This is a really good movie with a lot going for it. Some good action, good story and a good twist at the end. I wouldn't say it is flawless in terms of acting but that's not necessarily what you are looking at in this movie.
717 Reviews
Rock'em Sock'em Robo-fun
Dkish15 July 2004
Director Alex Proyas, helmer of such cult favorites as 'Dark City' and 'The Crow', steps into the Hollywood limelight with his first attempt at a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster.
'I, Robot' chronicles the life of Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) who has a techno-phobic view of the world's newest appliance, a life-like robot created by the world's leading technology giant US Robotics. A link in Spooner's past is linked to his phobia of the automaton movement sweeping the nation. According to US Robotics, there will be eventually 1 robot to every 5 humans.
Spooner is called to the offices of US Robotics when a leading scientist (James Cromwell), with a secret link to Spooner, has apparently committed suicide. His death seems to have mysterious circumstances which could link to a robot. With man's complete trust in the new robot technology, it seems too ludicrous to every one except Spooner.
As the mystery deepens, Spooner unravels the very fabric of the robotic giant, locks horns with CEO Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) and learns more about his automated enemy with the aid of scientist Dr. Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan). Through the course of these events he may learn more than he could ever imagine.
It is hard to defend a film like 'I, Robot' but I am going to try. For sci-fi purists, Isaac Asimov's legendary work about the robot and how he will intricate into our society has filled the minds of readers for over 50 years. But the similarities between the film presented here and his work are few and far between. Kind of like last week's release of Jerry Bruckheimer's 'King Arthur'. Both films take sacred subject matter and re-invent it with a new twist. I would have to say that 'I. Robot' is better in a lot ways.
At the core of 'I, Robot' beats the soul of Asimov as his 3 laws regarding robots are sacredly left intact and the film does abide by them. Also a lot of the characters have similar names to the people in the text. It is almost like taking Star Trek's 'prime directive' and some of the now classic characters and setting them in a new idea of the future. The core is left intact but in some ways it has been updated and refreshed.
The story, special effects and extremely zealous direction, however, all seem to be brought forth by the collaborators who cobbled this film together. There are influences of 'Robocop', 'Short Circuit', 'Blade Runner' and even the classic comic-book series 'Magnus: Robot Fighter'. Each of these robot influences echo back to what makes 'I Robot' so intriguing, a joy to watch and memorable.
Sure the story does have a lot of sci-fi influences and clichés aside from robot films including 'Star Wars' and 'Planet of the Apes' but don't these benchmark sci-fi films influence everything coming down the turnpike these days. It even has the classic sci-fi cliché of the social outcast claiming there is an invasion coming except no one believes him. But that is not what should bring us into the film.
You really need to give credit to director Alex Proyas because it is his magic as a filmmaker that holds this film together. He knows where to play it straight and where to let his lead actor bring on the charm. Also you really have to admire the man's technical ability. His brilliant inter-laying of robots into the photography is astounding. Proyas is an A-list director in the making and 'I, Robot' shows that he can deliver a big Hollywood film.
I also give credit to Will Smith who starts out being very unapproachable with his character but as the film goes we really become fond of his hero. Smith's Spooner does have a lot of his previous sci-fi heroes inter-laced into Spooner but it comes off as more of a homecoming than an annoyance. In some ways I think Proyas had something to do with that especially in the chase down scene towards the beginning of the film. It almost felt like 'Men in Black' again.
As for Smith's co-stars, Cromwell's Lanning is a throwaway character used mainly for effect, Moynahan is timid and sometimes robot-like but it is a sturdy performance and Greenwood is menacing and a good match to face off against the rebellious Smith.
The reason I was so fond of 'I, Robot' is because for once it was a summer film that didn't apologize for trying to be entertaining. The special effects, the performances and the direction are all what people want to see in the summer and this film is loads and loads of fun. It is a great giant popcorn film with a light layering of message.
My only small problem with this film was that it is supposed to be set in Chicago in 2035. I didn't buy it but if it was 2135, then maybe.
Sure the film doesn't pave new ground but why does every film have to. It is pure summer fun and what is wrong with that.
If you want Asimov and sci-fi purism then you can always read the novels. Stop apologizing and most of all stop belly-aching, just give the film a chance. If you like science fiction films and want to be remembered how much fun they used to be then this picture is the perfect ticket for you. So Says the Soothsayer.
'I, Robot' chronicles the life of Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) who has a techno-phobic view of the world's newest appliance, a life-like robot created by the world's leading technology giant US Robotics. A link in Spooner's past is linked to his phobia of the automaton movement sweeping the nation. According to US Robotics, there will be eventually 1 robot to every 5 humans.
Spooner is called to the offices of US Robotics when a leading scientist (James Cromwell), with a secret link to Spooner, has apparently committed suicide. His death seems to have mysterious circumstances which could link to a robot. With man's complete trust in the new robot technology, it seems too ludicrous to every one except Spooner.
As the mystery deepens, Spooner unravels the very fabric of the robotic giant, locks horns with CEO Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) and learns more about his automated enemy with the aid of scientist Dr. Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan). Through the course of these events he may learn more than he could ever imagine.
It is hard to defend a film like 'I, Robot' but I am going to try. For sci-fi purists, Isaac Asimov's legendary work about the robot and how he will intricate into our society has filled the minds of readers for over 50 years. But the similarities between the film presented here and his work are few and far between. Kind of like last week's release of Jerry Bruckheimer's 'King Arthur'. Both films take sacred subject matter and re-invent it with a new twist. I would have to say that 'I. Robot' is better in a lot ways.
At the core of 'I, Robot' beats the soul of Asimov as his 3 laws regarding robots are sacredly left intact and the film does abide by them. Also a lot of the characters have similar names to the people in the text. It is almost like taking Star Trek's 'prime directive' and some of the now classic characters and setting them in a new idea of the future. The core is left intact but in some ways it has been updated and refreshed.
The story, special effects and extremely zealous direction, however, all seem to be brought forth by the collaborators who cobbled this film together. There are influences of 'Robocop', 'Short Circuit', 'Blade Runner' and even the classic comic-book series 'Magnus: Robot Fighter'. Each of these robot influences echo back to what makes 'I Robot' so intriguing, a joy to watch and memorable.
Sure the story does have a lot of sci-fi influences and clichés aside from robot films including 'Star Wars' and 'Planet of the Apes' but don't these benchmark sci-fi films influence everything coming down the turnpike these days. It even has the classic sci-fi cliché of the social outcast claiming there is an invasion coming except no one believes him. But that is not what should bring us into the film.
You really need to give credit to director Alex Proyas because it is his magic as a filmmaker that holds this film together. He knows where to play it straight and where to let his lead actor bring on the charm. Also you really have to admire the man's technical ability. His brilliant inter-laying of robots into the photography is astounding. Proyas is an A-list director in the making and 'I, Robot' shows that he can deliver a big Hollywood film.
I also give credit to Will Smith who starts out being very unapproachable with his character but as the film goes we really become fond of his hero. Smith's Spooner does have a lot of his previous sci-fi heroes inter-laced into Spooner but it comes off as more of a homecoming than an annoyance. In some ways I think Proyas had something to do with that especially in the chase down scene towards the beginning of the film. It almost felt like 'Men in Black' again.
As for Smith's co-stars, Cromwell's Lanning is a throwaway character used mainly for effect, Moynahan is timid and sometimes robot-like but it is a sturdy performance and Greenwood is menacing and a good match to face off against the rebellious Smith.
The reason I was so fond of 'I, Robot' is because for once it was a summer film that didn't apologize for trying to be entertaining. The special effects, the performances and the direction are all what people want to see in the summer and this film is loads and loads of fun. It is a great giant popcorn film with a light layering of message.
My only small problem with this film was that it is supposed to be set in Chicago in 2035. I didn't buy it but if it was 2135, then maybe.
Sure the film doesn't pave new ground but why does every film have to. It is pure summer fun and what is wrong with that.
