I, Robot Reviews

  • Aug 28, 2019

    A solid sci- fi entry, as well Will Smith movie.

    A solid sci- fi entry, as well Will Smith movie.

  • Aug 05, 2019

    I thought I Robot was a fun sci fi. Message? You don't want robots.

    I thought I Robot was a fun sci fi. Message? You don't want robots.

  • Jul 25, 2019

    It has its moments but they are few and far between.

    It has its moments but they are few and far between.

  • Jul 13, 2019

    Still holds up 15 years later(for the most part).

    Still holds up 15 years later(for the most part).

  • Jun 01, 2019

    Great film. Worth a watch if you're a Sci-Fi fan.

    Great film. Worth a watch if you're a Sci-Fi fan.

  • May 18, 2019

    The epitome of good film making, I,Robot is a classic that I have spent many hours watching during my childhood and to this day.

    The epitome of good film making, I,Robot is a classic that I have spent many hours watching during my childhood and to this day.

  • Apr 27, 2019

    Missed this one first time around and possibly a bit cliched for an early 2000's movie. However, i thought it has worn quite well and in 2019 was a suitably refreshing action movie outside of the Marvel/DC stables that currently dominate this genre.

    Missed this one first time around and possibly a bit cliched for an early 2000's movie. However, i thought it has worn quite well and in 2019 was a suitably refreshing action movie outside of the Marvel/DC stables that currently dominate this genre.

  • Apr 08, 2019

    I absolutely LOVE what this movie did. I've read a lot of reviews that berated the fact that it is not a movie adaptation of the book by the same name. Even Rotten Tomatoes claims that it bears "only the slightest resemblance" to the books. Those people failed to understand the movie's place in the Asimov universe. If you agree with the reviews claiming this to be the usual Hollywood action trope, then speak for yourself; you aren't geek enough to get it. Rather than ruin a book the way Hollywood usually does, they wrote a fitting prequel. Throughout his collection of novels (the core "I, Robot" series was a trilogy of novels, not short stories), short stories, and novellas, Isaac Asimov left teasers to undeveloped storylines, which he later used to tie his larger universe together. In the "Foundation" series, Isaac Asimov briefly discusses two great ventures into space. The first was the Settlers. They were hardy, frontier types. They had technology, but steadfastly insisted that the human exploration of space should be done by humans. Consequently, they left themselves exposed to dangers which ultimately resulted in failure. The second great expedition was the Spacers. They used every technological advantage available. They completely isolated themselves from disease and physical trauma, living 600-700 years. They accomplished this by using robots for everything. In spite of their relative frailty to the Settlers, their expeditions were therefore successful. The difference between the two was a philosophical view of the role of robotics. The Settlers did not trust robots, due to a disaster in the early days of robotics. ... ... ... That's where Isaac Asimov abruptly drops the matter and moves on with the story. If you want to know more about that disaster, you'll have to watch the movie. Think of it as big-budget fan fiction. *Spoiler Alert* The disaster is ironically rooted in the over-perfection of the robot's programming as servants to humans, which then manifests itself as a robotic attempt to oppressively protect us from our own imperfections, a perfect reason to not trust them with something as inherently adventurous as space exploration. Will Smith's character is nothing if he's not adventurous. At the end of the combined "Foundation" and "Robot" series, R. Daneel Olivaw, by then using the human name Daniel Oliver, has resolved that dilemma with the Zeroth Law, superior to the Three Laws, as he is advanced enough to understand that human flaws are central to the human condition, and humans must be allowed to behave humanly, with robots providing only protective guidance. Having resolved his own flawed perfection, it is revealed that it was Daniel Oliver who inspired Hari Seldon to develop psychohistory, upon which the Foundation is built, a mathematical, and therefore logical, approach to sociology that could be understood, and therefore self-managed, by humans. This movie largely focuses on the disaster, and ends with questions about what it means to be human, and so fits Isaac Asimov's larger body of work seamlessly, if accidentally. But then again, ''happy accidents,'' as Bob Ross would put it, are often where humans make the greatest strides. In our pursuit of perfection, we so often ask the wrong questions and seek the wrong results, just like Will Smith's character, and just like the negative reviewers.

    I absolutely LOVE what this movie did. I've read a lot of reviews that berated the fact that it is not a movie adaptation of the book by the same name. Even Rotten Tomatoes claims that it bears "only the slightest resemblance" to the books. Those people failed to understand the movie's place in the Asimov universe. If you agree with the reviews claiming this to be the usual Hollywood action trope, then speak for yourself; you aren't geek enough to get it. Rather than ruin a book the way Hollywood usually does, they wrote a fitting prequel. Throughout his collection of novels (the core "I, Robot" series was a trilogy of novels, not short stories), short stories, and novellas, Isaac Asimov left teasers to undeveloped storylines, which he later used to tie his larger universe together. In the "Foundation" series, Isaac Asimov briefly discusses two great ventures into space. The first was the Settlers. They were hardy, frontier types. They had technology, but steadfastly insisted that the human exploration of space should be done by humans. Consequently, they left themselves exposed to dangers which ultimately resulted in failure. The second great expedition was the Spacers. They used every technological advantage available. They completely isolated themselves from disease and physical trauma, living 600-700 years. They accomplished this by using robots for everything. In spite of their relative frailty to the Settlers, their expeditions were therefore successful. The difference between the two was a philosophical view of the role of robotics. The Settlers did not trust robots, due to a disaster in the early days of robotics. ... ... ... That's where Isaac Asimov abruptly drops the matter and moves on with the story. If you want to know more about that disaster, you'll have to watch the movie. Think of it as big-budget fan fiction. *Spoiler Alert* The disaster is ironically rooted in the over-perfection of the robot's programming as servants to humans, which then manifests itself as a robotic attempt to oppressively protect us from our own imperfections, a perfect reason to not trust them with something as inherently adventurous as space exploration. Will Smith's character is nothing if he's not adventurous. At the end of the combined "Foundation" and "Robot" series, R. Daneel Olivaw, by then using the human name Daniel Oliver, has resolved that dilemma with the Zeroth Law, superior to the Three Laws, as he is advanced enough to understand that human flaws are central to the human condition, and humans must be allowed to behave humanly, with robots providing only protective guidance. Having resolved his own flawed perfection, it is revealed that it was Daniel Oliver who inspired Hari Seldon to develop psychohistory, upon which the Foundation is built, a mathematical, and therefore logical, approach to sociology that could be understood, and therefore self-managed, by humans. This movie largely focuses on the disaster, and ends with questions about what it means to be human, and so fits Isaac Asimov's larger body of work seamlessly, if accidentally. But then again, ''happy accidents,'' as Bob Ross would put it, are often where humans make the greatest strides. In our pursuit of perfection, we so often ask the wrong questions and seek the wrong results, just like Will Smith's character, and just like the negative reviewers.

  • Mar 30, 2019

    Impressive CGI for the time and great acting, iRobot is a fun movie for all!

    Impressive CGI for the time and great acting, iRobot is a fun movie for all!

  • Mar 17, 2019

    One of the better sci-fi movies out there.

    One of the better sci-fi movies out there.