Late to the party: I, ROBOT

[Tiplodocus]

Very late to the party on this one but I finally got round to watching I, ROBOT last night.

I wasn't expecting much that resembled an Asimov book so, as a result, I was pleasantly suprised.  

The first 45 minutes or so was pretty good stuff with some interesting questions raised and a nice quick set up (and even a great scene of Basil as they explain the 3 laws in a reasonable sounding conversation while examining the lab).

Things obviously got more than a little stupid with the massive exploding trucks in the tunnel and the baddie and resolution became immediately apparent when they introduced the nanites.  And I really could have done without Will Smith blasting away with twin pistols while flying through the air on a motorcycle.  There were a couple of nice twists though; [spoiler]Spooner's Bionics and the actual final revelation of who killed Lansing.[/spoiler]

Overall, I wish they'd reigned it in just a little more; Smith could have done with been less wise-cracky, more broken and if they'd gone for more of a future thriller rather than future action movie I'd have been more satisfied.

[Mardroid]

I quite liked I, Robot.

I'm kinda with you on the Will Smith wise-cracks though, but it wasn't bad overall.

The CGI robots, whilst a good design, didn't look all that realistic to me, although the animation wasn't bad. I'm not saying that as an anti-CGI statement though. You know how some people seem to be against CGI just because it's CGI and seem to pursuade themselves it looks bad regardless of how it looks? Not me.  Some CGI looks brilliant (although if they can do things with physical models then I think they should.) I even liked the CGI in the Star Wars prequels- those films have their problems but I don't think the affects were one of them. Although they were a bit too fast sometimes. (And they overdid it, where they could have had human actors.)

In I, Robot, though, the CGI robots looked rather toony to me.  It take away my enjoyment of the film though (although my blather above might suggest that.) It certainly isn't a favourite film of mine, but it wasn't bad. I think I agree with you that the early stuff was the best.

[the shutdown man]

I always liked this one. It's a big difference from Alex Proyas' other flicks. It made quite a good detective story, and I thought the CGI on the robots was fantastic. I liked the fact that the robots, while looking humanoid, still moved in a mechanical way (Sonny sprinting for instance). A little detail, but it made a difference.

My only gripe was that the "Will Smith" factor was a little distracting at times. And I do consider myself a fan, but he flicks between deadly serious detective and "AWW HELL NAWWW" a little too often. Also, there's the Converse All Star issue, possibly the most blatant product placement in a movie since the woman wearing an Ipod into battle in Blade Trinity.

Still, overall, I like it.

[Tiplodocus]

I deliberately didn't comment on the product placement because I'd heard so much about it before hand that the Converses, the Audis and the JVCs just leapt off the screen at me.

If they'd only mentioned it once, you could sort of let them away with the trainer thing as a minor bit of characterisation.

(Not much characterisation, I'll admit - about as good as Ewan MacGregor in Black Hawk Down whose character is that "he likes to make coffee just so")

[the shutdown man]

Characterisation is one thing; If, say, it had come up in conversation during the film that Smith had a thing for classic shoes or something, that might have worked. But, putting the Converse in centre frame while Smith puts them on, and then drawing attention to them throughout the film (while talking to his gran, even showing that they're ruined after the car crash) is just way too blatant.

[johnnystress]

still funny



//http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_robot

[Bouwel]

I would say that the film was not what I was expecting (or, as Mr. Smith was involved, maybe it was?). The CGI was good although the NS-5's looked creepy with, to my mind, the white plastic not looking 'right'. The story-line was about average and as per Hollywood ideals didn't tax the brain too much.  

Product placement; the old thorn. I agree that it can be very intrusive. The worst example I can think of quickly is Minority Report. It could be said that product placement is used to off-set costs and if this results in a better film I'm all for it. However, there are examples of good films which don't have blatant placement such as The Truman Show. Infact one of the car suppliers for that film wanted to do a placement but was politely told to look at the nature of the film they'd be placing into. They did and declined.

So, the question remains; who *could* make a good Issac Asimov film? Or a good Athur C. Clarke one? Could any studio afford to produce something that was very faithful to the original material and put nothing in that is now deemed 'commercial'? This was tried with A Scanner Darkly which bombed.

It's a shame, but it says a lot about Hollywoods expectations of it's audience.

-Bouwel-