I, Robot

It is the year 2035 and the world has forgotten the lessons we learnt in the 20th Century from films like Bladerunner and Terminator. Robots are the new must have accessory, carrying out menial tasks for households and boosting profits for businesses that have workforces not requiring payment. While this is now the norm, Officer Del Spooner refuses to move with the times and, due to an incident in his past refuses to accept the robots as anything approaching human. When an old friend, Dr Lanning – head of the robotics company, is found dead everyone suspects suicide but Spooner suspects a robot that flees the crime scene. Despite the robotics company lawyering up, Spooner continues his investigations and, several more malfunctions later, he begins to uncover a much bigger problem with the robots.

When the film opens with a flashback scene that cuts to a bitter, old-fashioned cop who dresses like Shaft and don't take no rubbish from his weary captain I immediately started to worry that this would simply be a clichéd cop thriller in fancy clothes and, in some ways, that is what it was. But it is also good fun and, along with Spiderman 2, stands out as one of the best of this years generally disappointing crop of blockbusters. The plot is interesting enough to keep the film going and, although it goes just where you will expect it to if you've seen Terminator (or had any involvement in popular culture) it builds gradually with an intriguing investigation leading to a very impressive climax. The set pieces are well directed and are mixed well with the drama and the film delivers just what I had come expecting – fun, excitement, effects and an involving story.

Of course this is not to ignore the fact that the film has its weak points. The worn 'tough cop' clichés are heavy on the ground and show a script that hasn't put as much effort into its characters as it really should have – this is also seen in Calvin, who's background with Lanning is hinted at but never followed though. The film also hints at a very intelligent story around the robots but again it never totally follows through in as much detail as it could have done. The structure of the society is not clear – if robots have taken many jobs how can everyone afford a robot? Spooner lives in a poor, overcrowded area with graffiti on the walls but yet everyone owns a robot. While I accept that the film couldn't go into the whole universe behind the scenario, it could have shown us an underclass just as easily as it showed us what I suspect were the middle classes. Likewise the final shot of the film implies that there is more to the robot-ethics of the story but mostly this is put to the side in favour of running and shooting. But these are minor complaints when you accept that this is not art – it is a blockbuster and, in this way, it succeeds and is an enjoyable film.

Matching the lazily written character that he is given, Smith plays it like Shaft. He eats pie and takes lots of sugar (but yet has a superb body – can't wait for that part of the future!), makes wisecracks and sneers a lot.

He tries to bring something individual out in Spooner but mostly he settles for playing along with the clichés and delivers a familiar performance but one that fits well with the aims of the film. Moynnahan is a bit dry but actually works better than the usual screaming love interest that we get served with – thankfully the film resists the temptation to impose a romance on us. Tudyk looks the part and does a very good 'HAL' voice but he is constrained by his character and can only work within that – but he works it well enough. Greenwood is a good part, Cromwell's familiarity helps us care for a character who has died before the film even starts, McBride is the gruff, weary captain but basically the film is Smith's and his Shaft is quite fun. Outside of the real things, the effects are great – they look real and match the design of the future which is at the other end of the scale from the usual grim future that we all suspect will be nearer the truth! Alex Proyas may not be a great master of the narrative but he does OK here while also indulging his first love – the visual effects and style.

Overall this is an enjoyable summer blockbuster and stands out in the crowd of average sequels and trashy attempts at blockbusters that have crawled in and out of our cinemas this year. Yes, it's full of the usual tough cop genre clichés and the sci-fi element doesn't get as interesting or morally complex as it should have done but this is an action movie and I found it to do all the things I needed to do to entertain me – set pieces, interesting story, fun, effects that are actually special and a film that builds to a satisfying (if overblown) conclusion. In the cold light of day it is an imperfect film but it is easily one of the better blockbusters of 2004.

When I was growing up, one of my favourite authors was Isaac Asimov. I loved his books and his ideas about robots. The man was a genius in the way he wrote, he invented the three laws of Robotics, as the very beginning of the movie tells us, they are: 1) A robot can never harm a human. 2) A robot must obey all human orders unless it conflicts with the first law. 3) A robot must protect itself unless it conflicts with the first two laws.