If you want Asimov and sci-fi purism then you can always read the novels. Stop apologizing and most of all stop belly-aching, just give the film a chance. If you like science fiction films and want to be remembered how much fun they used to be then this picture is the perfect ticket for you. So Says the Soothsayer.
Good mix of action and philosophy
Danny_G1331 August 2004
Like the Matrix and many other major movies, I, Robot has its foundations in philosophy, in its case the question of epistemology(The study of knowledge itself and computers being self-aware).
Will Smith is Spooner, a cop with an apparent attitude problem. Set in the future, I Robot sees Spooner embarking on a puzzling case of suicide where he believes it was actually murder. By a robot.
In this future society (With more than a homage to Blade Runner) robots are used as slaves of humans in all facets of life. They have 3 rules of conduct hard coded into them which essentially state they cannot harm humans. So the postulation by Spooner that a robot killed a man after a history where no robot had ever committed so much as a mugging presents a big problem to both his peers and his boss.
Suffice to say the story's plot thickens and a number of twists and turns emerge before the truth is revealed.
Will Smith is an absolute surprise here. Having previously been a light-hearted comedy actor he puts in a truly excellent and believable shift as a wise-cracking cop with a dark past.
However, the real star is the special effects and visual trickery. Impossible but ingenious camerawork and some jawdropping animation really make I, Robot feel truly alive and utterly believable, while never being dull for a second.
It arguably doesn't delve too deep into its philosophical undertones, but it doesn't really need to. It's a traditional Hollywood blockbuster action flick but it unquestionably has a brain and is a clear cut above the likes of Armageddon et al.
Very enjoyable.
Will Smith is Spooner, a cop with an apparent attitude problem. Set in the future, I Robot sees Spooner embarking on a puzzling case of suicide where he believes it was actually murder. By a robot.
In this future society (With more than a homage to Blade Runner) robots are used as slaves of humans in all facets of life. They have 3 rules of conduct hard coded into them which essentially state they cannot harm humans. So the postulation by Spooner that a robot killed a man after a history where no robot had ever committed so much as a mugging presents a big problem to both his peers and his boss.
Suffice to say the story's plot thickens and a number of twists and turns emerge before the truth is revealed.
Will Smith is an absolute surprise here. Having previously been a light-hearted comedy actor he puts in a truly excellent and believable shift as a wise-cracking cop with a dark past.
However, the real star is the special effects and visual trickery. Impossible but ingenious camerawork and some jawdropping animation really make I, Robot feel truly alive and utterly believable, while never being dull for a second.
It arguably doesn't delve too deep into its philosophical undertones, but it doesn't really need to. It's a traditional Hollywood blockbuster action flick but it unquestionably has a brain and is a clear cut above the likes of Armageddon et al.
Very enjoyable.
Human, robotics and laws
HeyRhodoks1 June 2020
The film shares the same name as Asimov's novel, but with some adaptations. But in general, it doesn't break the three laws. This kind of science fiction film, which integrates human nature and ethics of science and technology, triggers our deep reflection. Human beings and robots have advantages and disadvantages, no matter when, in front of any biological species, we always have the freedom to choose.
Surprisingly Good!
Mstrom4221 July 2004
When I was growing up, one of my favourite authors was Isaac Asimov. I loved his books and his ideas about robots. The man was a genius in the way he wrote, he invented the three laws of Robotics, as the very beginning of the movie tells us, they are: 1) A robot can never harm a human. 2) A robot must obey all human orders unless it conflicts with the first law. 3) A robot must protect itself unless it conflicts with the first two laws.
Because of this and because of the fact that I knew Will Smith was the leading actor in this movie I went into this movie with lowered expectations. I expected to see a corny movie full of explosions and killer robots.
I did get that, or at least the explosions part, but imagine my surprise when the movie ended up exceeding my expectations and more. Even though during the ending credits it says that the movie was suggested by the books by Isaac Asimov most of the movie seemed to play quite well with Isaac Asimov's ideas about robots. The movie played with concepts that Isaac Asimov played with, if the three laws can be made, they can be broken. And it was an Asimov-ish "whodunit" as well.
Will Smith managed to pull off a stunning performance as "Del Spooner", a Chicago detective that is suspicious of robots and is against technology. His acting is much more like his acting in "Enemy of the State" than his performances in his other two Science Fiction flicks, "Independence Day" and "Men in Black". He is a believable character, one that you end up sympathising with as you learn why, exactly, he hates robots so much.
A highly critiqued point usually comes from the fans of the book in that Bridget Moynahan plays Susan Calvin. It is true that Moynahan as Calvin is much younger than the Isaac Asimov version, but beyond that I found her to be a pleasant surprise as well. She plays her persona very well, delivering a wooden, robot-like performance. She is obvious in the fact that she likes robots much more than humans, and her dislike of Spooner is amusing. Over the course of the movie she thaws a little, but not an incredible lot. I find her to be a believable character.
The pure stroke of genius in this movie is the robot, Sonny, who at first reminds one of Data from Star Trek. His character evolves over the course of the story, and Alex Proyas does a good job at keeping us guessing at whether the emotional robot is a "good guy" or not.
This movie, which I've now seen twice, has been raked over the coals so to speak in the realm of artistic licence, but I felt that Isaac Asimov, if he were here, would have been rather pleased with this movie. The only two points of conflict, perhaps, would be the amount of violence against actual robots in the story (he was never that violent in his short stories/books) and the very typical Hollywood blow'emup climax, which, yes, smacked heavily of Terminator for a while there. The ending, I felt, repaired and wrapped up nicely, making up for whatever excessive action went on before it.
Two notes about the cinematography in this movie, first of all, the Matrix scene was not necessary. A character was being chased and did a Trinity pause in mid-air pose, which pulled me out of the movie for a couple seconds. Luckily it wasn't too hard to get back into the movie. Second note was something that I felt was very innovative on the part of Alex Proyas, which was the "camera moving with moving object" shots. I noticed at least three of them in the movie. Very nice film work there. I'm sure it will get horribly overdone in the next few years, but for now it is nice. The CGI also gets honourable mention for making the robots meld so well with their surroundings. Finally CGI has reached a point where they don't seem fake, even for a moment.
In regards to nudity in the movie... I've read a couple of reviews which notice the Moynahan nude in fogged up shower scene, and forget to notice the Will Smith completely nude with no fog shower scene. I must say, as a female viewer it is nice to get the generous end of the stick when it comes to seeing something as, dare I say appealing? as Will Smith's very nicely developed body.
Lastly and in a point that has nothing to do with the movie and more to do with questions brought up by it-- It took until a day later and thinking about the movie some more that I realized that "I, Robot" was also very socially different. As in two of the main characters, including the hero are black males, one woman, and one (male) robot. I didn't find this odd at all in watching it, perhaps because Will Smith is such a recognisable character, but after thinking about it, I felt that this is a very positive sign. It shows, to me, that society is changing. I feel that I wouldn't have been able to see that, even 10-15 years ago and thought nothing of it. I've noticed this before though... that the most gender/social equal views seem to come from science fiction in our media... it is interesting.
Now, of course the movie does bring up some ethical questions like if it's all right to make a servant/slave class out of robots, etc., but all in all I really liked this movie. Any movie that makes you think is a good movie, any movie that gives you fun, drama, action, mystery, and makes you think is a great movie. Thank goodness I, Robot is all of the above.
Because of this and because of the fact that I knew Will Smith was the leading actor in this movie I went into this movie with lowered expectations. I expected to see a corny movie full of explosions and killer robots.
I did get that, or at least the explosions part, but imagine my surprise when the movie ended up exceeding my expectations and more. Even though during the ending credits it says that the movie was suggested by the books by Isaac Asimov most of the movie seemed to play quite well with Isaac Asimov's ideas about robots. The movie played with concepts that Isaac Asimov played with, if the three laws can be made, they can be broken. And it was an Asimov-ish "whodunit" as well.
