Martians' vested interest in some kid's backyard

 INVADERS FROM MARS (1986)

A Lack of Appreciation by Jerry Saravia

Originally seen in theaters in 1986

Catching "Invaders from Mars" on the Svengoolie channel (apparently, there are issues with rights to showing the more appropriate original 1953 film) reminded me why I truly disliked it when I first saw it in theaters in 1986. It was a birthday present and I saw it in a little theater in Forest Hills, New York (the same theater where I saw the similarly misguided "Short Circuit"). The remake of "Invaders from Mars" is more than just slipshod and monotonous - it has no real imagination and hardly updates the original despite being set in the 1980's.

Oh, sure, we got bigger, more monstrous aliens (Martians, sorry to all aliens out there) who walk around the inside of the spaceship like spilled leftovers from "Little Shop of Horrors" (courtesy of creature whiz Stan Winston). We do have the always reliable and thrilling Karen Black as a nurse who believes the little 12-year-old kid (Hunter Carson, Karen's actual son) and his incredible story about a UFO landing in his backyard. Yes, yes, dear child, the Martians exist because Karen Black's character is willing to listen to you first, ask questions later like any good school nurse. There's also legendary grade-Z movie actress Louise Fletcher as a biology teacher who gets her class to pay attention by yelling, "One, two, three, four five!" Oh, yeah, that ought to do it. 

But beyond that, this Tobe Hooper-directed film doesn't have much going for it. There are disgusting-looking aliens, like the Martian brain on legs known as the Supreme Being (who looks like a giant toad with slightly menacing eyes), but none of them have much personality - they are just puppets that don't seem threatening enough (all apologies to Stan Winston's craft). There is no real sense of urgency at work here. And how on earth can you waste the talents of James Karen as a military commander and Bud Cort as a NASA scientist who is foolish enough to think he can reason with these Martians! Let me repeat those names: James freakin' Karen and Bud freakin' Cort!!!

The real problem is that there is no clear narrative consistency. The screenplay by Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby and clumsy direction by Hooper suggest something more tongue-in-cheek - how can anyone take Laraine Newman seriously as a mother who does impressions of the Coneheads? This ill-advised remake's tone wavers between tongue-in-cheek and gross-out humor like watching Louise Fletcher eating a frog! The original 1953 film felt like a nightmare (more so in the U.S. version) and took itself seriously enough. This stinker just makes you want to vomit, a feeling I never shook since seeing it in 1986.  

They weren't you Marion

INDIANA JONES 

AND THE 

KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Original 2008 review)

After nineteen years of waiting for the fourth Indiana Jones adventure (Lord knows how long we will have to wait for another chapter), it is finally here. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was met with polite
applause at Cannes Film Festival, though what can one expect when crowd-pleasing blockbusters are not its mainstay. Internet chatter and disappointment from fans and non-fans alike had set in when production began, and now there is a great deal more boos and hisses on the Internet Movie Database about this film after its opening day. As I write this, I see the common complaints about Harrison Ford's old age, Karen Allen's old age, the inclusion of Shia LaBeouf, CGI monkeys, CGI prairie dogs, and plenty of spoilers about the film's, how dare I say, otherworldly ending. Well, let me be the first to say that as a major fan of Indiana Jones and as a no-holds-barred critic, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is a stupendous entertainment, and easily the silliest, loopiest, strangest action-adventure movie since, well, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in 1989. It will keep you on the edge of your seat and blast you into the world of the 1950's complete with Russian baddies, Russian villainesses, monkeys and vines, Elvis songs and much more. This is director Steven Spielberg at his zesty best.

In the dazzling 20-minute opening sequence set in Nevada, 1957, daredevil archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is lured into a warehouse to find an otherworldly being kept inside a magnetic crate
(yes, this is the same warehouse seen at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark"). Before long, we are introduced to Dr. Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), a Russian psychic with clear connections to the Soviet
Union and its regime. She wants the magnetic crate and feels Indy can find it. He does, with some old-fashioned gunpowder (Nice idea). We are also introduced to Mac (Ray Winstone), a triple agent, working for the CIA and for Dr. Spalko, and he has a habit of betraying Indy's trust. But the action settles in quickly with a fiery rocket sled, whip cracks, a jeep chase, a digital countdown clock, a controlled atomic testing site, and a nuclear blast that catapults Indy, hiding in a refrigerator, into a near-death experience. Indy gets cleaned up for radiation poisoning and is accused of allying with the Russians, thanks to the FBI. All this in the first twenty minutes!

