I see you've removed the x/5 rating. XD

yeah u mufty

Good Article, but you forgot to put your rating for the film.

Uh... If you don't mind my asking, where's your rating? I can imagine it being a 2.5 or 2/5, but still, it would be nice to have that back.

As for the trailers revealing stuff... well, there is one detail they didn't reveal about Ving Rhames' character.

Otherwise, though, I completely agree with your sentiments on how under-developed the whole movie felt. Really, that subplot with the wife was the only one that was satisfactoryly developed. I really wish they had developed those questions.

Also...

Don't even get me started with that. Surrogates may not have addressed the issues that it brought up as well as it could have, but from what I understand it at least followed its subject material in terms of what happened where.

But to say it derives material from I, Robot? Not even close, especially if you're on the mindset that the movie should burn for what it did to the book.

The book that I, Robot was "based" on had very little to do with the movie "adaptation" except for the three laws of robotics. The quotation marks are intentional; the plot of the movie and all of the characters save one were made up by the screenwriters, and even with the one character they kept they changed the character completely (and no, it's not Will Smith's character). The book version of I, Robot was a series of short stories meditating on the three laws of robotics throughout the history of robotics ranging from when robots couldn't talk to when they're on mines on Mercury. It could practically be a sci-fi classic. Take it to screen-writers, and they strip it of all of those interesting and thought-provoking stories, hash in a standard thriller plot, and take out all discussions of the laws of robotics except those in relation to one fucking robot. I, Robot the movie is actually more derivative of every thriller in existence than Surrogates is derivative of I, Robot.

Essentially, what it comes down to is that there's nothing to derive from the movie I, Robot. Which really irks me about that statement.

I totally agree with your review.

Nowadays, the trailers completely spoil the movies. That's why I went to watch District 9 without them. In this movie, there should be suspense for an important decision, but we already know the answer from the trailer!

And the movie, in this case, is too short. It should have been 2:30 hours and should have explained several interesting themes in details.

Exactly: especially because the three laws basically tell the robots not to harm the humans in any form, while in the movie they go on rampage.

The biggest disappointment for me was that nowhere in the film did Bruce Willis' character yell "I AM A MAN!" and then proceed to punch an android in the stomach. Other than that it was actually better than the crap I had gone in expecting it to be.

Film Brain, DO NOT listen to the calls for a return to the rating system. You made the right decision, the hard decision to abandon it.

Folks, if you care what FB has to say about a movie, you've got to pay attention and not just go with the "grade," which is always a reductionistic comment anyway, even when applied properly.

To say that briefly, USE YOUR FUCKING BRAINS.

On a side note, you may note in the bottom right hand corner of this window a large tally of red thumbs.

Great review FB always with the great insight. I was thinking about watching this even with the mediocre reviews it's been getting, but i think your review was the final nail in the coffin. I'll wait for dvd...

One more thing...

It's funny you should describe it like that. Like many 'adaptations' I, Robot wasn't based on Asimov's book to begin with. It actually wasn't called I, Robot till some time after the initial script was written. It was supposed to be a more Poirot type murder mystery where Smith's character simply interrogated several robot suspects at the murder scene and then used his head to figure out whodunit. Over time the Three Laws were thrown in, the studio slapped the I, Robot title on it, and different screenwriters went at it in order for it to become the Will Smith action movie that hit theaters.

Also interesting to note that a screenplay for an I, Robot film was penned by Harlan Ellison with Asimov's approval. It was said to follow closely to the source material.

Ahhhh gotta love Wiki-binges.

1. Alternate explanation: He didn't want people getting the wrong idea about his opinions because they were too lazy to read the review. You can't claim that "can't handle the backlash" is a better explanation than that unless you're actually Film Brain.

2. Umm . . . yeah, the rest of your post isn't worth commenting on.

I love how so in an angry rage you are that you fail to form a cohesive argument within your sentence. I'm wondering what the hell your line of argument in that sentence was.

You sound like a lovely person. The reason for the rating removal was multiple and the main criticism was directed at the rating itself, rather than the comments in the review. I've been told to drop the ratings before and after what happened, I decided to drop them completely. If you don't like it, deal with it. I responded to the criticism and evolved. Although apparently that's all it takes for a troll (come from Spoony's site have we..? Where he was joking!) to criticise. I knew I'd get some backlash for doing it, but screw it, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Mr. Film Brain, you shouldn't even glorify them with a reply.

you're harsh.
now people have to actually read the article before trolling.
that's just mean.
now off to watch this trailer.