Will Smith managed to pull off a stunning performance as "Del Spooner", a Chicago detective that is suspicious of robots and is against technology. His acting is much more like his acting in "Enemy of the State" than his performances in his other two Science Fiction flicks, "Independence Day" and "Men in Black". He is a believable character, one that you end up sympathising with as you learn why, exactly, he hates robots so much.
A highly critiqued point usually comes from the fans of the book in that Bridget Moynahan plays Susan Calvin. It is true that Moynahan as Calvin is much younger than the Isaac Asimov version, but beyond that I found her to be a pleasant surprise as well. She plays her persona very well, delivering a wooden, robot-like performance. She is obvious in the fact that she likes robots much more than humans, and her dislike of Spooner is amusing. Over the course of the movie she thaws a little, but not an incredible lot. I find her to be a believable character.
The pure stroke of genius in this movie is the robot, Sonny, who at first reminds one of Data from Star Trek. His character evolves over the course of the story, and Alex Proyas does a good job at keeping us guessing at whether the emotional robot is a "good guy" or not.
This movie, which I've now seen twice, has been raked over the coals so to speak in the realm of artistic licence, but I felt that Isaac Asimov, if he were here, would have been rather pleased with this movie. The only two points of conflict, perhaps, would be the amount of violence against actual robots in the story (he was never that violent in his short stories/books) and the very typical Hollywood blow'emup climax, which, yes, smacked heavily of Terminator for a while there. The ending, I felt, repaired and wrapped up nicely, making up for whatever excessive action went on before it.
Two notes about the cinematography in this movie, first of all, the Matrix scene was not necessary. A character was being chased and did a Trinity pause in mid-air pose, which pulled me out of the movie for a couple seconds. Luckily it wasn't too hard to get back into the movie. Second note was something that I felt was very innovative on the part of Alex Proyas, which was the "camera moving with moving object" shots. I noticed at least three of them in the movie. Very nice film work there. I'm sure it will get horribly overdone in the next few years, but for now it is nice. The CGI also gets honourable mention for making the robots meld so well with their surroundings. Finally CGI has reached a point where they don't seem fake, even for a moment.
In regards to nudity in the movie... I've read a couple of reviews which notice the Moynahan nude in fogged up shower scene, and forget to notice the Will Smith completely nude with no fog shower scene. I must say, as a female viewer it is nice to get the generous end of the stick when it comes to seeing something as, dare I say appealing? as Will Smith's very nicely developed body.
Lastly and in a point that has nothing to do with the movie and more to do with questions brought up by it-- It took until a day later and thinking about the movie some more that I realized that "I, Robot" was also very socially different. As in two of the main characters, including the hero are black males, one woman, and one (male) robot. I didn't find this odd at all in watching it, perhaps because Will Smith is such a recognisable character, but after thinking about it, I felt that this is a very positive sign. It shows, to me, that society is changing. I feel that I wouldn't have been able to see that, even 10-15 years ago and thought nothing of it. I've noticed this before though... that the most gender/social equal views seem to come from science fiction in our media... it is interesting.
Now, of course the movie does bring up some ethical questions like if it's all right to make a servant/slave class out of robots, etc., but all in all I really liked this movie. Any movie that makes you think is a good movie, any movie that gives you fun, drama, action, mystery, and makes you think is a great movie. Thank goodness I, Robot is all of the above.
Could have been more than a popcorn flick
SnoopyStyle25 October 2013
It's 2035, robots are everywhere in people's lives. Chicago Police Detective Del Spooner (Will Smith) is not a fan of robots due to something that happened in the past. He's sent to investigate the murder of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell) the top robot scientist at U.S. Robotics. Spooner believes that a new NS-5 robot killed him, but the three laws of robotics make it impossible. Company scientist Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) can't believe him until all heck breaks loose.
This is a movie derived from Isaac Asimov ideas, but turned into little more than a popcorn summer flick. It's yet another Will Smith blockbuster but it could have been so much more. The three laws were never introduced properly. They were just listed like so many assembly instructions. This is a big disservice because it's integral to the twist ending. The action and the CG are fun and impressive. I just wish this was more than a simple mechanical thriller.
This is a movie derived from Isaac Asimov ideas, but turned into little more than a popcorn summer flick. It's yet another Will Smith blockbuster but it could have been so much more. The three laws were never introduced properly. They were just listed like so many assembly instructions. This is a big disservice because it's integral to the twist ending. The action and the CG are fun and impressive. I just wish this was more than a simple mechanical thriller.
Just because it doesn't follow the book doesn't mean that it is not good
KnightsSayNI16 July 2004
From reading the comments posted by others I got the impression that people mainly rated it low because it did not follow the book. Just because a movie does not follow the original work like the Bible does not mean that the movie should not be given a chance. I read the Asimov book, and I went to the theater with my friend who has not. She enjoyed the movie just as much as I did, if not more. I was fascinated by the angle Proyas approached in the novel, and I did not mind one bit that the movie was completely different than the book.
Another element of the movie that receives an unfair "bad rap" is the acting. It's no worse than the acting in the Spider-Man movies. I am by no means a fan of Will Smith, but I was a fan of Willem Dafoe, and that mirror scene in Spider-Man made me cringe. Might of worked on stage, Willem, but not on the big screen. I did not find myself cringing at any acting in I, Robot. In fact, the only thing over-the-top sometimes was the special effects. Other than that, nothing made me slink down in my seat and cover my face in shame.
One actor that deserves a shout out is Alan Tudyk. I read many comments where people think he just voiced the character of Sonny. Actually, Tudyk pulled a Gollum. This means he put on a weird looking body suit and actually acting out the scenes. Later, CGI used his performance to model the computer graphic robot. Except for a few obvious actions scenes, Tudyk *was* Sonny. My complements to his performance.
Hopefully, people will give this movie the chance it really deserves, and not base their decisions on how close it followed the book. I give I, Robot a 7.5/10
Another element of the movie that receives an unfair "bad rap" is the acting. It's no worse than the acting in the Spider-Man movies. I am by no means a fan of Will Smith, but I was a fan of Willem Dafoe, and that mirror scene in Spider-Man made me cringe. Might of worked on stage, Willem, but not on the big screen. I did not find myself cringing at any acting in I, Robot. In fact, the only thing over-the-top sometimes was the special effects. Other than that, nothing made me slink down in my seat and cover my face in shame.
One actor that deserves a shout out is Alan Tudyk. I read many comments where people think he just voiced the character of Sonny. Actually, Tudyk pulled a Gollum. This means he put on a weird looking body suit and actually acting out the scenes. Later, CGI used his performance to model the computer graphic robot. Except for a few obvious actions scenes, Tudyk *was* Sonny. My complements to his performance.
Hopefully, people will give this movie the chance it really deserves, and not base their decisions on how close it followed the book. I give I, Robot a 7.5/10
Great Special Effects, Looked Real And A Good Story Overall.
IndianaFord2 January 2005
I thought the concept of the storyline was good, as it could be conceived as realistic. Given the ever increasing advances in modern technology, one can, indeed, conceive the possibility of this kind of future occurrence.
I did not really see any flaws in this movie or in the actor's character but the philosophical aspect of the movie questions at what point does artificial intelligence cease to be artificial and true consciousness arise? Anyhow, I did like the A.I. in this movie and would definitely recommend, especially if you like Will Smith movies are the Terminator series. I do, however, prefer there to be no sequels to this movie due to the fact that a sequel would probably be no more than a revamped version of the first one. With that being said, I recommend seeing it. 8/10
I did not really see any flaws in this movie or in the actor's character but the philosophical aspect of the movie questions at what point does artificial intelligence cease to be artificial and true consciousness arise? Anyhow, I did like the A.I. in this movie and would definitely recommend, especially if you like Will Smith movies are the Terminator series. I do, however, prefer there to be no sequels to this movie due to the fact that a sequel would probably be no more than a revamped version of the first one. With that being said, I recommend seeing it. 8/10
Excellent film
pawsplay21 July 2004
The maker of a film adaptation has three choices. First, he can try to translate the original medium as faithfully as possible, striving as much as possible to preserve the spirit and content of the original while re-imagining the story as a film. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films exemplify this approach. Second, he could instead try to capture the essence of the original, while largely abandoning the particulars of the original, as in the intelligently satirical but hard-hearted film version of Starship Troopers. Third, he can try to do something original with the material, drawing inspiration from the written story, but creating a unique film with a unique vision. I, Robot is more the the third than the first or second. While little remains of Asimov's stories in this killer robot metropolitan fantasy, the film is informed by, and offers no disrespect, to the good Doctor's creations.