Because of this and because of the fact that I knew Will Smith was the leading actor in this movie I went into this movie with lowered expectations. I expected to see a corny movie full of explosions and killer robots.

I did get that, or at least the explosions part, but imagine my surprise when the movie ended up exceeding my expectations and more. Even though during the ending credits it says that the movie was suggested by the books by Isaac Asimov most of the movie seemed to play quite well with Isaac Asimov's ideas about robots. The movie played with concepts that Isaac Asimov played with, if the three laws can be made, they can be broken. And it was an Asimov-ish "whodunit" as well.

Will Smith managed to pull off a stunning performance as "Del Spooner", a Chicago detective that is suspicious of robots and is against technology. His acting is much more like his acting in "Enemy of the State" than his performances in his other two Science Fiction flicks, "Independence Day" and "Men in Black". He is a believable character, one that you end up sympathising with as you learn why, exactly, he hates robots so much.

A highly critiqued point usually comes from the fans of the book in that Bridget Moynahan plays Susan Calvin. It is true that Moynahan as Calvin is much younger than the Isaac Asimov version, but beyond that I found her to be a pleasant surprise as well. She plays her persona very well, delivering a wooden, robot-like performance. She is obvious in the fact that she likes robots much more than humans, and her dislike of Spooner is amusing. Over the course of the movie she thaws a little, but not an incredible lot. I find her to be a believable character.

The pure stroke of genius in this movie is the robot, Sonny, who at first reminds one of Data from Star Trek. His character evolves over the course of the story, and Alex Proyas does a good job at keeping us guessing at whether the emotional robot is a "good guy" or not.

This movie, which I've now seen twice, has been raked over the coals so to speak in the realm of artistic licence, but I felt that Isaac Asimov, if he were here, would have been rather pleased with this movie. The only two points of conflict, perhaps, would be the amount of violence against actual robots in the story (he was never that violent in his short stories/books) and the very typical Hollywood blow'emup climax, which, yes, smacked heavily of Terminator for a while there. The ending, I felt, repaired and wrapped up nicely, making up for whatever excessive action went on before it.

Two notes about the cinematography in this movie, first of all, the Matrix scene was not necessary. A character was being chased and did a Trinity pause in mid-air pose, which pulled me out of the movie for a couple seconds. Luckily it wasn't too hard to get back into the movie. Second note was something that I felt was very innovative on the part of Alex Proyas, which was the "camera moving with moving object" shots. I noticed at least three of them in the movie. Very nice film work there. I'm sure it will get horribly overdone in the next few years, but for now it is nice. The CGI also gets honourable mention for making the robots meld so well with their surroundings. Finally CGI has reached a point where they don't seem fake, even for a moment.

In regards to nudity in the movie... I've read a couple of reviews which notice the Moynahan nude in fogged up shower scene, and forget to notice the Will Smith completely nude with no fog shower scene. I must say, as a female viewer it is nice to get the generous end of the stick when it comes to seeing something as, dare I say appealing? as Will Smith's very nicely developed body.

Lastly and in a point that has nothing to do with the movie and more to do with questions brought up by it-- It took until a day later and thinking about the movie some more that I realized that "I, Robot" was also very socially different. As in two of the main characters, including the hero are black males, one woman, and one (male) robot. I didn't find this odd at all in watching it, perhaps because Will Smith is such a recognisable character, but after thinking about it, I felt that this is a very positive sign. It shows, to me, that society is changing. I feel that I wouldn't have been able to see that, even 10-15 years ago and thought nothing of it. I've noticed this before though... that the most gender/social equal views seem to come from science fiction in our media... it is interesting.

Now, of course the movie does bring up some ethical questions like if it's all right to make a servant/slave class out of robots, etc., but all in all I really liked this movie. Any movie that makes you think is a good movie, any movie that gives you fun, drama, action, mystery, and makes you think is a great movie. Thank goodness I, Robot is all of the above.

