One of the later ones, where their future histories combine, has people who never see ach other except by TV. Not quite the surrogates, I believe (it's been a while), but they also had qualms about going outside and being seen in the flesh.

the movie may suck. i dunno. but zacharek's reviews are choking on their own snark, at this point. it's, like, meta-irony, yo. may i suggest that you stop emulating the utterly petulant and fake intellectual stylings of a pitchfork music review, wherein said review makes vague 'culturally relevant' allusions to other 'great' or at least 'significant' works of 'art' or at least 'pop-culture' in both a demeaning and begrudgingly admiring manner in order to impugn the absolutely trite, shallow and banal significance of it using some vague recollection of a philosophy of art class you took... blah, blah, blah, it's all been done, i'm so bored, poop and crap, random personal insight, all of this is obvious. also, how dare fat people show themselves in a movie which fundamentally challenges my conception of myself as a liberal as opposed to a very boring poser. this thing that is weird is also silly and this thing that looks mind numbingly stupid is actually brilliant, i need not explain... ... ...

bother you? think i lack substance in my critique? not quoting or citing specific instances? well then, you may be half a step closer to understanding why so many people think you are the absolute extreme tool of the system not-really-a-critic that you are, ma'am.

seriously, jesus fucking christ, but you get paid for this: can't you ever, ever, EVER be honestly serious or seriously honest about anything? let alone, i dunno, movies?

in my house you are called, simply, and without need, ever, for explanation or context beyond a movie title: 'grumpy butt' says x,y,z about movie q... which is completely useless in my decision making about whether or not to see it. super tool. mega tool. a true el toolio.

you are right. in one of the later books the people live so long that there aren't that many of them per planet and they are taken care of by the robots (that are more like what we think of as androids, with the three laws and all) who, in a way, definitely live a lot of life for the people....

i'm interested in the movie. we'll see. already looks better than that piece of crap 'i, robot' movie. but, again, we shall see. that review didn't help at all. except in further solidifying my opinion of the reviewer.

i forget titles and all, it's been more than a decade since i last touched one, but the foundation series, the whole thing, was integral for me in the teenage years.

promptly followed up by atwood... and later, new narrative. and yet the influence remains, happily.

...was the movie actually enjoyable? Could you disassociate yourself from reality and be absorbed by the story? You have to for most Arnie films - no way the enemy could be that inaccurate with their machine guns and miss his characters practically all the time.

For example I, Robot was puerile (consider the Asimov characterisation of Dr Calvin vs the film) but Will Smith as a racist (robot-ist?) still made it enjoyable, if different from the print.

What's with you guys?

Being a tool of the system is a grand feat.

Being an el Toolio is quite grander.

We make it work while you losers eat your navel fuzz while smoking pot trying to come up with clever literary comebacks. You make odd references to a sci-fi writer, some canadian feminist man-hater, and truly weird san francisco 'writing' (can you call it that, really?), without further explanation, and you done done your job, little lizard balls. A tool will point out that even Herodotus was a critic. Quite good too.

Ms. Zacharek, being a liberal of some sort or another, cannot meet the challenge of tool-dom, though she tries.

Do you eat lizard balls?

I just did. crap chocolate.

In the future, all literary and film criticism, must begin with one of the two following approved openings:

1) This flick [sic] is so fucking cool. You've got to go see it.

2) I nearly puked my guts out after ten minutes of watching this disaster.

Reference to any sense of aesthetics beyond the unconscious self absorbed is prohibited at all times.

or if it sucks

because she writes for crap and can't be either straightforward OR substantive.

like i SAID, i have no idea, from reading this movie, if it's any good or not.

and 'she liked it' is a really piss poor, shallow interpretation of what she ACTually wrote. what she really said is, gee, isn't is funny and at least marginally entertaining when a movie is so fucking crazy that it can't possibly be taking itself seriously even when it looks like it is? she writes like the worst moronic stereotype of the post-modern english professor who's thesis was that literature never existed. i like post modernism and am annoyed by that stereotype and people who mimic it for schtick.

where you get even a simplified, "she liked it", is beyond me. that was, uncle, part of the snark of which i complain. patronizingly blasé, is closer to the truth. before she chokes on the snark, she slips on the bankrupt and quite proud cynicism.

the idea that she makes any real reference to any "aesthetics" is beyond silly. she's like a TMZ movie critic. fat asses and clever coots, oh my. it's not like she's so limited in space. if she wanted, i've read longer reviews about movies... but she can't be bothered. don't sell me shit and call it art, please. some with criticism. it does matter and she's not doing it. it's pop-observance of things that interest/annoy her... not serious critique or consideration of aesthetics.

i'm tired. nobody's going to complain as much about this as with the MM review (even more piss poor, plain 'ol mean spirited and LAZY) but the idea is the same, on the whole. but good luck.

'cadet el toolio'?

are you 15? go read your reason.com in bed while your parents are asleep. tool, indeed.