As we head back to Marshall College where Indy is also a professor, he learns he is fired for fear of being a Red. Indy gets ready to leave for London when he is stopped by the teenage Mr. Mutt "The Wild One" Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a high-school dropout who likes fixing motorcycles. Mutt tells Indy that Indy's old colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt), is somewhere in the Amazon after having discovered a mystical crystal skull. There is a map written in an ancient language that must be solved to dictate Oxley's and Mutt's mother's location and the location of the crystal skull (why must everyone write in cryptic hieroglyphics!), but before that we are treated to a dizzying, breathless motorcycle chase through the university and its library! It turns out that the KGB agents are onto Dr. Jones and his young sidekick. Once they arrive in Peru and discover more clues leading to the Akator temple, the twosome have to contend with Dr. Spalko and her thick Russian-accent and her quick-quoted reminders of Mr. Oppenheimer himself ("The Destroyer of Worlds").

I do not have to say much more except what to expect in the tradition of the Indiana Jones movies. We have the animated map lines; cavernous cemeteries; glowing treasure objects; a creepy-looking crystal skull; nasty scorpions; cemetery guards armed with poisonous darts; forbidden temples with dozens of booby traps; quicksand; thousands of red ants; silly monkeys swinging from vines; the aforementioned magnetic crate; a nuclear explosion; a drag race; scared prairie dogs; lead-lined fridges; pyramids; nasty falls from what looks like three Niagara Falls; Mayan warriors who may wandered from the lands of "Apocalypto"; an alien corpse; and an extended DUKW (amphibious to the rest of you) vehicle chase that includes a sword duel! Oh, yes, and there is the mad Oxley who is in something of a trance in the jungles of the Amazon, and there is some nifty double-crossing from the treacherous, greedy Mac who is on anyone's side as long as he gets cash.

The charm of the Indiana Jones pictures is that they never take themselves seriously. This is all a throwback to innocent serials of the 30's, 40's and 50's, replete with some last-minute rescue attempts
and unbelievable chase scenes marked with wit and frenetic pacing. But something else has happened with Indiana Jones - he has aged and matured and so has, to a certain extent, the series since 1989's "Last Crusade." If you recall "Last Crusade" was a more solemn entry in the series, lacking the intensity and whiplash edge-of-your-seat, hair-raising action scenes of the "Lost Ark" and "Temple of Doom." It made up for it by being a slight character study and added depth to Indiana Jones by including his bookwormish, disapproving father (Sean Connery), not to mention a delicious prologue involving young Indiana Jones as a boy scout. By the end of that film, Indy was treasuring his renewed relationship with his father, and was no longer the relentless, stubborn adventurer of the first two movies. That was an interesting way to layer the character with more than just a sentimental side - Indy was slowly becoming like his father. In "Crystal Skull," Indy is older and wiser. He still punches with great velocity and strength, but he doesn't set out to kill anyone (in fact, outside of a canny if implausible method of using a blowgun, he merely fires his RPG launcher to deflect a vehicle, but not necessarily kill anyone). Even more fascinating is that he doesn't ever fire his gun! He knows how to use his whip but he never uses it as a lethal weapon per se. Basically, Indy tries what he can to get out of a situation with his wits and imagination, not by killing anyone specifically in the process. For example, he says to a tall Russian soldier who delivers a Dolby-ized smack to Indy's choppers, "Drop dead, Comrade."

Or even Indy's insistence that a snake not be called a snake. He is an older man who has seen it all, knows the greed and the power that men and women wish to possess, and basically all he can say is, "Same old, same old." When trouble brews, he says, "This can't be good." Only Ford can deliver these cheesy lines with conviction and a touch of vulnerability.

