"I, Robot" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Kolbar]

One man saw it coming.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/931237.jpg
"Somehow 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it." - Detective Del SpoonerRelease Date: July 16, 2004
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Director: Alex Proyas
Starring:Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Bruce Greenwood, James Cromwell, Chi McBride, Alan Tudyk

Plot Summary: Will Smith stars in this action thriller inspired by the classic short story collection by Isaac Asimov, and brought to the big screen by dynamic and visionary director Alex Proyas ("Dark City," "The Crow"). In the year 2035, robots are an everyday household item, and everyone trusts them, except one, slightly paranoid detective (Smith) investigating what he alone believes is a crime perpetrated by a robot. The case leads him to discover a far more frightening threat to the human race. "I, Robot" uses a spectacular, state-of-the-art visual effects technique to bring a world of robots to life.[/left]

Visit the official movie site here (http://www.irobotmovie.com/).

Buy the movie! (http://www.amazon.com/Robot-Two-Disc-Collectors-Will-Smith/dp/B0007PALSE/ref=toonzone03/)

Comments?

[Jimmy Kustes]

I put together the photos on the Courier-Journal's review. Take a look. (http://www.louisvillescene.com/2004/07/16/movie_irobot.html)

[Mek]

Since the director had a hand in making one of my all-time fav. movies (Dark City), I am obligated to see this. :D

[Shaggy&Daphne]

I hate having to be negative about every new movie on every thread that discusses them, but when are these film makers ever going to realize that CGI special effects don't look real. I mean they always have that glossy look to them and the appearence and movement of it looks like that of a video game. That's one of the main problems that I had with Spiderman, as well as many other recent movies of the past few years. This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants. All the dazzling visual effects are used as a distraction to cover up for thin plots and lack of story telling, not to mention all the lapses in logic that films these days contain.

[Elf]

I'm gonna see this tomorrow, I haven't been too keen on reviewing movies mostly because i'm lazy. But hopefully i'll review this one.

[matta2fatta]

so whats up with the batman trailer

[NicK']

I hate having to be negative about every new movie on every thread that discusses them, but when are these film makers ever going to realize that CGI special effects don't look real. I mean they always have that glossy look to them and the appearence and movement of it looks like that of a video game. That's one of the main problems that I had with Spiderman, as well as many other recent movies of the past few years. This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants. All the dazzling visual effects are used as a distraction to cover up for thin plots and lack of story telling, not to mention all the lapses in logic that films these days contain.
Meh, I thought that the CGI in Spiderman was pretty good, but this isn't the place to discuss this.

If you're saying that I,Robot has a bad storyline, then I have to disagree. It seems to me, that this movie actually has an interesting plot, that isn't the typical "someone close to them died and they want revenge" storyline that you've seen in quite a few movies over the past couple of years.

[Katrover]

Agreed. While the movie's plot is nothing like the book and nothing like what the trailers hint (Deceptive trailers, aren't they?), it is an intriguing plot in itself. Its biggest plot twist makes the movie worthy of its title.

I also like Susan Calvin's portrayal; it's pretty close to the book.

[TimTwoFace]

so whats up with the batman trailer
I was partly curious to see this movie - I like Will Smith and this movie looked better than the usual action flick - but the big bonus was the Batman Begins trailer. Apparently it didn't show up, and now I'm so mad at the hoax that I don't wanna see this movie - well, I'm not gonna go out of my way to see it, anyway.

Argh. :p

-Tim

[Nick K.]

First off, curse everyone for saying a Batman trailer would be attached. I was crushed when I didn't see it and now I'll go see Catwoman because it's a Comic movie and see the trailer hopefully.

That being said, this movie rocked. I really liked it. It felt like a long timke since I'd seen a action movie like this. And Will Smith is awesome. I liked Sonny a lot, too. Anyways, I give it ****.