Mr. Film Brain might not be the best reviewer, or all that funny to a lot of people, but he is new and is learning to tweak his whole thing. He is gaining experience and someday will probably be one of the better reviewers on TGWTG. Hell, I already think he's better than at least 1/4 of them. I don't really find him "lol" funny, but to me, it's almost a nonsubtle, subtle humor...if that makes sense. I just except it and it ads like, "comic relief" to the shit of the movie he is reviewing.

I like information of stupidity and comic relief in information is always a plus.

Now, I don't think Film Brain shouldn't be critized, but people...you're not critizing him, you're just flaming him with no reason behind logic. Are you stupid? If you want him off the site, say something semi-intelligent.

"You're just an idiot" isn't enough.

Go to hell.

Hey Film Brain, I'd like to throw my hat in behind you as supporting the removal of ratings. Same as with Yahtzee at Zero Punctuation, your reviews are clear and intelligible enough that someone can judge for *themselves* whether it's something they're interesting in seeing, and if someone can't figure it out, they need to try actually reading. Keep up the awesome work here and at BMB (Heh, Equishit, love that)!

One thing that gets me is nobody really seems to be mentioning the huge changes from comic book to movie. They completely change the big message that the "killer" in the movie was making in the comic.

Comic wise he killed one person, and there was a HUGE reason for that. They went and changed the whole point and message of the movie turning it into your standard hollywood bollocks in the anglo saxon and british english meanings.

and since everybody seems put off by the lack of a rating, or enjoys the lack of a rating, i offer this.

Things i'd rather do then see this movie..

Survey says?
Whip myself in the junk with a live fallen power line.

There you go. its not a numeric rating, but its a rating of some sort.

...

I would totally go see that if someone found it and decided to film it. It's good that it's faithful, but Harlan Ellison writing it? Now that's some icing on the cake right there.

Otherwise, wow, I never would've guessed the screenplay came first and then everything else was slapped on afterwards. Honestly, they should've just left the laws of robotics out of it; it would've saved them a lot of nerd rage from yours truly and I'd actually have liked it more.

Good review. I thought it was okay, not great, but most certainly not absolute crap. My girlfriend loved it though.

Well, yeah, a lot of people got angry at you for your rating of IB being lower than TF2, but I even took account of your comments in addition to your number rating. Thing is, the number helps give the subjective material something...tangible. Not just "I hate this movie", "this movie is okay", "This is a great movie", etc. Some people's perception of "okay", "good" may be more critical or lenient. A number helps establish it, really. I still read through your reviews a lot, just the number helped establish your "final" feelings a lot better.
Of course, now on to this movie; it seems like it's rather dull, for it's premise. But being able to sum up the whole movie with just the trailer? Ouch...I was even considering going to see this. I guess I'll just wait for a video release. Actually, when the concept was first explained to me, it sounded kinda like Blade Runner meets the Matrix or something...maybe I was just tired.
Personally, I'd like to see the number system comeback, as it supplements your comments well. But if you decide not to, that's fine too.

Oh, and an awful lot of people seem to troll you. I think they are just jealous...or anti-British. Hmmm...mainly American commenters fighting against British people? This sounds like...
SYMBOLISM!!!

Rate the movies whatever you want and don't let the opinions of a bunch of whiners affect that.

"... this certainly isn't another Live Free or Die Hard and more in the realm of his other recent, average fare like Hostage."

I'd take that as a recommendation, seeing as Hostage felt more like a Die Hard movie than DH 4.0 did.

Having read Ellison's screenplay, it actually does follow the stories, using a clever framing device to connect the stories into one narrative. It was released as a book, complete with great illustrations by Mark Zug. I'd totally love to see it adapted to film.

I think the one thing that upset me most about I, Robot is Susan Calvin: a plain, unremarkable looking woman whose mind and character was remarkable. In the film, a former glamour model playing an unremarkable character. What cruel, unfair irony.

Surly if he couldn't handle it then he would not be reviewing stuff currently, would he?

Exactly.

Overall, the use of an abitrary number signifys nothing.
Spoony doesn't use them, Yahtzee Crowshaw doesn't use them and Linkara doesn't use them.