Another angle to Indy is that we learn he has won some medals for fighting in World War II, and that he was told to keep mum on the Roswell incident of 1947 (UFO and Roswell fans are going to love this
movie!) Indy is a lonely man at the start of the movie, having lost his father and his old colleague and museum curator Marcus Brody (whose statue plays a pivotal role in an early action scene). It is
only fitting that returnee Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen, not as feisty but just as damn beautiful as ever) is on hand, to continue bickering and arguing with Indy and his relationship with, well, I
won't spoil it. In many respects, Indy's character mirrors Harrison Ford's own career after appearing in some unworthy films for more than a decade, only to bounce back with more roguish charm and buoyancy than ever before. It is the freshest element of this movie.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" could've used more fleshed-out moments between Ford and Allen who still have great chemistry (I sense some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor); some more depth to Ray Winstone's double-triple FBI agent, Mac; more emphasis on the madness in the eyes of John Hurt's Oxley; and a little more of an evil charge in Cate Blanchett's Spalko, who might've been a more formidable opponent (she is no match for the sneaky French archaeologist Belloq from "Raiders"). Those little nitpickeries aside, Ford and Shia LaBeouf are terrific together and show some of the same pleasantries as Ford did with Connery in "Last Crusade." More importantly, "Crystal Skull" is classic Indy fare, and it is definitely entertaining and lots of fun from start to finish. But be warned - this movie is not full of the escapist, thrill-a-minute, enthralling set pieces of the first two films (though there are enough moments to make you hold on to the edge of your seat and it is has the genial tone of the "Last Crusade"). It has action and adventure, though the adventure aspect takes precedence (we get lots of exposition on the mythology of the crystal skull). "Crystal Skull" is
terrific fun and a natural progression of the Indiana Jones character since "Last Crusade." No
way anyone can truly top "Raiders" and why should Spielberg (at the height of his powers here) or George Lucas or Ford. This is a hell of a ride, and that is more than you can say for most Hollywood
blockbusters.

Vulgar yet still likable wedding bells

AMERICAN WEDDING (2003)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

 
I suppose I should have hated "American Wedding" but I couldn't, no matter how hard I tried. Actually, I didn't try because I still believe in the concept of vulgar comedies created to offend the conservatives, and to make the rest of us laugh. Sometimes, they really do manage to offend, as in 1971's sharply
hilarious black comedy "Harold and Maude" or John Waters' "Pink Flamingos." Sometimes they fail because the vulgarity is all there is, as in "Van Wilder," the most profanely unfunny gross comedy ever made. But the "American Pie" series falls somewhere in the middle - they may be gross but their humor has some air of wit and the characters are likable. "American Wedding" ups the ante on the gross-out meter but, again, the characters are still appealing and fun to watch and listen to.

The movie begins with Jim (Jason Biggs) about to propose to Michelle (Alison Hannigan) at a restaurant when he realizes he forgot the wedding ring! Jim contacts his father (Eugene Levy) to bring the ring. But then Michelle gets under the table and, well, if you have seen the other movies, you pretty much know what to expect. The plot has Jim and Michelle planning their wedding while the loutish, boorish Stifler (Seann William Scott) plans a bachelor party with strippers posing as a Swiss maid and a police officer. There is also Michelle's younger, sweet sister Cadence (January Jones), who takes a liking to Stifler, if only because he tries to pass himself off as an intellectual. There is also a truly funny dance contest at a gay bar with Stifler dancing his way around the stage to different songs including the Eurythmics. We also have Jim's grandmother involved in an unfunny predicament with Stifler. The jokes about the dogs abound with bad taste, though they are diverting and will make you wince. Jim's pubic hair scenario may make you wince a lot more, but again, what did you expect in this age of trying to top the Farrelly Brothers gross-out standards?

What there is to enjoy may not be much for the average intellectual, but it is passable for a light evening of entertainment. After it was over, I chuckled a few times, occasionally laughed out loud and turned away with only mild amusement a few dozen times. I appreciate the zany, energetic shenanigans of Seann William Scott's Stifler ("I am the Stiffmeister.") more than Jason Biggs's glum Jim, who is given less to do than in the other films. Overall, the first two "American Pie" movies were funnier and more spirited (and I do miss the absentees: Tara Reid, Chris Klein and Mena Sevauri). Still, if there is another sequel, the filmmakers would be criminally insane not to have Stifler as the main attraction.

Strictly situational

 AMERICAN PIE 2 (2001)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

It is tough to review a movie like "American Pie 2" because either one appreciates a teenage sex comedy or they don't. "American Pie" was a decent entertainment that went on too long, but it did have some big laughs and a genial tone that was appealing enough. But make no mistake: "American Pie" aimed for one general theme - high-school teenagers today are only interested in sex, nothing else. "American Pie 2" continues the same theme with little or no ingenuity and, at least, it is still genial and contains some big laughs.