[creeper]

I hate having to be negative about every new movie on every thread that discusses them, but when are these film makers ever going to realize that CGI special effects don't look real. I mean they always have that glossy look to them and the appearence and movement of it looks like that of a video game. That's one of the main problems that I had with Spiderman, as well as many other recent movies of the past few years. This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants. All the dazzling visual effects are used as a distraction to cover up for thin plots and lack of story telling, not to mention all the lapses in logic that films these days contain.
Have you ever heard of suspension of disbelief? You know if you watch just about any movie from back in the day that tried to push the envelope on special effects, they don't look to real. But it was still enjoyable. If you go to a movie and look for stuff to nitpick, yeah your gonna find a few things. But your not supposed to go to a movie to nitpick, you're supposed to go to enjoy the movie.

Anyways. I loved the movie. Wasn't spider-man 2, but it was still decent. After my friend saw the ending he said it was the prequel to the matrix. Could be. This might be on my see again list.

Parts i liked were the put together of Will Smith's character's problem with robots. I was completley wrong at why he hated robots. The action was nice, as was the put together of the plot.

[Eddy]

Saw it today. It was pretty good, if I do say so myself. I didn't like it as much as "Spiderman 2," but it was still good. Will Smith had some pretty humorous lines too. I would write more lengthy reviews but... those take time. Bottom line, it's worth seeing and it's one of those movies that you should see in the theather because it won't look as good on your TV.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Dude deal with it, It's a movie. As long as the CGI doesn't look cheesey like it would as if they didn't use CGI I'm happy.

Anyway this movie was awesome. I loved it. No one expected it to be like the book. If adapted from the book it may be a 9 part epic. I like how this film used the basic concept from the book and built an entertaining film from it.

The action, plot twists and acting all were done well. The only thing I didn't like were Will's shoes.:p You had to see the movie to get that.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Saw it today. It was pretty good, if I do say so myself. I didn't like it as much as "Spiderman 2," but it was still good. Will Smith had some pretty humorous lines too. I would write more lengthy reviews but... those take time. Bottom line, it's worth seeing and it's one of those movies that you should see in the theather because it won't look as good on your TV.
This is perfect. This the best way to describe the film and what other people should do.

[Nick K.]

The only thing I didn't like were Will's shoes.:p You had to see the movie to get that.

Converse... Product placement... ;)

[Roman Legion]

I hate having to be negative about every new movie on every thread that discusses them, but when are these film makers ever going to realize that CGI special effects don't look real. I mean they always have that glossy look to them and the appearence and movement of it looks like that of a video game. That's one of the main problems that I had with Spiderman, as well as many other recent movies of the past few years. This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants. All the dazzling visual effects are used as a distraction to cover up for thin plots and lack of story telling, not to mention all the lapses in logic that films these days contain.

While I can agree about an over-reliance on special effects, lately... would you rather have them still using stop-motion, instead? =P

--Romey

[Terminatah]

I hate having to be negative about every new movie on every thread that discusses them, but when are these film makers ever going to realize that CGI special effects don't look real. I mean they always have that glossy look to them and the appearence and movement of it looks like that of a video game. That's one of the main problems that I had with Spiderman, as well as many other recent movies of the past few years. This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants. All the dazzling visual effects are used as a distraction to cover up for thin plots and lack of story telling, not to mention all the lapses in logic that films these days contain.It's easy to casually throw around terms such as "thin plots, lack of storytelling, and lapses in logic."

There are reasons for how everything looks and moves in these movies. For example, if the robot moves too smoothly, obviously it's because robots would never make any extraneous movements; they are methodical machines, and if Spider-Man moves too smoothly, it's because that's how a human would move if given such powers in real life. It's like that other dude said-- We all KNOW this is computer animation, and could easily say, "Oh, that's fake," if we're sitting there looking for it. But if you force yourself to apply a little suspension of disbelief, you might forget your reservations and maybe enjoy some of the action. For what it is, it's pretty realistic.


This has sadly led to the increasing trend of pushing style over substants.I think you mean substance.

Anyway, I thought this movie was excellent. If I had to point out the flaws, they wouldn't be things that bothered me, but things that I think might bother other people. As such, I'm not even going to waste time nitpicking. You want to see a bad sci-fi adaptation, go see Paycheck.

