A very engaging, rather intelligent film that simply has too much sugar with its medicine for most critics

Rating: 8/10 (23 January 2010)

In a cinematic world of greedy, uncaring Hollywood execs cranking out mindless blockbusters (and their unwavering entertainment-hungry disciples) VS. dour, thought and feeling-provoking small filmmakers (and their unwavering critic disciples), one film tries to bridge the gap and succeeds. The story and script are a solid detective piece, providing plenty of clues, but not obvious enough to reveal too much. It's cleverly-written, with some very bright quips maybe too much humor for those who think a film's drama and importance can be instantly ruined by humor's mere hint. I say to them go check out a Michael Bay picture and remind yourself what it REALLY means for humor to steal a story's weight, rather than support its realism and characterization. It's theme-work is thought-provoking, the allegories are well-interwoven, and though the story may be somewhat simple and straight-forward, its anything but predictable. The film itself adds another check to Proyas's list of strong sci-fi, creating a well-paced and engaging 115 minutes, with strong action sequences that are never pointless, and a physical prowess to the robots that paved the way for films like "I Am Legend" and "Avatar." Every performance in this film is solid to great. Smith and Moynahan have great chemistry, Chi McBride always delivers, and though Shia LaBeouf is a waste, he's only in about 3 scenes. But who really steals the show is Alan Tudyk as Sonny the robot. And not just his voice-work. His facial performance, his body-language, all of it truly brought this pixel display of an android to life, and really opened the door for the humanizing of the rest of the less humanoid-appearing robots, which was the theme that really rang true and makes this movie a stand-out.
To conclude, I Robot is a well-crafted, well-paced film that isn't just a cut above the average sci-fi blockbuster, but a piece of film-making that proves a studio can still make such a film worth watching and remembering. Are there clichés? Yes, but they never truly detract from the film. Can it be classified as a lesser incarnation of some earlier, similar works? Maybe, but if I may cite a recent example of an epic sci-fi film that though it's twice as recycled, it's not catching half as much flack. And Alan Tudyk's Sonny reminds me that all the revolutionary mo-cap in the world means nothing without the performance to back it up.