Goofy, geeky Jim (Jason Biggs) is back, now having gone through a whole year at college. He is still preoccupied with sex and is caught doing the nasty by his parents and his girlfriend's parents! Jim goes back home for the summer, but is then instantly taken to a lake house in Michigan with his buddies. They need a job and find one painting a house where two supposed lesbians live! So there are
lots of scatological jokes involving sex, homophobia, homosexuality, phone sex, super glue, and even CB radio! The latter joke seems strange considering we live in the era of the Internet (CB is referred to as the "prehistoric Internet" in the thrilling "Joyride"), thus the earlier film's joke of broadcasting Jim's
embarrassing rendezvous with the Russian girl, Nadia (Shannon Elizabeth), on the Internet was far funnier.

And that is about it. "American Pie 2" is a situational comedy in the strictest sense, depending entirely on creative sexual adventures to further the movie along. There is no plot and really no story - this is a roundabout sexual comedy all the way. The problem is that after a while, the situations and the jokes can get old when the filmmakers have nothing else to depend on. A sticky predicament involving Jim gets some big laughs. I also like the extended scene where the two lesbian chicks confront Jim and two of his buddies, and convince them to undress and kiss. There is a nice bit involving Jim's prom date, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), and how he asks her to prepare him for the inevitable meeting with his "Internet" love, Nadia. I also enjoyed the brief scenes with Tara Reid and Mena Sevauri, both of whom are too talented for this kind of material. They are so watchable that I wish they were given more screen time.

The characters are fresh and likable. Some of the situations are fun. The dialogue is sometimes clever. I can't feel but mystified, though, that "American Pie 2" exists for no reason other than to cash in on the original and provide more of the same. We are led to believe that after high school, college only
offers these kids the same lusty thoughts of sexual promiscuity. When do they ever grow up?

Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future

 1984 (1984)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

George Orwell is an author who understood all too well how totalitarian regimes work. His famous novel "1984" did not see the future as much as it saw how the 1940's would be seen as the past and the future. When his novel was published in 1949, it was prescient to those who knew all too well about the extinguished Nazi regime yet no one could've anticipated how much of the novel was beyond sardonic and became spookily real. Naturally there was also Stalin's Russia and there is no doubt that the images he conjured in our collective imagination have become eerily prescient in 2022 and, ultimately, ever since the book was published. Director Michael Radford's disturbing, thought-provoking version of Orwell's book is the last we might ever see of this book and that is fine by me. It may be the only time we see how that world visually was so clinically unhealthy - such a grayish, crumbling world can only allow conformity.

John Hurt is the frail-looking Winston Smith who works for the Ministry of Truth, a dingy-looking building where he effectively rewrites history in newspaper articles to befit the current climate of war taking place. It is what is referred to as Newspeak, rebranding Oldspeak by deleting and/or rephrasing headlines and replacing pictures of the current Unpersons with new persons. Any other discarded notes are destroyed by throwing them through ducts that lead to a furnace. Interestingly, we get the sole shot in the whole movie where we see Winston at his desk from the point-of-view of Big Brother - the surveillance is omnipresent as every screen has a still image of Big Brother. In this fictional land of a bombed-out, oppressive place known as Oceania, the workers at the Ministry of Truth all wear faded blue uniforms. They all live in their own eroded flats that look torn apart, and they all drink the same Victory gin that makes one belch and smoke the same Victory cigarettes. The lift at the flats barely ever works so everyone is forced to use the stairs. All Oceania residents are practically automatons in this totalitarian society as they attend rallies with giant dual screens of Party members showing death and destruction in war with Eurasia and East Asia. They are all malleable and all scream in unison at the enemies (one is the opposition leader of the Brotherhood known as Emmanuel Goldstein) and then cross their arms singing the regime's anthem (one can't escape thinking this hailing of their leader as an obvious echo of the Nazi salute). 

Winston is not a believer in the Party or the Outer Party he's part of - he buys a diary book and writes his criticisms in a far corner of his room so as not to be seen by the Big Brother monitor. He only pretends to be a Party supporter and is too much of an intellectual, which would make him guilty of Thoughtcrime. He eyes a seeming revolutionary or presumed spy of the Outer Party, Julia (a startling performance by Suzanna Hamilton), and they decide to have a love affair despite the regime's restrictions on sex and just about everything having to do with being human. 