Will Smith plays a Jack Slater-styled maverick cop. If it's old, it's good.
He wears vintage converse, listens to Stevie Wonder, and apparently regards sweet potato pie as a food group. Will Smith's acting is a naturalistic shuffle, a Columbo-like pastiche of mumbling, sarcasm, and unexpected outbursts of charisma and off-balancing interrogation techniques. He delivers his one-liners with unnecessary seriousness. While in Men in Black, he aimed for the ballparks with his power-swinging action-comedy style, here his conscientious style gets in the way, suggesting a character who stands in front of the mirror practicing his zingers like a Tuesday night comic. It's not entirely Smith's fault, as the movie itself can't seem to decide if he's standing in for Bogart or Schwarzenegger, or if the character had a life of his own before the film starts rolling. His performance is intelligent, marred by occasional "Gotcha, suckaz!" moments that remind us that all films made in Hollywood are made in Hollywood.
His opposite, Bridget Moynahan, fits her role more surely. She's an ice queen in the classic action movie tradition, a stiff-necked, self-important, lonely woman who has been absorbed by her work so completely she remains a teenager at heart, awkward, vulnerable, and searching for the approval of others. Moynahan's bug-eyed discomfort and clipped, TV-sarcastic delivery are those of the quintessential comedy sidekick. Nonetheless, in rare moments, she invests the character's personal revelations with warmth, doubt, and a glow of determination and moral purpose. While Smith vacillates between supercop and Bogie, Moynahan seems to have found a happy medium between the Saturday matinée and the midnight marathon, a mixture of fun and humanity with a carriage of seriousness appropriate to what is essentially a monster movie.
The robot, Sonny, is a character himself, a curious, frightened creature that seems capable of anything. Could Sonny be the murderer? We hope not, and yet, we see the grim possibility that a machine might consider itself more than a human being. We understand Sonny's drive to live and grow. As human beings, we know what lengths we would go to to ensure our survival, whatever the moral charges facing us.
A top scientist has been murdered, and there are no human suspects, so the powerful US Robotics corporation (no relation to the modem manufacturers) convinces the powers-that-be to consider his unexpected death a suicide. Spooner (Will Smith) alone searches for the truth of the matter, fueled by hatred for robots and a personal debt to the dead scientist. Dr. Calvin (Moynahan) feels his intrusive investigation is unnecessary, although new pieces of evidence appear that gradually shake her confidence. Robots are programmed by the Three Laws to serve humanity, but Spooner is convinced one of the new NS-5 units, a unique prototype, is the murderer. As Spooner gets deeper to the heart of the mystery, the story explodes with robotic violence. Like all good mysteries, the real question is not "Whodunnit?" but "Why?" The heroes do some things for the wrong reasons, and the villains do some things for the right, rational reasons. Although I, Robot hardly pauses for introspection, it does asks us, "What makes a human being superior to a machine?" There are twists and surprises, although in the end, the movie plays out in the only way it can, a band of brave heroes trying to throw the ring into Mt. Doom while the armies of evil march. And yet, the movie leaves us wanting more. What is the future of humanity? How will we control our machines, and how will we prevent the machines from becoming our masters?
While not as ambitious as A.I., it is more successful, and while not as intelligent as Robocop, it is better played. While the movie does suffer from inconsistencies in mood and philosophy, such hiccups are secondary to the emotionality and drive of the film, its fury of thought as well as action. In moments, I, Robot is a terrifying vision of the future. Too few science-fiction movies manage to scare us with the power of technology, but future shock is vital to the science-fiction story. Modern science-fiction truly began with the detonation at White Sands. The Atomic Age has given way to the Digital Age, but we still have not solved the problem of how to wrest the power of technology from the creatures of the id.
Will Smith plays a Jack Slater-styled maverick cop. If it's old, it's good.
He wears vintage converse, listens to Stevie Wonder, and apparently regards sweet potato pie as a food group. Will Smith's acting is a naturalistic shuffle, a Columbo-like pastiche of mumbling, sarcasm, and unexpected outbursts of charisma and off-balancing interrogation techniques. He delivers his one-liners with unnecessary seriousness. While in Men in Black, he aimed for the ballparks with his power-swinging action-comedy style, here his conscientious style gets in the way, suggesting a character who stands in front of the mirror practicing his zingers like a Tuesday night comic. It's not entirely Smith's fault, as the movie itself can't seem to decide if he's standing in for Bogart or Schwarzenegger, or if the character had a life of his own before the film starts rolling. His performance is intelligent, marred by occasional "Gotcha, suckaz!" moments that remind us that all films made in Hollywood are made in Hollywood.
His opposite, Bridget Moynahan, fits her role more surely. She's an ice queen in the classic action movie tradition, a stiff-necked, self-important, lonely woman who has been absorbed by her work so completely she remains a teenager at heart, awkward, vulnerable, and searching for the approval of others. Moynahan's bug-eyed discomfort and clipped, TV-sarcastic delivery are those of the quintessential comedy sidekick. Nonetheless, in rare moments, she invests the character's personal revelations with warmth, doubt, and a glow of determination and moral purpose. While Smith vacillates between supercop and Bogie, Moynahan seems to have found a happy medium between the Saturday matinée and the midnight marathon, a mixture of fun and humanity with a carriage of seriousness appropriate to what is essentially a monster movie.
The robot, Sonny, is a character himself, a curious, frightened creature that seems capable of anything. Could Sonny be the murderer? We hope not, and yet, we see the grim possibility that a machine might consider itself more than a human being. We understand Sonny's drive to live and grow. As human beings, we know what lengths we would go to to ensure our survival, whatever the moral charges facing us.
A top scientist has been murdered, and there are no human suspects, so the powerful US Robotics corporation (no relation to the modem manufacturers) convinces the powers-that-be to consider his unexpected death a suicide. Spooner (Will Smith) alone searches for the truth of the matter, fueled by hatred for robots and a personal debt to the dead scientist. Dr. Calvin (Moynahan) feels his intrusive investigation is unnecessary, although new pieces of evidence appear that gradually shake her confidence. Robots are programmed by the Three Laws to serve humanity, but Spooner is convinced one of the new NS-5 units, a unique prototype, is the murderer. As Spooner gets deeper to the heart of the mystery, the story explodes with robotic violence. Like all good mysteries, the real question is not "Whodunnit?" but "Why?" The heroes do some things for the wrong reasons, and the villains do some things for the right, rational reasons. Although I, Robot hardly pauses for introspection, it does asks us, "What makes a human being superior to a machine?" There are twists and surprises, although in the end, the movie plays out in the only way it can, a band of brave heroes trying to throw the ring into Mt. Doom while the armies of evil march. And yet, the movie leaves us wanting more. What is the future of humanity? How will we control our machines, and how will we prevent the machines from becoming our masters?
While not as ambitious as A.I., it is more successful, and while not as intelligent as Robocop, it is better played. While the movie does suffer from inconsistencies in mood and philosophy, such hiccups are secondary to the emotionality and drive of the film, its fury of thought as well as action. In moments, I, Robot is a terrifying vision of the future. Too few science-fiction movies manage to scare us with the power of technology, but future shock is vital to the science-fiction story. Modern science-fiction truly began with the detonation at White Sands. The Atomic Age has given way to the Digital Age, but we still have not solved the problem of how to wrest the power of technology from the creatures of the id.
