody should get all of these CGI gurus, lock them in a room, and make them watch every episode of WILD KINGDOM before they are allowed to animate with CGI.

I believe that's exactly why the dino's in BBC's Walking with Dinosaurs looked great and the stories were so good. I'm talking strictly the first BBC 2 DVD set, I thought the later editions on the Allosaur and Tyranosaur were not as well done.

Was CGI used for Lord of the Rings? Everything looked pretty real to me.

The script for "I Robot" dates back to 1995 when it was called "Hardwired". When the first director dropped out the current one started calling I Robot. As the studio owned the rights to the Asimov story they justed grafted certain names and terms into the script for the name recognition.

It is thought that the name "Hardwired" was originally changed because of the suit between Wired magazine and Walter Jon Williams, where they tried to take the name "Hardwired" away from him. When the magazine got bought out the new owners looked at the suit and basically said: What the hell were they thinking, and dropped the suit.


David.

The script for "I Robot" dates back to 1995 when it was called "Hardwired". When the first director dropped out the current one started calling I Robot. As the studio owned the rights to the Asimov story they justed grafted certain names and terms into the script for the name recognition.

It is thought that the name "Hardwired" was originally changed because of the suit between Wired magazine and Walter Jon Williams, where they tried to take the name "Hardwired" away from him. When the magazine got bought out the new owners looked at the suit and basically said: What the hell were they thinking, and dropped the suit.


David.

Wasn't there a cheap eighties voyeur robot sci-fi film called Hardwired? Iggy Pop was in it. Any relation between the scripts?

Doh!, never mind, I checked the IMDB, I'm thinking Hardware. Odd, I remembered Iggy but not Dylan McDermott.

Was CGI used for Lord of the Rings? Everything looked pretty real to me.
jackson's team went about it right and used what was going to get the job done. it was a real mixture of good ol' fashioned models, matte paintings and composite work with *really8 good CGI. Of course, there seemed to be *real* animators doing a lot of work that relied on good animation skills. It's the artistry, not the technology.

Check out the extras on the LoTR disks, or find a copy of Cinefex mag about it. Weta workshop built some of the biggest, most insanely detailed models you'll ever see for the various cities and locations. Can't say what scale they used, but some of the city pieces needed the height of the warehouse ceiling! Saruman's tower was so big and so detailed (I think it was 1/2" scale), they used it for extreme closeups and it still looked real.

I agree with Zorro and Eric K. Having seen the 'making of" several spfx movies, (of course this makes me an expert :rolleyes: ) it appears to me that those directors/producers that use combination or blend of live actors with "green screens", models, animatronics, paintings and CGI make for the best and realistic spfx. Those movies that rely too much on any one of these often has a weak spfx.

I liked the extras on the first LOTR discs where they refered to the miniatures as "Bigatures" they were so huge.

Saw these on slate, interesting:

Isaac Asimov How I, Robot gets the science-fiction grandmaster wrong. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2103979/)


RoboFlop The mechanical heart of I, Robot.
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2103939/)

Too bad; I really like Will Smith. He just seems like he would be a cool guy to hang out with and shoot the breeze.

Qapla'

SSB

I think I'll pass on this one.

Too bad; I really like Will Smith. He just seems like he would be a cool guy to hang out with and shoot the breeze.

Qapla'

SSB
Agreed. And a fine actor given good material.
Doesn't seem to be a lot of good material these days.

Third the motion.



Was Proyas hired on with no approval over script? I can't picture him voluntarily choosing a script by Goldsman. This looks like the studio's project more than Proyas'. The Crow and Dark City had smarter wrting.

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. :)

I never read the original source book/story - so maybe that's why it didn't bother me. If you haven't already seen it - I think it's worth your time to check it out.
BTW- those SoCal fires you've been seeing on TV are a mile or so away. We went to the theater to get away from all the ash and smoke.

Well, it made 52 million... so it must be good.

The ads say ...'a robot commits a murder'. If it is a murder, then it must be human. A bear couldn't commit a murder, or a car. Only humans can commit murder.

A point raised in the film...

[QUOTE=terryr]Well, it made 52 million... so it must be good.

Van Helsing made about that much during it's first weekend too. Let's see what it does the second weekend. That's usually how I judge a movie to see. Not the critics, not the PR hype but what happens by movie goers word of mouth.

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. :)

I never read the original source book/story - so maybe that's why it didn't bother me. If you haven't already seen it - I think it's worth your time to check it out.

I just saw it earlier tonight and have to say the same.

Glad I never checked out this thread before seeing it!