Not unlike Orwell's dystopian novel, "1984" is a tough film to absorb and it is so relentlessly (and purposely) bleak that it may be even tougher to sit still for it. I've seen it now three times and this last time was a bit of an ordeal, mostly due to witnessing Winston's torture by the cruel O'Brien (2+2=5 became numbers that petrified me through its constant repetition and questioning by O'Brien). Of course, it is meant to be an ordeal because most of the film (and the book) revolves around being inside Winston's mind. In that fragile spirit of a person seeking individuality and a return to humanism, John Hurt is the perfect Winston Smith. Every line of dialogue spoken and every piece of narration is given maximum gravity in ways only John Hurt could have only mustered. I also love Suzanna Hamilton's work here as a brave Julia, often wearing a scarlet sash as in the book, who is not ready to give up the fight. Richard Burton, in his last role, is positively chilling as O'Brien, an Inner Party member who implements torturing those who violate the laws and criticize the regime. One torturous device in room 101 has to do with rats in a cage and I will leave it at that. 

The underlying theme is you cannot have sex or have an orgasm or have any love for anything or anyone other than Big Brother and the totalitarian regime. The last line of "1984," and expressed without dialogue in the book, is "I love you" uttered without a hint of irony by Winston. This is not directed to Julia or anyone other than Big Brother. Winston's brainwashed and accepting of anything Big Brother says or does. That's love in a cruel, odd way.

I am the shadows

 THE BATMAN (2022)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Batman is the most unusual hero we have ever had in the comic-book world. I never quite connected to the Bruce Wayne wealthy playboy alter-ego in general, especially the Frank Miller graphic novels. Christopher Nolan's films did a fantastic job of developing their dual nature and it helped that Christian Bale played the Caped Crusader and the charms of the rich kid to the hilt. Since Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, we have had Ben Affleck who was impressive enough to me in the "Batman v. Superman" film (one which many DC comic fans find deplorable). But what else is there to say about Batman at this point? It has only been 10 years since "The Dark Knight Rises" and, quite frankly, I can't imagine anything else that could be derived from the character after all the grit and real-world terrorist allusions of those terrific Nolan films. Matt Reeves has practically done the impossible. He has come on board as writer and director of "The Batman" and has created a stark, riveting new chapter in this nocturnal hero. I am not sure there are too many new shadings to the Batman/Bruce Wayne character but this movie is sleek, compulsively watchable, smashing entertainment. 

Robert Pattinson is the emo version of Bruce Wayne, a somewhat indifferent, tortured rich kid who is spending a lot of time as the Batman, lurking in the shadows as he pounces on gangs and thieves in the grimiest sections of the city. We hear Bruce's narration in a noir style narration as he is trying to find his footing in a corrupt Gotham City. How corrupt? Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), the resident crime boss, owns the police and virtually the entire city. Batman's plan is to become vengeance and tear apart Gotham and its criminal elements. Perhaps Batman never realized how deeply corrupt the city has always been, including revelations about his supposed Boy Scout of a father who ran for Mayor of Gotham and was gunned down. In short, the history of Gotham City is submerged in lies.

Meanwhile, there is Catwoman (Zoe Kravitz, who doesn't summon the cat's growl) aka Selina Kyle who works at Falcone's exclusive nightclub as a waitress. Selina has also has vengeance on her mind when her lover is killed and she is more than ready to fight dirty and kill, dressed in a killer leather outfit and riding in a motorcycle like a fierce avenger. For the first time in eons, maybe ever, this Catwoman is a real match for Batman, exuding a fearlessness and pathos we have not seen in a while - you feel for Selina and her own familial past also creeps up on her just like Bruce Wayne's. 

In this Gotham City, made to look like New York City except dirtier, more subterranean with consistent rainy weather, there is little respite from the freaks lurking in the shadows committing crimes, both high and low. The one villain who looks more freakish than the others is Oswald Cobblepot aka the Penguin (played by an unrecognizable Colin Farrell, who would've been at home in 1990's "Dick Tracy") yet he is not resolutely evil, just partnering with evil men and he's got a snaky charm about him. It is the fearsome, scary Riddler (played with lethally venomous zeal by Paul Dano), dressed in a green hazmat-looking suit with glasses covering his eyes, who is the film's chief villain - a terrorist who kills those who committed sins in the city of Gotham, specifically politicians who are of course in Falcone's deep pockets. The Riddler always leave a calling card, a note for the Batman in an envelope with riddles.

