Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

WARNING: This review contains major spoilers about the movie because I’m an Asimov nerd and could talk about the books and the movie for days.

When I first heard that Hollywood was going to be doing a movie based on prolific science-fiction author Isaac Asimov’s writings, I was geeked beyond description. One of my favorite authors since reading a collection of his stories in middle school (and even after seeing the horrendous Nightfall), the vast majority of Asimov’s work has always been solid and intriguing, and any one of his pieces would definitely translate into a great movie script.

Instead of adapting one of Isaac Asimov’s literally hundreds (if not thousands) of robot stories into the script for director ’s I, Robot, the movie plot is more of a composite, built from several of the author’s robot-related works. Unfortunately, the problem with building a script in this manner is that some ideas will invariably get trampled in the creative process, and that definitely happens in this flick.

Set in the not-too-distant future year of 2035, I, Robot takes us to a time when robots walk among humans, sentient tools designed to do our bidding. The “Frankenstein Complex” (Asimov’s term for the fear that robotic creations would turn on their creators and destroy them – the dynamic that fueled the vast majority of robot sci-fi before Asimov started writing) that most humans naturally developed once these “imitations of life” were introduced has long since dissipated thanks to the populace’s familiarity with the Three Laws of Robotics. These Three Laws of Robotics that essentially guarantee that robots cannot go medieval on their owners are an integral, hardcoded part of all robots’ positronic brains and govern all aspects of their interactions with humans.

Will Smith stars as robot-mistrusting homicide detective Del Spooner, investigating the apparent suicide of USR (changed from Asimov’s U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men, Inc.) founder Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell). Initially it appears as though the esteemed robotics engineer flung himself from a laboratory in the upper stories of the skyscraping USR building, but an investigation of the lab turns up Sonny (voice-acting by “Firefly” star Alan Tudyk), an incredibly self-aware model of USR’s new Nestor NS-5 robots that may have had something to do with Lanning’s death. Bridget Moynahan stars opposite Smith as the frigid USR robopsychologist Dr. Susan Calvin who helps him understand the nature of USR’s robots and help him solve the unfolding mystery.

Anyone familiar with Asimov’s writing knows that his stories are typically very character driven despite the inundation with sci-fi gadgets and theories. Its obvious that the casting department’s primary goal was to recruit very good actors with the ability to quickly define their characters, essential since action movies typically contain virtually no character development. Wisecracking street smart characters are nothing new for Will Smith, although Spooner’s character is a bit darker than the majority of the roles the raptor typically plays. Cromwell is underused as the placid and benevolent Lanning, but considering the fact that he’s actually dead for the entire movie, he does extremely well bringing forth Lanning’s personality in the suicide hologram and video recordings. Bruce Greenwood is sharp as usual as the money-minded USR CEO Lawrence Robertson, and though Asimov pens Calvin as even more frigid and a great deal more unattractive than Moynahan, the actress does well at expressing the character’s affinity (actually a preference) for her robots.

As with most futuristic epic movies nowadays, CGI is required to almost play the role of Supporting Actor in I, Robot, and the f/x team does deliver. The futuristic city setting is entirely believable, the wide-ranging cinematography showing a mish-mash of new technology married to a preexisting infrastructure – the same as you’ll see in any major old city where new designs have to fit in with the old. The team did a similarly superb job with the robots, making obvious the design evolution from the early C3PO-like NS-2s, to the more agile and frighteningly more human NS-5s. All models are beautiful and full of detail, from the telltale oxidation spots on the Nestor-2’s to the cool iMac translucence of the Nestor-5s. Adding Tudyk’s facial expressions to Sonny and other Nestor-5s helped make them seem more human as well.

Truly, the only major crime committed in the creation of I, Robot is they way Hollywood took one of its most interesting and creative plots and crammed its elements into the same old tired Hollywood action movie formula. The “misunderstood detective that has to give up his badge even though he’s right” bit has been done in nearly every cop movie to date; why bother with it anymore? Also, the “robot revolution” element worked in the Terminator and Matrix trilogies but its tired and predictable here. Plus since Asimov’s wrote the Three Laws specifically to negate this dynamic, it just makes the whole thing feel even more contrived and out of place -- not to mention the fact that Asimov probably did a few 360’s in his grave after one of his Nestor’s b*tch slaps upstart punk Shia Lebouf during the uprising.

While hardcore Asimov fans will cringe a bit at seeing his positronic robots smacking up humans with ease, people just looking for a fun summer movie will enjoy I, Robot. Sporting an intelligent story filled with familiar clichés, great acting, killer CGI, and beautiful action sequences, this movie has all the makings of yet another Hollywood summer blockbuster. Check it out.


--------------------------------------
Cool nerd isht to end the review on:

One person asked me how the human population could have become so absolutely trusting of robots so quickly and completely to the extent that they don’t even give a second of credence to any possible wrongdoing on the robots’ part. For the answer, consider this: the positronic robot that saved Spooner in his traumatic car accident would have oh-so-most-definitely fried its brain and become completely useless after that incident. Screw that it did save one human; it, through inaction, allowed a human (the girl) to die. The First Law was violated, period. This robot would go visibly insane afterward from violating this fundamental protocol. You don’t have to see a robot turned into a gibbering piece of scrap metal very many times after accidentally harming a human or accidentally allowing a human to harmed before you begin to trust it.

While the way the robots tried to take over humanity to protect it would not have been as violent in Asimov’s universe as it was in I, Robot, it probably still would have happened. The principle that V.I.K.I used to justify the takeover is known as the Zeroth Law of Robotics, to be postulated by Dr. Calvin some twenty years after the movie takes place. It states: "No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm". V.I.K.I. most likely would have tried to be much more behind the scenes in its manipulation by controlling communications, intelligence, and world events to create a favorable outcome as done in the Foundation series.

Some have chided I, Robot for its use of Star Trek terminology in the movie, specifically the term “positronic.” In actuality, the word was invented early on by Isaac Asimov to describe his robotic brains that are beholden to the Three Laws. The Star Trek: The Next Generation android Lt. Commander Data was created as a nod to Asimov. Since Data possesses Asimov’s positronic brain, it is implied that the Three Laws govern his actions as well – this was just never explicitly stated in the series. Knowing this, go back and check out Data’s interactions with Lore and B-4; it brings a little extra dimension to Brent Spiner’s performances.


Recommended: Yes

Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older