They do some amazing things visually in this movie. Sometimes these unusual stylistic choices can be pointless, but in this case, they weren't. I would recommend everyone go see it and enjoy themselves.

-Terminatah

[MattThomasM2B]

I thought the movie was a whole lot of "meh." The only reason I saw it was because it opened on my birthday. Definately not something worth DVD prices.

[Knight]

Saw "I, Robot" tonight and I have to say I thought it was an excellent movie with a good plot and a lot of surprises.

I have to say the visual effects were good in my opinion (I didn't see anything noticeably wrong with the CGI) the action scenes were intense (I particularly enjoyed the car seen where he is attacked by a swarm of robots) and Will Smith gave his usual good performance with a side of comic wit.

Wiish the Batman trailer had been there but its absence didnt take away from my enjoyment since I dont go to see movies for trailers anyway but it would have been a nice bonus.:)

[Mynd Hed]

Have any of you folks who have seen the movie already also read the book? Just wondering because I'm a huge Asimov fan, and the trailers make this movie look remarkably unfaithful to the books. Asimov formulated the three laws, in part, as a response to the other sci-fi writers of the day who were approaching the subject of artificial intelligence with a lot of mysticism-- the general formula went a lot like the Frankenstein story by Mary Shelly: man creates robot, robot gets out of control, disaster ensues, man finally destroys robot, story ends with a smug little moral about how there are some things man was "just not meant to know," i.e. the "secret of life."
Asimov disagreed with this and felt that any rebellious tendencies in robots would be engineering problems like any others, and therefore correctable. He didn't believe that machines could "evolve" and envisioned the Three Laws as absolute.
Anyway, the trailers make this movie look more like one of the cheap Frankenstein knock-offs mentioned above than like Asimov's brilliant and groundbreaking sci-fi writing-- but I haven't seen the movie, so I could be wrong. So can anybody tell me-- is Asimov spinning in his grave right now, or is the trailer simply misleading? Because even though this looks like a pretty decent action flick, I don't think I could enjoy it if it were as unfaithful to the source material as it looks like.

[TheEvilClown]

First off, curse everyone for saying a Batman trailer would be attached. I was crushed when I didn't see it and now I'll go see Catwoman because it's a Comic movie and see the trailer hopefully.

That being said, this movie rocked. I really liked it. It felt like a long timke since I'd seen a action movie like this. And Will Smith is awesome. I liked Sonny a lot, too. Anyways, I give it ****.
Don't be so sure on that From what I hear there not putting it on Catwoman but Once again that is just a rumor!

[SSJPabs]

Since the director had a hand in making one of my all-time fav. movies (Dark City), I am obligated to see this. :DDark City is one of my favorite movies for several reasons, including direction, set-design, the cast (Jennifer Connelly especially) and what it says about who we are.

Indeed, because of my enjoyment of Dark City, the themes in Big-O resonated with me strongly.

I've also read that I, Robot is pretty intelligent plot-wise as far as summer blockbusters go and Will Smith turns in a better performance than he has in the past (not nearly as 1 dimensional). I'm excited to see this movie.

[Terminatah]

Have any of you folks who have seen the movie already also read the book? Just wondering because I'm a huge Asimov fan, and the trailers make this movie look remarkably unfaithful to the books. Asimov formulated the three laws, in part, as a response to the other sci-fi writers of the day who were approaching the subject of artificial intelligence with a lot of mysticism-- the general formula went a lot like the Frankenstein story by Mary Shelly: man creates robot, robot gets out of control, disaster ensues, man finally destroys robot, story ends with a smug little moral about how there are some things man was "just not meant to know," i.e. the "secret of life."
Asimov disagreed with this and felt that any rebellious tendencies in robots would be engineering problems like any others, and therefore correctable. He didn't believe that machines could "evolve" and envisioned the Three Laws as absolute.
Anyway, the trailers make this movie look more like one of the cheap Frankenstein knock-offs mentioned above than like Asimov's brilliant and groundbreaking sci-fi writing-- but I haven't seen the movie, so I could be wrong. So can anybody tell me-- is Asimov spinning in his grave right now, or is the trailer simply misleading? Because even though this looks like a pretty decent action flick, I don't think I could enjoy it if it were as unfaithful to the source material as it looks like.The movie is very strict about having the robots follow the three laws. Asimov would have nothing bad to say about its logic.

