The bright side: I am only out $3 for a rental, and not $8 for a ticket.

Rating: 2/10 (18 December 2004)

Just one question: Who do I need to talk to about *not* attempting any more atrocious film renditions of Asimov stories? Yes, the advancement of computer technology in relation to CG is a good thing-- but why does that give the film industry carte blanche to remove any semblance of plot, intelligence, storyline and pace? These things were present in the original works. Yes, I am aware of the catch-all safety net that 'based on' providesbut they seem to have no inhibitions in using Asimov's name on the movie posters. Also, why the need to place comedic actors in the lead roles? Are they afraid the simpleton masses are unable to fathom the human condition without having it spoon-fed with slapstick? Don't get me wrong, I rather like both Will Smith and Robin Williams-- but it is obvious in both this film and 'The Positronic Man' parody that they were cast to 'lighten up' the primary narration, and thus give a boost to ticket revenues. Harmless to those like me who are merely angered and insulted... but what about the younger generation who forgo the quaint concept of reading a book? They are forever tainted by this celluloid drivel. Asimov was brilliant, compassionate and insightful... whereas the film renditions are nothing more than Beethoven's 5th played with a kazoo. Best theory I have is that this eye-candy was intended as an anti-piracy measure to reduce illegal DVD circulation.
In summation, this would have been a decent film had it not been so erroneously based on another's creativity-- much like another passion of mine, music, is ever-increasingly based in sampling and borrowed lyrics. To those Powers That Assume The Mantle Of Film-Making: either *create*, or faithfully render and honor another's creativity, and stop the insane drive to make a buck and/or take a bow.