Just because it doesn't follow the book doesn't mean that it is not good

Rating: 10/10 (16 July 2004)

From reading the comments posted by others I got the impression that people mainly rated it low because it did not follow the book. Just because a movie does not follow the original work like the Bible does not mean that the movie should not be given a chance. I read the Asimov book, and I went to the theater with my friend who has not. She enjoyed the movie just as much as I did, if not more. I was fascinated by the angle Proyas approached in the novel, and I did not mind one bit that the movie was completely different than the book.
Another element of the movie that receives an unfair "bad rap" is the acting. It's no worse than the acting in the Spider-Man movies. I am by no means a fan of Will Smith, but I was a fan of Willem Dafoe, and that mirror scene in Spider-Man made me cringe. Might of worked on stage, Willem, but not on the big screen. I did not find myself cringing at any acting in I, Robot. In fact, the only thing over-the-top sometimes was the special effects. Other than that, nothing made me slink down in my seat and cover my face in shame.
One actor that deserves a shout out is Alan Tudyk. I read many comments where people think he just voiced the character of Sonny. Actually, Tudyk pulled a Gollum. This means he put on a weird looking body suit and actually acting out the scenes. Later, CGI used his performance to model the computer graphic robot. Except for a few obvious actions scenes, Tudyk *was* Sonny. My complements to his performance.
Hopefully, people will give this movie the chance it really deserves, and not base their decisions on how close it followed the book. I give I, Robot a 7.5/10