I too have never read the original book/story but I thought it was well thought out. I never noticed any Nazi iconography or any such thing that professional critics who spend WAY to much time watching movies griped about.

I did think a one "robot despensing craft" looked like a rip-off of a Star Wars robot carrier, but heck- who is to say that a future hardware designer might not rip off the design from Sci-fi?

I thought that Three Laws were handled well and the rationale' for how they actually caused what seemed to be a contradiction in the way some robots acted, was well thought out and not telegraphed beforehand.

The assumed reasons for the robotic homocides were not what one would expect to be the real reason.

I don't know if the ending is anything like the original, doubt it if the original centered around a trial.

But it was pretty enjoyable, fast-paced, and not predictable(assuming the book ending was different and one hadn't read about it or the movie before seeing it).

Three very rare attributes to movies these days.

I didn't see any major gaffs in the CGI. Some of the movements looked mechanical, but heck - THEY'RE ROBOTS! No big surprise there!

I will say that the blending of the past and future decor/architechture was great, as someone said earlier in the thread - though I will have to say it would have been way more believable had they set it in the year 2135 instead of 2035.

That's about the only serious criticism I can think of for the movie, other then to say that they were a little heavy-handed with the "black guy whose prejudiced irony" theme in the movie, as if there aren't a percentage of people of every race, creed and color who aren't.

I didn't see it as all that ironic and didn't think they had to hit the audience over the head with it the way they did in a couple of scenes.

But that was a couple of scenes for a total of about 30 seconds of the entire movie, and a slightly unbelievable background date.

The other 99.9999999% of the movie was great, unpredictable, exciting and there were no plot twists in which someone had to act like a moron for the movie to move along the plot line!

Rare traits indeed!

Brent , i agree !! only reboot ( for the time it came out ) was better .
hb
I am a huge Reboot fan and the first season was purely a kid oriented cgi toon.
Have you guys watched the whole series? Season 3 and the much too short and lamented (final) season was absolutely great!

I will not see I-Robot if only for the fact I am no fan of Will Smith.

I would rather watch Reboot! MegaByte (Tony Jay) can outact Will Smith any day!!!


Cheers,
Max Bryant

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.

Again, they tried to create Irony in a couple of scenes where there really was none, unless you buy the politically correct crap that black people are prejudice-free. But that was 30 seconds worth of off-handed comments in the entire movie.

Other then that he did a great job, and the effects and screenplay were great. It was an exciting, action-packed movie, and you had little time to think about the nitpicking stuff I've read from a few of the critics.

One thing I like to do is avoid seeing any reviews of movies before seeing, then read them afterwards.

Critics are a pretty jaded lot. They spend tons of time doing their job and often go into the theater with an attitude of "Okay, impress me!"

Most of the rest of us go to movies for pleasure and escapism. We go to the movies and drop our $7.50 WANTING to enjoy ourselves. Not necessarily comparing every detail to every movie that the one we are watching ISN'T.

We aren't going there to try and imagine what it's lacking.
We go to the movies to have fun.

Just as there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of great flavors of ice cream. Each great flavor can only be one great flavor. You can't have every great flavor in a single scoop. If you did it would be a nasty hodge-podge.

Most critics just don't get that and have a chip on their shoulders. They criticize movies on the scores of things it isn't, rather then just judging it for what it is.

There are exceptions, even the most burnt-out critics sometimes have fair reviews. But I always take the criticisms of people who do that job for a living with a grain of salt. Sometimes after having seen a movie that I later saw panned I read the criticisms and have to wonder if they even actually saw the movie!

I saw it and LOVED it!! It had a great story behind it! Why does everyone complain about the CG when it's the STORY that matters! I think it was a good heartfelt story.

^^^Having gone back and caught up on the thread, it seems that the few people who have actually seen the movie like it.

I think once a few people get the chance to get out and see it they may have a different opinion.

There are few critics who can really be trusted to give movies a fair chance, the best of them will even admit themselves that their since they do this for a living and paid to be critical their views are often tainted.

I didn't think the CG were that bad either. The only criticisms I've read are that they are un-natural and eerie.

But they are SUPPOSED to be un-natural! They are robots!
Adds to the skin-crawl factor.

As un-natural robots I felt the CGI was pretty believable.

The only artistic criticism I have to the way they blended the old and new was that the movie should have been set a century later for the newer technology to be believable. The idea that some of those infrastructure modernizations could have occured in 3 decades just wasn't credible.

But that's a minor quirk. The movie's interesting enough to make you forget about that in a couple of moments after the thought occurs here and there.

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 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