I, ROBOT
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In 2035 there is a murder at U.S. Robotics
and a robophobic policeman, played by Will Smith,
believes robots are responsible. Mixing animation
and live action nearly seamlessly, I, ROBOT turns
Isaac Asimov's robot world into the backdrop for a
prosaic summer action film. It is not a film Asimov
would have enjoyed much. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10
Isaac Asimov wrote about psychohistory, which implied that there
were certain tides of history that could not be avoided. Had he
lived long enough he might have extended it to psychocinematics
which would include a theory that a summer science fiction film in
the 21st century might even start with ideas from his stories, but
eventually the forces of the box-office would make it a mindless
action film. That seems to be what happened with I, ROBOT. In
spite of frequent references to Asimov's laws of robotics, this is
a rather prosaic story of a conspiracy involving robots. The
robots' behavior is examined and analyzed in terms of the three
laws, but you could analyze a human slave's actions in much the
same way. In the end the actions of the robots is sort of
rationalized in terms of the three laws, but not very
convincingly.
We are in Chicago in the year 2035. Del Spooner (played by Will
Smith) is a stereotypical wisecracking good cop, but one with a
bad attitude when it comes to robots. The reason why he hates
robots is eventually revealed as being both well-intentioned and
totally wrong-headed. But hate them he does though he is a good
friend of one of their prime inventors, Dr. Alfred Lanning (James
Cromwell) of the U.S. Robotics Corporation. Lanning commits
suicide by throwing himself through an unbreakable glass window
and his less than objective friend comes in to investigate. The
investigation leads Spooner to work with robot psychologist Susan
Calvin (attractive Bridget Moyahan). Side note: in the book
Calvin is plain looking but is the brilliant Mother of Robotics.
In this film no mention is made of her seminal role in the
development of robotics. Instead she is reduced to the role of
corporate flunky.
I knew Isaac Asimov a little (as did most people in Massachusetts
science fiction fandom in the 1960s). I am reasonably confident
that if he had seen this film claiming to be based on his writing
he would have cut it to pieces with a few quick but well-chosen
verbal barbs. The film is really a travesty on his style of
writing. He might have appreciated the rationalization that what
is happening in the film is arguably consistent with the laws of
robotics. But his heroes use brains and not brawn.
Spooner is just not a hero in Asimov's style. Like a James Bond
he has an uncanny ability to get out of tight situations that
would look ridiculous in a serious film. And he does it in ways
that as Asimov would point out contravene physics. The cars are
futuristic with spherical wheels that go in any direction, but
even so, Spooner's control of these cars verges on the
supernatural. It is a sign of poor scriptwriting to make the main
character too unrealistically skillful and Spooner is almost a
superhero. Fans of CSI will look on in horror as Spooner
vandalizes a crime scene under investigation, further undermining
the believability of the action. It is a little surprising that
director Alex Proyas, who previously directed DARK CITY, would not
have held out for a better and less cliched script from Jeff
Vintar and Akiva Goldsman.
Much of what we see is simply impossible by the laws of physics,
but then the filmmakers proudly point to the high degree of CGI in
this film. I, ROBOT is one more film that blurs the distinction
between live-action and animation. It is in large part an
animated film with live-action elements and a realistic animation
style. Like Gollum in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, the major robots are
actually played by real actors with images replaced by computer.
It is something of a surprise after years of discussion of how
properly to do Asimov's world and of a never-produced script by
Harlan Ellison, that when the first major film is made of the I,
ROBOT stories, it is so mundane an effort. I, ROBOT is being
handled as if it is a major film event. A lot of attention may
have been lavished on the production, but the script keeps the
film a non-memorable, strictly second-rate production. It dumbs
down Asimov and replaces the thought with special effects. I rate
it 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10.
Mark R. Leeper
mleeper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004 Mark R. Leeper
==========
X-RAMR-ID: 38331
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1300805
X-RT-TitleID: 1134097
X-RT-AuthorID: 1309
X-RT-RatingText: 4/10
|