-Terminatah

[Mynd Hed]

The movie is very strict about having the robots follow the three laws. Asimov would have nothing bad to say about its logic.

-Terminatah
Although that is good to hear, I was thinking more of the movie's theme than it's logic. Asimov's robot stories were morally subtle tales of the effects robotics might have on humanity-- you could write equally interesting tales about any other major invention, like the automobile or the television. Whereas this movie looks like a generic "robots bad humans good watch them fight" type story. Or am I wrong?
And if you want to be strict (which any movie that purports to be based on Asimov should), I can think of at least one transgression of the First Law right in the trailer, when the robot raises his voice and smashes the table in the interrogation room. The First Law states that a robot cannot harm a human, and "harm" in that context includes psychological as well as physical harm. Therefore, a robot shouldn't be able to damage human property, raise its voice, or act in a threatening way toward a human, because these actions cause psychological harm, however slight. And it's things like this in the trailer that concern me-- is there an adequate explanation for this, or is it as big an oversight as it looks?

[Knight]

Although that is good to hear, I was thinking more of the movie's theme than it's logic. Asimov's robot stories were morally subtle tales of the effects robotics might have on humanity-- you could write equally interesting tales about any other major invention, like the automobile or the television. Whereas this movie looks like a generic "robots bad humans good watch them fight" type story. Or am I wrong?
And if you want to be strict (which any movie that purports to be based on Asimov should), I can think of at least one transgression of the First Law right in the trailer, when the robot raises his voice and smashes the table in the interrogation room. The First Law states that a robot cannot harm a human, and "harm" in that context includes psychological as well as physical harm. Therefore, a robot shouldn't be able to damage human property, raise its voice, or act in a threatening way toward a human, because these actions cause psychological harm, however slight. And it's things like this in the trailer that concern me-- is there an adequate explanation for this, or is it as big an oversight as it looks?
There is a good explanation for what that particular robot does. He is "unique" and thats all Im going to say for now. It was a good movie in my opinion.

[Terminatah]

Yes, Mynd Hed, like Knight says, everything is explained in the movie. So go see it, but don't walk out halfway, or you'll miss it. :cool:

-Terminatah

[Mynd Hed]

Hmm... well, thanks for helping me out with my questions, I don't dare ask for more specifics for fear of spoilers. The next movie I'm going to see is Anchorman (naysayers, say what you will, but I'm a sucker for Will Ferrel) but if I get bored after that, maybe I'll check the movie out. Thanks again for taking the time out to address my concerns.

[Caffeine King]

I didn't really like this.

It was alright but I wouldn't rent it or anything once it comes out on DVD. :shrug:

Parts of it were boring and slow but the ending was cool.

I gave it 3 stars.

[PaQ]

Ok, I wasn't expecting much from this movie, the trailers hadn't attracted me one bit to the movie.. And then i went to see it on Tuesday, and damn!

This was one great movie, I was totally amazed at the story and the twists it had. The past of Detective Spooner, Sonny's reason to exist and VIKI's involvement. Just simply a great movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I liked that car that Spooner drove, very futuristic, I'd love to have a car like that.. And I liked how everything he related to Hansel & Gretal and them leaving a trail of breadcrumbs..
I give "I, Robot" an A.

[Classic Speedy]

Just saw it today. Though it did have a couple cliches (the police chief not allowing the main character to pursue the big case; the disbelieving sidekick who comes to learn the horrifying truth), it had a lot of interesting concepts: Robots being able to dream, robots learning to become human (wink... if you see the film, you'll know what I mean!), and humans becoming so used to robots doing everything through voice activation that the lady scientist is bewildered by a manual CD player. :D Plus the CGI was quite good. Just watch the chase scene in the tunnel or the final scene in the laboratory with the camera swiveling around to show Will Smith's fear of heights. Nice stuff.

