6 comments
Comment from: Welby McRoberts [Visitor]
Welby McRoberts

“Much better than things like the Matrix reloads and the Terminator sequels or even Minority Report if you’re expecting that kind of stuff.”

I’ll agree with everything bar the terminator, T1 was slightly worse than T2, t3 however was utter rubbish :P

2004-07-30 @ 20:37
Comment from: admin [Member]

Oh yes Welby I gotta agree that T2 isn’t bad at all. I even enjoyed T3, actually. Especially when compared to Matrix Revolutions (the 3rd one).

But what I really meant was: those movies are entertaining science fiction with kewl visual effects; whereas “I, Robot” is more! It makes you think. Intensely ;)

2004-07-31 @ 17:42
Comment from: Isaac Z. Schlueter [Visitor]
Isaac Z. Schlueter

I agree, great movie. One of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

Have you noticed that there’s also a company called iRobot? http://irobot.com They make the roomba vacuum, the military packbot, and other cool stuff.

If any company is destined to create an NS-5 someday, they’re it!

I’m not sure I’d agree that Mr. Crazy’s behavior “makes sense.” If anything, the movie (true to the book) points to the fundamental problem with the 3 laws: Humans don’t follow them!

2004-08-10 @ 19:44
Comment from: Makas [Visitor]
Makas

Does anyone knows what music starts playing when Spooner turn on JVC audio system in the very beginning of the movie?

2004-09-13 @ 17:01
Comment from: gendre [Visitor]
gendre

how can you compare fight club and i robot…?

2006-05-17 @ 15:02
Comment from: Bob Dog [Visitor]
Bob Dog

“I, Rot” was an abomination. It has nothing to do with Asimov’s book which was a serious _and_ playful critique of religion. This piece of tripe was a pro-religious pile of garbage with its “saviour” nonsense.

Harlan Ellison once wrote a screenplay based on the book and Asimov gave permission and approval once Ellison was finished. No movie studio would touch it, however, due to its atheistic vision of humanity (which both authors are and were, atheists).

Asimov would never have approved of such twaddle as this being fobbed off in his name nor in his book’s name. The only thing the movie had in common with the book was the title and names of certain characters; beyond that, it was as honest a portrayal of Asimov’s book as an Albert Goldman “biography” is of a person’s life.

2007-03-06 @ 09:46