According to Isaac Asimov, the Three Laws of Robotics are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Now you don't have to be a web designer/hilarious movie reviewer with a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering and an MBA to realize that some sort of interpretation of the old "rules were made to be broken" adage is gonna take place. And that, my friends, is the nut that the story's shell encases.

My friends: Um, what?

Oh, uh, sorry, I was just trying to sound cool. Anyway...

If you're the type of person who likes to prejudge and make assumptions about movies based on trailers (unlike me, of course), then you may initially think this movie is just all silly action. But that's not the case. Oh, there's definitely some silly and unrealistic action. Whenever you have Will Smith SURFING AWAY FROM AN EXPLOSION ON A FRONT DOOR then you know there's some stuff you're just gonna have to take with two pinches of salt and a dash of sugar, but I, Robot does a good job of developing and revealing its story, all while mixing in the right amount of rump cheek-kicking.

There is no denying that the special and visual effects are great, and they are the major selling point for this movie. The car scene in the tunnel is worth the price of admission, and the last 15 or 20 minutes really kick things into 1969 Camaro overdrive. If you've gotta go to the bathroom or get a refill on popcorn, then definitely do it before these last 20 minutes. But I found myself genuinely interested in the story. The movie manages to maintain a good amount of suspense and tension throughout, and it throws in a couple of twists just to keep things fresh. Are the robots as evil as they seem? Is Bruce Greenwood the bad guy he appears to be? Why exactly does Will Smith hate robots so much? Is Alfonso Ribeiro somewhere sucking his thumb and crying, wondering why Will won't return his phone calls?

The acting is pretty solid throughout. In general, I like Will Smith. But if you've seen Wild, Wild West then you know he's not immune to starring in crap. Thankfully, that's not the case here. Will Smith pretty much plays Will Smith, so take that for what you think it's worth. He's basically a cop with an attitude who likes to wax sarcastic and be all rebellious and stuff. And he has some good back-and-forths with the ever-adorable Bridget Moynahan who, as Dr. Susan Calvin, is an expert on robot psyches and has great lips - much better than the over-sized bananas Angelina Jolie has plastered below her nose.

Going into the movie, I had my reservations. After all, when I first saw the robots in the trailer, I thought they looked about as silly as Tom Cruise with his gray hair in "Collateral." But the robot special effects are actually well-done. I came away impressed. They look pretty realistic (more human than Al Gore, to be honest), especially in their mouth movements (George Lucas - take note). And Mrs. Shade made a good point - if you're putting a robot in every home, then you probably don't want it to look evil and menacing. The fight scenes between the robots are quite cool without looking too fake. This is a good sign that we may be moving away from CGI being too obvious.

I don't know if I'll add this to my DVD collection, but I definitely want to at least rent the DVD one day, assuming that it's loaded with cool special features. Just one question, which encompasses one of my complaints about the movie, why do so many action movies insist on having a scene where the hero saves an animal in peril? I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE CATS OR DOGS BEING SAVED IN THE NICK OF TIME! I don't want to see animals die or anything, but I'm just tired of pointless "I must risk my life to save this animal" scenes. It's a cheap ploy to get audiences to go "Awwwww." It works, but it makes me dry heave.

Rating: 3.5 (out of 5)

The film shares the same name as Asimov's novel, but with some adaptations. But in general, it doesn't break the three laws. This kind of science fiction film, which integrates human nature and ethics of science and technology, triggers our deep reflection. Human beings and robots have advantages and disadvantages, no matter when, in front of any biological species, we always have the freedom to choose.

I thought the concept of the storyline was good, as it could be conceived as realistic. Given the ever increasing advances in modern technology, one can, indeed, conceive the possibility of this kind of future occurrence.

I did not really see any flaws in this movie or in the actor's character but the philosophical aspect of the movie questions at what point does artificial intelligence cease to be artificial and true consciousness arise? Anyhow, I did like the A.I. in this movie and would definitely recommend, especially if you like Will Smith movies are the Terminator series. I do, however, prefer there to be no sequels to this movie due to the fact that a sequel would probably be no more than a revamped version of the first one. With that being said, I recommend seeing it. 8/10