There were certainly a lot of plot twists I wasn't expecting (what side is everyone on, especially that original robot?), as well as a couple red herrings. When Will Smith's character was revealed to have a metallic arm, I thought he was a robot!

And yeah, that fight scene between the humans and robots DID remind me of Animatrix. ;)

Side-Note: So far this summer, I've seen... (ranked from 1=best to 7=worst)
1) Dodgeball
2) Fahrenheit 9/11
3) Shrek 2
4) I, Robot
5) The Ladykillers (2004)
6) The Day After Tomorrow
7) Troy

[samoori deks]

I love the part where Captain Murphy says "There go my nipples again!"


:murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy:

[Discloner]

I loved it. I thought it was absolutely fantastic.

The CGI, the story, the logic, the 'who-dun-it' feel, and the ending that I was to naive to guess.

Did I mention the CGI?

I mean...damn, this movie's probably got the BEST inclusion of CGI main characters with live action actors I've ever seen. And it wasn't even done by ILM!

I love the futuristic world. I loved the fight sequences. And man did that ending get my heart pumping. This is probably one of the best movie's I've seen this summer, and I'll definetly be picking it up on DVD.

[BatKid]

I love the part where Captain Murphy says "There go my nipples again!"


:murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy:

:confused:

[purplehairedwonder]

I've got to say, it was a fun ride. The robots were wonderfully done, the scope was amazing, and the story was fun. I absolutely love Will Smith. He is such a cutie and did a great job in this movie. Sonny was great. I loved the whole "wink" scheme. And I loved Will's line when he sneezes and says "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm allergic to bullsh*t.":p Good twists and the robots with the red lights marching together (it really creeped me out). Just plain fun action.

[wrenchien]

I love the part where Captain Murphy says "There go my nipples again!"


:murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy: :murphy:

you probably want the forum over there. the one that says 'adult swim' .

[HellCat]

Saw this last night. Let me first say I can understand why people get upset when Hollywood does these "Based on the book" type films, given if it's been changed you have people assuming both are the same and missing out on what is often the case of the book being better. That said, this wasn't too bad. The "Aw, hell naw" line has been mocked alot but I think Will Smith did a great job as the lead, treating the role with respect and bringing great credibilty to it. What did make me confused was the big reveal- VIKI's new take on the laws didn't make sense in at least one respect. If the laws were all about protecting humans, how did they justify killing off some for the greater good? I could understand the idea, especially the base concept "we're just best putting them under house arrest for their safety" but alot of the new conclusion seemed to conflict with the actual laws.
On the CGI- It was good but when Spooner was chasing Sonny through the newly assembled robots it was painfully obvious it was a composition.

[Ben]

I just wish they'd named the movie "Bots Attack!" or "Robotworld" or something, and cut the crap. It shot and killed and stomped all over and pissed on the grave of Asimov's book, which is one of my all-time favorite pieces of fiction. The laws are meant to be analogs for human morality. The goodness of the robots comes from them following the laws in interesting ways, not from them mystically overcoming them. One of the worst film adaptations of all time.

[Classic Speedy]

What was I smoking back in 2004? Shrek 2 above I, Robot?! Jeez.
What did make me confused was the big reveal- VIKI's new take on the laws didn't make sense in at least one respect. If the laws were all about protecting humans, how did they justify killing off some for the greater good? I could understand the idea, especially the base concept "we're just best putting them under house arrest for their safety" but alot of the new conclusion seemed to conflict with the actual laws. IIRC, by that point, the central computer was so corrupt with its extremely broad interpretation of the three laws that it could basically do whatever it wanted, disregarding the three rules that seemingly made it impossible to harm another human by using some excuse like, "The only perfect beings are robots; everyone else must be our slaves or die". And the lower robots had to follow its orders, because that's how they were programmed.

That's really the only theory that makes sense, because otherwise yeah, I agree, robots suddenly deciding to inflict fatal injury on humans, even those revolting, doesn't line up with the three laws of robotics.