I never thought it will be that good...
thenightspark16 July 2005
I am not really a big fan of this kind of movies (the sci-fi movies), and I rarely watch movies that takes place in the future, may be because I'm realistic and love realistic movies.
Anyway, even though I don't usually like that kind of movies but I totally loved this one!! The story was so good and the acting was great, I like all Will Smith's movies, and the way the subject was presented was somehow innovative and makes the audience feel the story behind the movie, it's not only the action and the sci-fi, there's good drama too.
I never thought it will be that good, but it is! It is very good.
Anyway, even though I don't usually like that kind of movies but I totally loved this one!! The story was so good and the acting was great, I like all Will Smith's movies, and the way the subject was presented was somehow innovative and makes the audience feel the story behind the movie, it's not only the action and the sci-fi, there's good drama too.
I never thought it will be that good, but it is! It is very good.
Simply Amazing
svlehtinen16 July 2004
I knew this movie was going to be good before I even went to the theatre, but I didn't know it would be as good as it was. It was pretty intense from beginning to end and I left my seat quite satisfied.
"I, Robot" is set in the year 2035 and is centered around a cop named Del Spooner (Will Smith) who investigates the death of the top scientist at U.S. Robotics. Suspicious, as always, Det. Spooner immediately suspects that a robot has something to do with the crime and as he continues his investigation and delves deeper into USR the truth starts to unfold about what is really going on.
First, I must say that if you are a true fan and follower of Isaac Asimov you probably won't like this movie because you'll be too hung up on the slight, or not-so-slight, differences between the movie and Asimov's original. You should, however, try to take it with a grain of salt and not worry about silly things like that. The basic ideas are still there, they just threw a little "Hollywood" in there. You have to expect that nowadays.
Some people also seems to have an "issue" with Will Smith that I've never been able to figure out. He's witty, charming, funny and looks the part. His acting is great as per usual and his two co-stars Bridget Moynahan (playing Susan Calvin) and Alan Tudyk (playing Sonny, an NS-5 robot) deliver top-notch performances as well. Alan Tudyk especially, did a wonderful job as Sonny. You really feel for him at times.
Considering that this is an action movie at heart, as you would expect, the fight scenes and action sequences are very, very well done. There were a few times that I realized I hadn't breathed in the last two minutes or so because I was too "in" to the movie.
The story was nicely laid out and the ending will not disappoint you. The director (Alex Proyas, Dark City) did an amazing job shooting this film.
The one thing that never left my mind the whole time I was watching the movie was how well each scene was shot and how one scene transitioned into the next.
Overall this movie did not disappoint me in any way. The story, the acting, the directing...all pretty much flawless.
Rating: 10 / 10
"I, Robot" is set in the year 2035 and is centered around a cop named Del Spooner (Will Smith) who investigates the death of the top scientist at U.S. Robotics. Suspicious, as always, Det. Spooner immediately suspects that a robot has something to do with the crime and as he continues his investigation and delves deeper into USR the truth starts to unfold about what is really going on.
First, I must say that if you are a true fan and follower of Isaac Asimov you probably won't like this movie because you'll be too hung up on the slight, or not-so-slight, differences between the movie and Asimov's original. You should, however, try to take it with a grain of salt and not worry about silly things like that. The basic ideas are still there, they just threw a little "Hollywood" in there. You have to expect that nowadays.
Some people also seems to have an "issue" with Will Smith that I've never been able to figure out. He's witty, charming, funny and looks the part. His acting is great as per usual and his two co-stars Bridget Moynahan (playing Susan Calvin) and Alan Tudyk (playing Sonny, an NS-5 robot) deliver top-notch performances as well. Alan Tudyk especially, did a wonderful job as Sonny. You really feel for him at times.
Considering that this is an action movie at heart, as you would expect, the fight scenes and action sequences are very, very well done. There were a few times that I realized I hadn't breathed in the last two minutes or so because I was too "in" to the movie.
The story was nicely laid out and the ending will not disappoint you. The director (Alex Proyas, Dark City) did an amazing job shooting this film.
The one thing that never left my mind the whole time I was watching the movie was how well each scene was shot and how one scene transitioned into the next.
Overall this movie did not disappoint me in any way. The story, the acting, the directing...all pretty much flawless.
Rating: 10 / 10
Enjoyable, but..
niriath14 March 2020
I,Robot
clayton3632013314 June 2007
The first time I saw this movie,I was just really surprised!What a good movie,it's just my taste.I love it,and I've seen it for about four times,and I can still watch it for another four more times!It's full of Sci-fi and action,they're both my favorite genre.
Sometimes I'm thinking about the robots in the movie,I think the thing that happens in the movie will come true in the future,how will the human in that Age,I believe there'll be a hero who'll save the world from being dominate by those cunning robots,they have no hearts,no love,no emotion,they just have an empty metal body.What'll happen if we're really ruled by them?I can't imagine how it could be,people are doing hard works while the robots are whipping them,how terrible.
Now,science and technology are well developed,human will use robots, let's think about our future,please care about ourselves.
Sometimes I'm thinking about the robots in the movie,I think the thing that happens in the movie will come true in the future,how will the human in that Age,I believe there'll be a hero who'll save the world from being dominate by those cunning robots,they have no hearts,no love,no emotion,they just have an empty metal body.What'll happen if we're really ruled by them?I can't imagine how it could be,people are doing hard works while the robots are whipping them,how terrible.
Now,science and technology are well developed,human will use robots, let's think about our future,please care about ourselves.
Clever and fun but little more than a blockbuster
MovieAddict201612 December 2004
Chicago, circa 2035: there are four humans to every robot, and Det. Spooner (Will Smith) has a strong dislike for them. Due to the "Three Laws" of Robotics, no robot can directly or indirectly harm a human being - but due to a past incident involving a robot, Spooner finds it hard to consider them totally harmless.
After a robotics engineer (James Cromwell) leaps to his death from a skyscraper, Spooner is called in to investigate - and stumbles upon the frightening prospect that a robot may be the murder suspect.
If you've seen the ads for this movie you know what is going to happen. It tries to deliver some surprises within its running time but the final "twist" is hardly shocking (at least not on the same level as a Verbal Kint-style surprise) and the movie is filled with many loud action sequences that place it in the blockbuster category.
This isn't too bad. I really enjoyed the movie. It's not great, but it's certainly not bad at all and does what it should: entertain. I expected little from the film after viewing the appalling trailer, and was pleasantly surprised.
However, I do feel that had the project been touched up by a better writer than Akiva Goldsman, and had a better cast (including director) been assembled, it might have been better in a deeper way. I do enjoy Proyas' direction but it seems a bit superficial at times and the marketing plugs and everything seem to combine, resulting in a schmaltzy overtone to the film that seems heavily reliant on Hollywood rather than brain power.
Will Smith really needs to stop playing these tough guy roles, because he's not exceptional at them. He fits the part fairly well but Spooner is a bit too sarcastic and flippant to find totally likable - he treads a thin line and passes over it a few times, mainly because he doesn't really seem to have a purpose for being as obnoxious as he is. It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's Axl Foley from "Beverly Hills Cop" (and not because they're both black actors!) - he is a loudmouth tough guy cliché who no one believes, etc. But Murphy was 10x better at playing this sort of thing because his character was actually a great deal more likable.
Also, the movie is too heavy on its themes - its source material is strong and that's why I believe a more talented cast might have made a truly marvelous science-fiction film, but Alex Proyas merely tries to take the themes and insert them in a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster - not a pretty outcome. The whole racist overtones surrounding the movie are certainly prescient, but will suffocate many viewers looking for subtle viewing.
I seem to be bashing the film, but I don't mean to. It's a lot of fun, delivered more than I ever expected. The CGI are some of the best I've ever seen (and I'm not a fan of computer animation), and overall it's just a really fun film and will entertain you throughout - as long as you're not expecting too much depth.