This is a visual medium, we are intelligent beings, the use of numbers as a verdict in a text or video review is needlessly complicating the actual meaning someone is trying to infer.

BEST MOVIE EVAR

Pretty short though at two and a half minutes. It felt like a trailer almost.

...

Oh shit...

That's pretty much how I described it after we left the theatre, and not just because surrogate and replicant sound so similar.

Hey Film Brain, just joined the site and I enjoy reading your reviews (except
your Transformers 2 and IG which I disagree on, but I'm not going to bash you
like others have) as well as your Bad Movie Beatdown reviews. I was wondering if
you have seen the movie The Informant starring Matt Damon. I just saw it today and I
was really disappointed and at one point I felt like walking out of the theater.
I really don't understand why that movie is getting such praise because I really
don't think it was a great movie and I'm curious what your thoughts are on it if
you have seen it.

I think it was, like you said, very...oddly empty. The plot had a whole lot of potential - it could have used it's unique view on the future to make bigger comparisons between their world and ours. It had that kind of epic feeling to it...and was majorly disappointing when it didn't live up to the premise. The ending was kinda...bleh, to me.

And, am I just a realist, or was someone /bound/ to die from a car, being driven by a surrie, crashing into their bedroom and flattening them...? Or one human passenger on a plane being killed when the android driving it stopped functioning? I hate it when they try to say that 'no one has been reported dead.' Always feels a bit...fake to me.

I'm almost positive the movie would've been better and longer but they were cut out and left with what it is now. Still I enjoyed I Robot and I enjoyed this. The first time I see something I try to enjoy it. After the first then I review it. But that's my policy. Good article like always.

So better with this one, though this is something of a layup of a movie; as you said, you pretty much get the whole concept and plot really from the trailer, and the movie itself is satisfied with just chucking concepts at you without really developing any of them.

Again though, there is still a lack of depth and knowledge apparent in your review. The comparisons to I,Robot were purposeful; I, Robot, both the stories, the episode, and the movie were about the evolution of artificial life into conscious beings; Surrogates is the evolution of conscious, living beings into artificial expressions of life. Now, you didn't pick up on it in part because the film failed to really develop or clearly identify the concept. Likewise with the fat guy who's robot is the beautiful woman- this is actually a long running joke on the internet, and much was written about the phenomenon in the 90's and the anonymity of the internet and so on (look up "no girls on the internet". It serves as both an in-joke, as well as identifying the primary parallel the film is trying to get across (ie: with surrogates, the real world becomes like the internet is now, with social networking and Second Life and so on). I thought it was actually the cleverest part of the film.

Again, overall an improvement, though the film itself was significantly easier to deal with than Inglourious Basterds or some of the others you've attempted to review. This may be the way to go, deal with smaller, simpler films that you have the skills to digest and give an adequate critique on, rather than attempting films that are thematically out of your league.

I just saw it today, and having seen the trailers numerous times, I still found myself enjoying it. The overall twist, though pretty "meh", was still a shocker. Overall, i liked it. It's not great, but it's got great ideas and, with what it had, it did an ok job.

But ... Ving Rhames, really? don't get me wrong, i like the guy, and I don't know why, but i just cannot take this man 100% seriously. XD

I mean, when he and willis' character were together, am i the only one who thought "oh shit, it's Marcellus Wallas and Butch from Pulp Fiction, decades later!!!"

I'm kinda sad to see the removal of the rating, but to each his own. As for people giving you guff about it, that's really lame. The guy is giving you FREE entertainment and all you can think to do is bitch and whine about it? Those people should be ashamed of themselves.

I managed to go see this movie without watching any of the trailers. I had thought this movie was going to be good and for the most part it was, save for the ending. What a perfectly good way to completely destroy a very good idea, with a world that would have been a very interesting place to explore. The editing and sudden "WHAT A TWIST" moments are barely shocking and the ending ruins the entire movie by being stock and mildly predictable. For the length of the entire film you are supposed to get to know the Bruce Willis character and get to know and feel sorry for him and what he's going though and to a tiny degree you do. The ending however he takes a completely predictable, selfish, mindless jackass of a turn and it destroys the entire feeling of this being a likable or well thought out character. What piss-poor pile of pig-shit for the climax of this movie.