Sometimes I think our collective disappointment with so many big budget sci-fi films is a matter of dashed expectations, especially when films such as I, ROBOT, THE TIME MACHINE, or DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL share the titles of true classics that built the genre to begin with.
So it was when I, ROBOT arrived in theaters. It is a cliche by now -- and hardly a deep thought -- to opine that beyond a use of The Three Laws of Robotics, Will Smith's I, ROBOT shares literally nothing with the wonderful and paradoxical mystery/sci-fi stories of Isaac Asimov.
Those stories, and the robot mysteries such as THE CAVES OF STEEL, along with robot detective Elijah Bailey and the link later to the Foundation and Empire novels, were as eye-opening a portal into the fantastic as anything I ever encountered as a kid. A movie titled I, ROBOT would seem to require a Fourth Law: thou shalt not stray from the source material.
But not only did it stray, the use of Asimov's title was appended at the last minute on a project written as a separate film, a sci-fi mystery with robots. The use of 'I, ROBOT' surely increased fanboy interest, and that's why I left the theatre in 2004 so disappointed, and even angered. I didn't really see the film then; I only saw what it wasn't.
On my first re-viewing this afternoon, eight years later, there is a lot more to I, ROBOT than a wasted title. Yes, it is every excess of summer blockbusters -- a wisecracking Smith, needlessly raw language, huge CGI set pieces and chases, product placement everywhere (I want an Audi!), and an empty but spectacular finale.
In truth, this should have been called MAGNUS ROBOT FIGHTER IN THE BATTLE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, er, ROBOTS. Substitute rebellious apes for the suddenly 'lawless' robots, and the films aren't that far apart. Throw in a bit of BLADE RUNNER. too.
For all that, I had a satisfying afternoon. It's not a great movie by any means, but it certainly moves fast enough, the mystery is intriguing and the ending is open-ended enough for the sequels that never were. The CGI seems almost crude compared to today's effects, and the robots are cartoony and insubstantial.
But change the title -- MURDERS OF STEEL? -- and the sci-fi audience reaction might have been better. I feel better about the movie now -- it's actually kind of smart -- but still wish filmmakers could catch up with Asimov's vision. Someday.
david
'...or through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.'
So it was when I, ROBOT arrived in theaters. It is a cliche by now -- and hardly a deep thought -- to opine that beyond a use of The Three Laws of Robotics, Will Smith's I, ROBOT shares literally nothing with the wonderful and paradoxical mystery/sci-fi stories of Isaac Asimov.
Those stories, and the robot mysteries such as THE CAVES OF STEEL, along with robot detective Elijah Bailey and the link later to the Foundation and Empire novels, were as eye-opening a portal into the fantastic as anything I ever encountered as a kid. A movie titled I, ROBOT would seem to require a Fourth Law: thou shalt not stray from the source material.
But not only did it stray, the use of Asimov's title was appended at the last minute on a project written as a separate film, a sci-fi mystery with robots. The use of 'I, ROBOT' surely increased fanboy interest, and that's why I left the theatre in 2004 so disappointed, and even angered. I didn't really see the film then; I only saw what it wasn't.
On my first re-viewing this afternoon, eight years later, there is a lot more to I, ROBOT than a wasted title. Yes, it is every excess of summer blockbusters -- a wisecracking Smith, needlessly raw language, huge CGI set pieces and chases, product placement everywhere (I want an Audi!), and an empty but spectacular finale.
In truth, this should have been called MAGNUS ROBOT FIGHTER IN THE BATTLE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, er, ROBOTS. Substitute rebellious apes for the suddenly 'lawless' robots, and the films aren't that far apart. Throw in a bit of BLADE RUNNER. too.
For all that, I had a satisfying afternoon. It's not a great movie by any means, but it certainly moves fast enough, the mystery is intriguing and the ending is open-ended enough for the sequels that never were. The CGI seems almost crude compared to today's effects, and the robots are cartoony and insubstantial.
But change the title -- MURDERS OF STEEL? -- and the sci-fi audience reaction might have been better. I feel better about the movie now -- it's actually kind of smart -- but still wish filmmakers could catch up with Asimov's vision. Someday.
david
'...or through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.'