After a robotics engineer (James Cromwell) leaps to his death from a skyscraper, Spooner is called in to investigate - and stumbles upon the frightening prospect that a robot may be the murder suspect.
If you've seen the ads for this movie you know what is going to happen. It tries to deliver some surprises within its running time but the final "twist" is hardly shocking (at least not on the same level as a Verbal Kint-style surprise) and the movie is filled with many loud action sequences that place it in the blockbuster category.
This isn't too bad. I really enjoyed the movie. It's not great, but it's certainly not bad at all and does what it should: entertain. I expected little from the film after viewing the appalling trailer, and was pleasantly surprised.
However, I do feel that had the project been touched up by a better writer than Akiva Goldsman, and had a better cast (including director) been assembled, it might have been better in a deeper way. I do enjoy Proyas' direction but it seems a bit superficial at times and the marketing plugs and everything seem to combine, resulting in a schmaltzy overtone to the film that seems heavily reliant on Hollywood rather than brain power.
Will Smith really needs to stop playing these tough guy roles, because he's not exceptional at them. He fits the part fairly well but Spooner is a bit too sarcastic and flippant to find totally likable - he treads a thin line and passes over it a few times, mainly because he doesn't really seem to have a purpose for being as obnoxious as he is. It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's Axl Foley from "Beverly Hills Cop" (and not because they're both black actors!) - he is a loudmouth tough guy cliché who no one believes, etc. But Murphy was 10x better at playing this sort of thing because his character was actually a great deal more likable.
Also, the movie is too heavy on its themes - its source material is strong and that's why I believe a more talented cast might have made a truly marvelous science-fiction film, but Alex Proyas merely tries to take the themes and insert them in a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster - not a pretty outcome. The whole racist overtones surrounding the movie are certainly prescient, but will suffocate many viewers looking for subtle viewing.
I seem to be bashing the film, but I don't mean to. It's a lot of fun, delivered more than I ever expected. The CGI are some of the best I've ever seen (and I'm not a fan of computer animation), and overall it's just a really fun film and will entertain you throughout - as long as you're not expecting too much depth.
Creative,but gets far-fetched at times
Ref6521 March 2008
I find this movie creative and far-fetched.I think it's creative because it is set in the year 2023 and robots have been invented.I think it's far-fetched because it seemed that the makers were trying to make the film longer by adding some stuff that wasn't necessary.It's about this scientist or doctor who designs a more up to date version of the other robots.When the scientist happens to commit suicide one detective gets very suspicious about the new robots and tries to find the missing answers to the scientist's death.When the new robots get delivered to the city,they have a revolution and set up a curfew.The detective tries to shut down the main machine but will he succeed?
I enjoyed this movie,but I found a bit of it far-fetched and made me give it a seven.I,Robot can keep many entertained with the action.Will Smith put on a good performance as usual.Recommended to Will Smith fans ,sci-fi fans and if you liked the movie "Robots".I thought it was great,but I didn't love it.
I enjoyed this movie,but I found a bit of it far-fetched and made me give it a seven.I,Robot can keep many entertained with the action.Will Smith put on a good performance as usual.Recommended to Will Smith fans ,sci-fi fans and if you liked the movie "Robots".I thought it was great,but I didn't love it.
STUPID Frankenstein
vhilden6 January 2008
For any fan of Isaac Asimov, this film is a total fraud.
Dr. Asimov went to great lengths to explain his motivation for writing his robot stories in the introduction to "The Rest of the Robots", an anthology published in 1968. In Dr. Asimov's words, "... there seemed only one change to be rung on this plot -- Robots were created and destroyed their creator; ... I quickly grew tired of this dull hundred-times-old tale. As a person interested in science, I resented the purely Faustian interpretation of science".
The film is totally at odds with the philosophy Dr. Asimov defended, and totally different from all the robot stories he wrote. Only a few names and the "three laws of robotics" were copied, but the central point in all his stories, that a robot could never be made to violate the three laws, was not respected. The Asimov robot stories are fun because they try to find situations were there is enough contradiction in those laws to create interesting situations.
"I, Robot", the movie, is just one more remake of that old, old, old story Isaac Asimov hated so much, it's Frankenstein again. If you insist on seeing that same story again, better get Mel Brooks' version, it's funnier.
Let's close with Asimov: "Never, never, was one of my robots to turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust".
Dr. Asimov went to great lengths to explain his motivation for writing his robot stories in the introduction to "The Rest of the Robots", an anthology published in 1968. In Dr. Asimov's words, "... there seemed only one change to be rung on this plot -- Robots were created and destroyed their creator; ... I quickly grew tired of this dull hundred-times-old tale. As a person interested in science, I resented the purely Faustian interpretation of science".
The film is totally at odds with the philosophy Dr. Asimov defended, and totally different from all the robot stories he wrote. Only a few names and the "three laws of robotics" were copied, but the central point in all his stories, that a robot could never be made to violate the three laws, was not respected. The Asimov robot stories are fun because they try to find situations were there is enough contradiction in those laws to create interesting situations.
"I, Robot", the movie, is just one more remake of that old, old, old story Isaac Asimov hated so much, it's Frankenstein again. If you insist on seeing that same story again, better get Mel Brooks' version, it's funnier.
Let's close with Asimov: "Never, never, was one of my robots to turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust".
A clichéd cop thriller crossed with sci-fi but it is noisy, enjoyable fun - all a summer action film should be
bob the moo23 August 2004
It is the year 2035 and the world has forgotten the lessons we learnt in the 20th Century from films like Bladerunner and Terminator. Robots are the new must have accessory, carrying out menial tasks for households and boosting profits for businesses that have workforces not requiring payment. While this is now the norm, Officer Del Spooner refuses to move with the times and, due to an incident in his past refuses to accept the robots as anything approaching human. When an old friend, Dr Lanning head of the robotics company, is found dead everyone suspects suicide but Spooner suspects a robot that flees the crime scene. Despite the robotics company lawyering up, Spooner continues his investigations and, several more malfunctions later, he begins to uncover a much bigger problem with the robots.
When the film opens with a flashback scene that cuts to a bitter, old-fashioned cop who dresses like Shaft and don't take no rubbish from his weary captain I immediately started to worry that this would simply be a clichéd cop thriller in fancy clothes and, in some ways, that is what it was. But it is also good fun and, along with Spiderman 2, stands out as one of the best of this years generally disappointing crop of blockbusters. The plot is interesting enough to keep the film going and, although it goes just where you will expect it to if you've seen Terminator (or had any involvement in popular culture) it builds gradually with an intriguing investigation leading to a very impressive climax. The set pieces are well directed and are mixed well with the drama and the film delivers just what I had come expecting fun, excitement, effects and an involving story.
Of course this is not to ignore the fact that the film has its weak points. The worn 'tough cop' clichés are heavy on the ground and show a script that hasn't put as much effort into its characters as it really should have this is also seen in Calvin, who's background with Lanning is hinted at but never followed though. The film also hints at a very intelligent story around the robots but again it never totally follows through in as much detail as it could have done. The structure of the society is not clear if robots have taken many jobs how can everyone afford a robot? Spooner lives in a poor, overcrowded area with graffiti on the walls but yet everyone owns a robot. While I accept that the film couldn't go into the whole universe behind the scenario, it could have shown us an underclass just as easily as it showed us what I suspect were the middle classes. Likewise the final shot of the film implies that there is more to the robot-ethics of the story but mostly this is put to the side in favour of running and shooting. But these are minor complaints when you accept that this is not art it is a blockbuster and, in this way, it succeeds and is an enjoyable film.
Matching the lazily written character that he is given, Smith plays it like Shaft. He eats pie and takes lots of sugar (but yet has a superb body can't wait for that part of the future!), makes wisecracks and sneers a lot.
