rustyk-5 Reviews

I, Robot (2004)

Barely watchable

[2/10 · 1 March 2005]

Firstly, this is not an Asimov film, apart from his three laws and the names of a few characters and companies, it bears no relation to any of Asimov's stories. In fact there is a writer from 1939 Eando Binder who wrote I, Robot.

Secondly The effects are awful. I was never convinced on taken in by the robots or the action sequences. The movements of the robots and trucks and that ghastly shoot-out in the tunnel were far from realistic. Physics, encompassing the strength of our gravity, would never allow machinery and gizmos to move the way they do. It is not convincing.

Thirdly, nor is Will Smith convincing. He seems only to have mastered the depth of character of a cardboard cut-out. The character of Spooner came to him on paper as a script. Unfortunately he chose to portray the paper and not the part. It can be confusing for a boy who achieved his high point as a sit-com rapper (!). He is rubbish.

The whole is amusing for the time it takes to watch it, but like anything that emanates from Hollywood, you chew it up and spit it out. Its not worth swallowing. It can only be seen and discarded. American consumerism in its worst incarnation.

Days of Heaven (1978)

Up there with Casablanca & Citizen Kane

[1 March 2005]

I can understand why Malick didn't make another movie after he made Days of Heaven. The film was panned by the majority of the critics who could only find the cinematography worthy of praise. However, Malick was hugely misunderstood by these dumb critics.

They complain that the film is ponderously slow. This was the intention. Malick used pause to convey that the characters think. Too many actors rattle off their lines without letting their characters think of them. It also conveys the slow pace of their lives.

Critics complain that the characters are too remote - one feels removed from them and can't get involved. Hello! It is narrated by a 13 yr old and is essentially her view of the events that transpired. Naturally she does not grasp most of the more adult moments between them and thus is herself removed from being fully involved in Bill and Abby's relationship and that is what has to come across.

Then Malick, in a moment of genius, allied the four main characters to the four elements; Earth, Air, Fire & Water. Bill is Fire - he is seen at first in front of the furnaces of a foundry where he works. We can see his temper is volatile. Abby is water - in the very first shot she is scavenging(?) by a stream and she is seen against the backdrop of the river. Linda is Earth - In her narration she says that she is close to the "Oith". The Farmer is Air - constantly tinkering with his weather vane, and his fields of wheat are often seen waving in the wind.

All in all a severely mies-judged film and the critics owe Malick a huge apology. The work is pure genius!