[Discloner]

VIKI's new take on the laws didn't make sense in at least one respect. If the laws were all about protecting humans, how did they justify killing off some for the greater good? I had just assumed that VIKI was relying on the most logical interpretation of the laws. In that, Humanity as a whole was destroying itself, not only in the here and now via murder and corruption, but that they were destroying the planet. In realizing this, she deduced that humans cannot be saved, they will eventually die - and in order to save the most humans, they had to kill, detain, and otherwise place the rest under house arrest.

Aside from their attempts on Will Smith's character, I don't really recall anyone else actually dying (aside from those whom were attacked in the mobs). People such as Smith's character and others who would not comply with the robot's plans were probably considered a threat to the survival of greater humanity, or rather VIKI's plans to save humanity.

...Did that make any sense? I can think this all in my head to the point where I can accept it, but to explain it is something totally different...

That being said my main problem with the movie was that I personally didn't find it's vision of the near future all that believable. 2035 is less than 30 years away - and I highly doubt we'll each have a Sonny in our homes with large underground highways of cars that drive themselves. Had they pushed that date up to the late 2050's or beyond perhaps it wouldn't have bothered me so much; but as much as I'd like this film to prove me wrong I just can't see our world becoming the world in this film, in under 30 years.

Also the jets flying by the window with red white and blue smoke streams - moments after the robots had been defeated. Didn't like that either.

Rest of the film I thought was rather solid however.

[The Penguin]

...Did that make any sense? I can think this all in my head to the point where I can accept it, but to explain it is something totally different..."I'm sorry. My responses are limited. You must ask the right questions."


;)

[BonyT]

Saw this movie back when it first came out on DVD. I admit it took me a bit by surprise: I expected nothing more than an action flick with good special effects at the best; but the film actually has a little bit of meat to it.

Thematically, it's reminiscent of two other films, 2001 and Armitage III (which is, btw, about the only anime I've ever really liked much), in that it touches in broad terms on the exploration of what it is to be a person (that is, a conscious entity with awareness of and concepts about oneself and the surrounding world): Is that level of consciousness necessarily linked to biology? Or is it defined by something else? Atmitage III seems to be conscious of its link to 2001, in that the opening scene of Armitage is an alignment of planets and the Sun, just like the alignment of Earth, Moon and Sun in 2001; and in like fashion I, Robot seems to show awareness of its link to Armitage III in that the graphic behind the I, Robot credits --- which looks like a closeup of impulses moving through circuits --- is exacly the image used in the opening credits of Aritage III.

And Will Smith's I, Robot character IS the Ross Syllabus character from Armitage III:
--both Smith's character and Syllabus are cops;
--both had traumatic events in their past in which someone died, with a robot being directly involved, and both hate robots as a result;
--both were seriously injured in those incidents, and had to be reconstructed with robotic parts (thus ironically coming to resemble the very robots they hate);
--and both move through the course of the film from their hatred to an eventual appreciation of a particular robot that has achieved "person" consciousness.

Another compelling surprise in this movie was the idea presented in the film that Asimov's three laws actually carry implicit within them the real possibility of robots (who must obey and protect and cannot harm humans) becoming a slave underclass.

[HellCat]

Also the jets flying by the window with red white and blue smoke streams - moments after the robots had been defeated. Didn't like that either.



Yeah, that was just random. I mean, the military didn't even play a part in the situation, what was the logic? "This movie doesn't flaunt American superiority complex! Quick, add some!!"

[Ahiru-kun]

That being said my main problem with the movie was that I personally didn't find it's vision of the near future all that believable. 2035 is less than 30 years away - and I highly doubt we'll each have a Sonny in our homes with large underground highways of cars that drive themselves. Had they pushed that date up to the late 2050's or beyond perhaps it wouldn't have bothered me so much; but as much as I'd like this film to prove me wrong I just can't see our world becoming the world in this film, in under 30 years.

The same can be said for other futuristic films like Back to the Future Part II. Although I guess at the time that movie was made the portrayal of how the future would look wasn't that far fetched.

All in all, this was one of my favorite films of 2004, and I'm not a big fan of the whole robot thing.