He tries to bring something individual out in Spooner but mostly he settles for playing along with the clichés and delivers a familiar performance but one that fits well with the aims of the film. Moynnahan is a bit dry but actually works better than the usual screaming love interest that we get served with thankfully the film resists the temptation to impose a romance on us. Tudyk looks the part and does a very good 'HAL' voice but he is constrained by his character and can only work within that but he works it well enough. Greenwood is a good part, Cromwell's familiarity helps us care for a character who has died before the film even starts, McBride is the gruff, weary captain but basically the film is Smith's and his Shaft is quite fun. Outside of the real things, the effects are great they look real and match the design of the future which is at the other end of the scale from the usual grim future that we all suspect will be nearer the truth! Alex Proyas may not be a great master of the narrative but he does OK here while also indulging his first love the visual effects and style.
Overall this is an enjoyable summer blockbuster and stands out in the crowd of average sequels and trashy attempts at blockbusters that have crawled in and out of our cinemas this year. Yes, it's full of the usual tough cop genre clichés and the sci-fi element doesn't get as interesting or morally complex as it should have done but this is an action movie and I found it to do all the things I needed to do to entertain me set pieces, interesting story, fun, effects that are actually special and a film that builds to a satisfying (if overblown) conclusion. In the cold light of day it is an imperfect film but it is easily one of the better blockbusters of 2004.
When the film opens with a flashback scene that cuts to a bitter, old-fashioned cop who dresses like Shaft and don't take no rubbish from his weary captain I immediately started to worry that this would simply be a clichéd cop thriller in fancy clothes and, in some ways, that is what it was. But it is also good fun and, along with Spiderman 2, stands out as one of the best of this years generally disappointing crop of blockbusters. The plot is interesting enough to keep the film going and, although it goes just where you will expect it to if you've seen Terminator (or had any involvement in popular culture) it builds gradually with an intriguing investigation leading to a very impressive climax. The set pieces are well directed and are mixed well with the drama and the film delivers just what I had come expecting fun, excitement, effects and an involving story.
Of course this is not to ignore the fact that the film has its weak points. The worn 'tough cop' clichés are heavy on the ground and show a script that hasn't put as much effort into its characters as it really should have this is also seen in Calvin, who's background with Lanning is hinted at but never followed though. The film also hints at a very intelligent story around the robots but again it never totally follows through in as much detail as it could have done. The structure of the society is not clear if robots have taken many jobs how can everyone afford a robot? Spooner lives in a poor, overcrowded area with graffiti on the walls but yet everyone owns a robot. While I accept that the film couldn't go into the whole universe behind the scenario, it could have shown us an underclass just as easily as it showed us what I suspect were the middle classes. Likewise the final shot of the film implies that there is more to the robot-ethics of the story but mostly this is put to the side in favour of running and shooting. But these are minor complaints when you accept that this is not art it is a blockbuster and, in this way, it succeeds and is an enjoyable film.
Matching the lazily written character that he is given, Smith plays it like Shaft. He eats pie and takes lots of sugar (but yet has a superb body can't wait for that part of the future!), makes wisecracks and sneers a lot.
He tries to bring something individual out in Spooner but mostly he settles for playing along with the clichés and delivers a familiar performance but one that fits well with the aims of the film. Moynnahan is a bit dry but actually works better than the usual screaming love interest that we get served with thankfully the film resists the temptation to impose a romance on us. Tudyk looks the part and does a very good 'HAL' voice but he is constrained by his character and can only work within that but he works it well enough. Greenwood is a good part, Cromwell's familiarity helps us care for a character who has died before the film even starts, McBride is the gruff, weary captain but basically the film is Smith's and his Shaft is quite fun. Outside of the real things, the effects are great they look real and match the design of the future which is at the other end of the scale from the usual grim future that we all suspect will be nearer the truth! Alex Proyas may not be a great master of the narrative but he does OK here while also indulging his first love the visual effects and style.
Overall this is an enjoyable summer blockbuster and stands out in the crowd of average sequels and trashy attempts at blockbusters that have crawled in and out of our cinemas this year. Yes, it's full of the usual tough cop genre clichés and the sci-fi element doesn't get as interesting or morally complex as it should have done but this is an action movie and I found it to do all the things I needed to do to entertain me set pieces, interesting story, fun, effects that are actually special and a film that builds to a satisfying (if overblown) conclusion. In the cold light of day it is an imperfect film but it is easily one of the better blockbusters of 2004.
Entertaining action sci fi flick, marred by product placement and weak adaptation
mstomaso26 October 2005
Asimov is not quite spinning in his grave, but I think he would have a difficult time recognizing his influence in this adaptation of one of his best novels. Yes, the three laws of AI are here, and yes, the basics of the plot are preserved, but that's about where the similarities end. This is an explosive action film with some simple messages about humanity and person hood which have been explored many times before and in more intelligent and challenging ways. Nevertheless, it's also a much better film than I expected it to be.
I, Robot asks questions about souls and whether they are a product of human biology or intelligence, but doesn't explore them very deeply. Any depth in this film is directly attributable to Asimov's original material. Mostly, this is a murder mystery with a great deal of unnecessary mechanized violence, car chases, and high speed action. A top cyberneticist has died as a result of a fall from a glass enclosed lab, and the only witness is a robot endowed with not just human intellect, but human emotion. Will Smith is a luddite technophobic detective who quickly becomes convinced that this machine may have murdered the scientist, but why? Will Smith is decent, but the material isn't much of a challenge for him. Bridget Moynahan is good in a somewhat more difficult role. However, the star of the show is a CGI robot played by the wonderful Alan Tudyk - "Sonny".
This is definitely a genre film. Even the casting attempts to pull in the sci fi audience - the very recognizable genre star James Cromwell (Star Trek...) Tudyk (Serenity, Firefly). The directing has its moments and the camera-work is sometimes Spielburgian in scope.
Recommended for sci-fi action enthusiasts. Others will likely be bored.
I, Robot asks questions about souls and whether they are a product of human biology or intelligence, but doesn't explore them very deeply. Any depth in this film is directly attributable to Asimov's original material. Mostly, this is a murder mystery with a great deal of unnecessary mechanized violence, car chases, and high speed action. A top cyberneticist has died as a result of a fall from a glass enclosed lab, and the only witness is a robot endowed with not just human intellect, but human emotion. Will Smith is a luddite technophobic detective who quickly becomes convinced that this machine may have murdered the scientist, but why? Will Smith is decent, but the material isn't much of a challenge for him. Bridget Moynahan is good in a somewhat more difficult role. However, the star of the show is a CGI robot played by the wonderful Alan Tudyk - "Sonny".
This is definitely a genre film. Even the casting attempts to pull in the sci fi audience - the very recognizable genre star James Cromwell (Star Trek...) Tudyk (Serenity, Firefly). The directing has its moments and the camera-work is sometimes Spielburgian in scope.
Recommended for sci-fi action enthusiasts. Others will likely be bored.
Do not Think Too Much, and Have a Good Entertainment
claudio_carvalho19 December 2004
In 2035, robots are mandatory electronic devices in every home, being the proportion of four men for each robot in the American society. They are built by US Robotics following three basic laws for preservation of the human being, and no robot is allowed to harm a human being in any circumstance. In Chicago, detective Del Spooner (Will Smith), who hates robots, is assigned to investigate the suicide of the scientist and his old friend, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), in the facilities of US Robotics. The CEO Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood) asks the psychologist Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) to support Spooner in his investigation. Spooner believes that Dr. Lanning was murdered, and looks for the criminal, finding the robot Sonny hidden in Dr. Lanning's room, becoming the prime suspect. While following the hints left by Dr. Lanning, Spooner and Susan are initially misguided, finding the truth in the end. "I, Robot" is a good action sci-fi movie, using elements of "Blade Runner" and "Terminator 2". However, the characters and the society of 2035 are not well-developed, and if the viewer starts questioning details, will find many shallow points and flaws. Therefore, my advice is: do not think too much, and have a good entertainment. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Eu, Robô" ("I, Robot")
Title (Brazil): "Eu, Robô" ("I, Robot")
'Sonny' Is The Star In This Sci-Fi Thriller
ccthemovieman-15 August 2009
A lot of latter-day sci-fi movies seem to feature both interesting stories and real eye candy. The latter is helped immensely by computer wizardry and by seeing these great visuals on a high-definition DVD. This movie is no exception; it's cool to watch. If you have the opportunity, see "I, Robot," on Blu-Ray, too, because there are some amazing scenes.