Matt Reeves' humanistic and deeply resonant "The Batman" is somehow a darker vision than Christopher Nolan's trilogy yet also more optimistic. We get the sense that the Batman is looking to make Gotham great again, to make it a city brimming with some social justice (Kravitz's Catwoman echoes this when she mentions those "white privileged assholes.") Although Robert Pattison's far too brooding Bruce Wayne is not as cunning as his Batman, I still felt empathy for the guy and I was hoping he would succeed. And when you hear that Batmobile roaring its engine to fight the complex evils of Gotham and its criminals, I was more than willing to hang on for this darkly chilling, sonorous ride of a movie.    

Robots are taking over

 I, ROBOT (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Since 1982's cult classic "Blade Runner," the notion dispelled was that robots were more human than humans. Along with 2001's underrated Steven Spielberg film, "A.I.," the other notion was that robots want to become human. "I, Robot" takes the idea even further - robots want to feel human emotions and consider themselves human because their human creators intended it that way.

Set in Chicago, thirty years from now, Will Smith plays Detective Spooner, a brash, motor-mouthed cop who despises robots. You see, in this near-future, robots handle duties and jobs that most humans would have (is this an indication of the migrating U.S. jobs to Mexico, China, etc.?) These robots (who look like walking iPods and have the metallic sheen of iMacs) deliver Federal Express packages, handle household duties, protect humans from harm, throw trash into garbage trucks, and so on. There are the famous Isaac Asimov Laws of Robotics (suggested, not based, on Asimov's book of the same name),

which include that robots protect and never kill humans. As Spooner says, "All rules are made to be broken." The creator of U.S. Robotics, Dr. Landing (James Cromwell), apparently committed suicide, but Spooner knows better. He feels a robot had killed Landing and is now on the run. Spooner receives help from Dr. Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan), an employee of U.S. Robotics whose job is to

make these robots look as human as possible. Lo and behold, somebody might have messed with the robots' circuits. The robot fugitive on the run, known as Sonny, feels anger and can mimic human expressions. If he feels anger, he might use it to kill. Or he may just pound his fists on the table.

What "I, Robot" has is a sleek, unique look, and director Alex Proyas ("Dark City") eschews the subterranean look of his earlier pictures for a glossy facade, mainly due to shots of metallic surfaces that emanate a glow from reflective lights. Most scenes are shot in daylight hours, and the city of

Chicago looks more densely populated with skyscrapers, including the ultra-modernist U.S. Robotics building that seems to have an upwards slope. Photographically speaking, the overall effect is of a metallic glow that can be gleaned from every frame. Even Sonny, often shown in profile, seems to be

subtly glowing (understandable when there are Biblical allusions throughout the film) and he seems more real than anyone in the entire film.

As for story and in-depth characters, "I, Robot" falls somewhat short. One too many holes exist in the plot, especially when dealing with the robots and their new and improved counterparts. For instance, if robots are performing menial jobs (instead of illegal aliens or legal workers), what do the humans do for work? We even see one robot bartending! The only available jobs are for robot scientists? Apparently, the city is full of humans, so what the heck do they do for a living?

As for the human characters, we have Will Smith's Spooner who may as well have sprung from both "Bad Boys" and "Men in Black" - he has his share of one-liners, even to a cat! He is mostly an angry man and detests robots (at least his explanation of why he hates them is rather touching) yet loves

listening to Stevie Wonder's "Superstition." Moynahan's good doctor seems more concerned with the future of robots than humans - though intentional to be sure, we never glean much insight from her. And the most underutilized character is Dr. Landing, always shown as a computer image, whose actions are

never clear and quite suspect.

Proyas invested an existential edge in "Dark City," a sort of retro-1940's noir where everyone is at the service of evil aliens in trenchcoats. This time, the familiarity of city life seems corrupted, and humans are hardly the threat of the future anymore. Since Kubrick's "2001," the overriding theme has been that

anything computerized or electronic is not to be trusted. Robots are the threat and they want to take over. The humans are the supporting characters.

"I, Robot" is entertaining and slight, shunning many of the late Asimov's moral themes for high-powered action scenes and sporadic one-liners. Though some useful ideas slip through this typical Hollywood summer blockbuster, one expects Alex Proyas to dig much deeper.