Yet, I thought the best part of this movie was the story, not the audio or visuals. The best part of the story centered around a robot, and whether that robot was good or evil. That's the focal point of this whole story and it's a hard one to figure. Only in the last minutes, after a number of twists and turns. do we - and the characters in the film - find out.
Will Smith and Bridge Moynahan play the main characters. Smith is his normal cocky and ultra-smug self. I would have found him funny if I hadn't seen this act so many times in the past. He and Chevy Chase: the world's most smug actors, or at least the roles they play. Smith's a good actor, though. By the way, Will, as lawman "Del Spooner," takes beatings from robots and car accidents that would kill hundreds of men but he just gets a few scratches. Moynahan looks and sounds very much like Sandra Bullock in this film.
The coolest "people" are the robots, led by the aforementioned main one, "Sonny." He (it) looked a lot like famous cyclist Lance Armstrong.
Anyway, this is an entertaining film, and that's the name of the game so it is definitely recommended.
Yet, I thought the best part of this movie was the story, not the audio or visuals. The best part of the story centered around a robot, and whether that robot was good or evil. That's the focal point of this whole story and it's a hard one to figure. Only in the last minutes, after a number of twists and turns. do we - and the characters in the film - find out.
Will Smith and Bridge Moynahan play the main characters. Smith is his normal cocky and ultra-smug self. I would have found him funny if I hadn't seen this act so many times in the past. He and Chevy Chase: the world's most smug actors, or at least the roles they play. Smith's a good actor, though. By the way, Will, as lawman "Del Spooner," takes beatings from robots and car accidents that would kill hundreds of men but he just gets a few scratches. Moynahan looks and sounds very much like Sandra Bullock in this film.
The coolest "people" are the robots, led by the aforementioned main one, "Sonny." He (it) looked a lot like famous cyclist Lance Armstrong.
Anyway, this is an entertaining film, and that's the name of the game so it is definitely recommended.
Great fun movie.
Kdosda_Hegen14 April 2020
Awesome
automorphism6 January 2021
I love Isaac Asimov. Typically his stories involve a lot of dialogue to advance the plot so there is always a danger that an action-oriented movie will not really tell an Asimov story properly.
Luckily I, Robot does a really good job. You've got the Three Laws of Robotics, and the question of what can go wrong with them, which is a strong theme throughout this film.
Another aspect of Asimov's story is the typically involve an intelligent main character or pair of characters trying to figure out the events unfolding around them. That's Del Spooner (Smith) and Dr. Susan Calvin (Moynahan), a character from Asimov's Robot stories. Spooner's mistrust of robots plays quite well against Calvin's fondness for them, and together they investigate the possibility that something might be wrong with the three laws.
Unlike Asimov's stories, this movie has quite a bit more action, but yet it is a good modification for the big screen. The sets are very well done and the cinematography is excellent. There is a main robot character well and I think the voice they chose for him is perfect.
This is a solid film with very few flaws and an excellent illustration of the ideas of Asimov.
Luckily I, Robot does a really good job. You've got the Three Laws of Robotics, and the question of what can go wrong with them, which is a strong theme throughout this film.
Another aspect of Asimov's story is the typically involve an intelligent main character or pair of characters trying to figure out the events unfolding around them. That's Del Spooner (Smith) and Dr. Susan Calvin (Moynahan), a character from Asimov's Robot stories. Spooner's mistrust of robots plays quite well against Calvin's fondness for them, and together they investigate the possibility that something might be wrong with the three laws.
Unlike Asimov's stories, this movie has quite a bit more action, but yet it is a good modification for the big screen. The sets are very well done and the cinematography is excellent. There is a main robot character well and I think the voice they chose for him is perfect.
This is a solid film with very few flaws and an excellent illustration of the ideas of Asimov.
Blade Runner it ain't
joachimokeefe7 May 2005
In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
You, Will Smith
wes-connors26 August 2011
In the year 2035, the citizens of Chicago are on track for meeting technological tragedies predicted by pop duo Denny Zager and Rick Evans, among others. Everyone who's anyone has a personal robot. Not to worry, our mechanical friends follow robot rules; they are programmed to be helpful only, follow orders, and would never harm a human being. One person in this scenario is "robo-phobic" - perfectly proportioned policeman Will Smith (as Del "Spoon" Spooner). Mr. Smith does not trust society's robot helpers...
Smith is suspicious when his robot designer pal (huh?) James Cromwell (as Alfred Lansing) is found splattered on the sidewalk outside of his skyscraper office. The incident is reported to be a suicide, but Smith suspects one of Mr. Cromwell's personal robots, blue-eyed Alan Tudyk (as Sonny), is responsible. Smith goes against robotics psychiatrist Bridget Moynahan (as Susan Calvin), corporate robot provider Bruce Greenwood (as Lawrence Robertson), and police chief Chi McBride (as John Bergin), among others...
Smith is pumped to perfection, spits blood, and possesses incredible super-strength. Ironically, there is no sex in "I, Robot" with Smith only mentioning he wouldn't bed Mr. Greenwood for all the money in the world. A hat is tipped to Harold Lloyd, apparently resurgent in popularity, and cussing streetwise Shia LaBeouf (as Farber) tips his hat to the younger generation...
Science fiction robot writers Otto Binder and Isaac Asimov, the later acknowledged herein, effectively used the subtexts prejudice and fear of technology in their thought-provoking stories. Both themes are present in this update; arguably and unfortunately, they are perversely celebrated. Also note the traumatic event from super-human Smith's past does not support his instincts at all; rather, it supports the robot acts without emotion. While lacking gray matter, this is a well-produced and entertaining production.
******* I, Robot (7/15/04) Alex Proyas ~ Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Bruce Greenwood, Alan Tudyk
Smith is suspicious when his robot designer pal (huh?) James Cromwell (as Alfred Lansing) is found splattered on the sidewalk outside of his skyscraper office. The incident is reported to be a suicide, but Smith suspects one of Mr. Cromwell's personal robots, blue-eyed Alan Tudyk (as Sonny), is responsible. Smith goes against robotics psychiatrist Bridget Moynahan (as Susan Calvin), corporate robot provider Bruce Greenwood (as Lawrence Robertson), and police chief Chi McBride (as John Bergin), among others...
Smith is pumped to perfection, spits blood, and possesses incredible super-strength. Ironically, there is no sex in "I, Robot" with Smith only mentioning he wouldn't bed Mr. Greenwood for all the money in the world. A hat is tipped to Harold Lloyd, apparently resurgent in popularity, and cussing streetwise Shia LaBeouf (as Farber) tips his hat to the younger generation...
Science fiction robot writers Otto Binder and Isaac Asimov, the later acknowledged herein, effectively used the subtexts prejudice and fear of technology in their thought-provoking stories. Both themes are present in this update; arguably and unfortunately, they are perversely celebrated. Also note the traumatic event from super-human Smith's past does not support his instincts at all; rather, it supports the robot acts without emotion. While lacking gray matter, this is a well-produced and entertaining production.
******* I, Robot (7/15/04) Alex Proyas ~ Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Bruce Greenwood, Alan Tudyk
More relevant than ever.
Keemshave21 August 2021
An underappreciated film that appears to be getting better with each watch. The plot points are pertinent to today's world, and the messages delivered by the story are ahead of their time.
It's no surprise that Will Smith carries this movie. In general, the acting was solid.
I don't have too many issues with this movie; it isn't flawless, but it is enjoyable to watch. The action is plenty of fun.
It's no surprise that Will Smith carries this movie. In general, the acting was solid.
I don't have too many issues with this movie; it isn't flawless, but it is enjoyable to watch. The action is plenty of fun.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
