Added version on previous revu
What the movie was about
The future is over runned with robots and the robots are controlled by the three laws;
These state that: 1) A robot cannot harm a human being or by inaction cause a human to come to harm; 2) A robot must obey any order given by a human except when such an order conflicts with the first law; and 3) A robot must preserve its own existence except where such an act would violate the first and second laws.
This ?perfect circle of protection? works as long as the robotic brain is constant. But what happens should evolution occur? What happens when the difference engine learns to make choices where logic is tempered with emotion, rather than base them on pure logic? For that to happen, a robot would need a heart; and robots are not created with hearts ? are they?
I, Robot is set in Chicago in the year 2035, a time when robots ? smarter than dogs, not as testy as cats, stronger than horses and less prone to planetary conquest than apes ? have become indispensable personal helpers.
Everyone loves robots, except Detective Del Spooner (Smith), for reasons unclear to the audience until his recurring flashback-within-a-dream is finally explained halfway through the film.
US Robotics is the principal supplier of domestic robots, and the company is preparing for a huge rollout of its most advanced model yet, the NS-5. When brilliant roboticist Alfred Lanning (Cromwell) dies in an apparent suicide, Spooner smells a rat and soon sniffs out a robot suspect ? an NS-5 unit.
His superiors and US Robotics? smarmy trillionaire boss Lawrence Robertson scoff at the notion that a robot could kill, but Spooner stays on the trail with the help of cryptic clues left by Lanning ? a trail that leads to a truly sinister plot.
This movie too is merely inspired by those writings, but you get the sense that Proyas and his scriptwriters have tried their best to remain faithful to the source in spirit, if not in form.
From his wisecracks to his swagger to the way he tries instinctively to command every room he walks into, Smith moves in and out of scenes the way he has moved in and out of movies (with the exception of his great turn in Ali) ? only the costumes, and sometimes the hairstyles, are different.
That may be a good thing for some, not so good for others. Perhaps the role of Del Spooner would have benefitted by having someone a little more willing to invest in a nuanced, complicated character ? well, if the film had been slotted anywhere else but the summer.
Of the supporting cast, special mention must be made of Alan Tudyk, who gives life to the murder-suspect robot Sonny using pretty much the same techniques and technology with which Andy Serkis brought Gollum kicking, spitting and cursing so convincingly to the screen.
While Sonny is nowhere near as over-the-top as Gollum (or as expressive ? he is a robot, after all), Tudyk?s performance is just as fine for the understated yet heartfelt way in which he depicts Sonny?s internal troubles as his ?uniqueness? clashes with his hardwired nature.
This movie?s weakest aspect may be its predictability; but it makes up for this by weaving some interesting ruminations on the bond between creator and created into its fabric without letting rampant philosophising derail the main story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
What I thought about it
Detective Del Spooner: You were emotional.... I don't want my vacuum cleaner, or my toaster appearing emotional....
Finally, a somewhat intellectual movie!
Something that actually triggers futuristic thought and has some (I said some) logical realism to it. i-robot is officially second on my top films this year (number one is Van Helsing, in case anyone has forgotten my vampire fetish, hop on over to https://mouthshut.com/readreview/55160-1.html), granted of course, that I?ve missed out on quite a number of movies thus far.
One can't go very wrong when they got Isaac Asimov as the basis of their story. in case watching the movie rings a bell, the same law of robotics was used in the 1999's bicentannial man.
And as for the cast, I must admit that it is very typical of other Will Smith cop and action films. frankly, I can't imagine him other roles that don't have sarcasm and cynicism. oh, and lots of explosions and running etc...
Detective Del Spooner: [sneezes] ...Sorry, I'm allergic to bullshit
When can we say that technology is doing too much for human beings?
How do we draw the line between things we allow robots to do for us out of convenience, and things that us humans need to do ourselves regardless of able technology?
How fictitious really is the day when whole factories run on its own and humans live their lives merely through the computer?
But even if we set time aside, how real is the possibility of it happening? when we become a technology-driven society?
I already know of people who have more friends over the chatrooms and i.m.s than in real life.
Don't get me wrong, I?m not dissing technology. heck, I love technology.
I love the radio. I love my TV. I love my car. I love my slow cooker. I love my water heater. I love my compac notebook. and I will absolutely die without the internet.
So is technology doing too much for me already? line? what line?
If anyone wants to donate a washing machine for my apartment, my doors are wide open.
but I look at projections of the future such as those of i, robot and bicentennial man. I realise that that sort of a reality is a very real possibility. and I know that people criticise humanoid robots as a 'household appliance' but if a robot was offered to me to do my domestic bidding, would I actually say 'no'? I?ve already welcomed machines into my life. what about artificial life?
Having the word 'life' in there actually arises the question posed in both i, robot and bicentannial man about the 'soul' of a robot. If a robot had feelings and intuitions and made decisions based on those 'feelings' and 'intuitions' then can the robot be said to have a 'soul'? people are already arguing if organic clones have souls, what about mechanical robots? what if a robot felt happiness and sadness and anger and fear, would it be real to them? what about the immortal nature of a robot?
I don't know. The more I imagine how would it be like if I had a robot in the house, the scarier the thought becomes. After all, isn't it just a machine? a cold, hard machine? it is not that I'm afraid it would actually go bonkers on me, but imagine a robot, with all of its humanoid form and all walking about in your house??? and I don't really know which is scarier:
An expressionless and totally command oriented robot, or a robot with emotions and intuitions? from another p.o.v, would I rather have a robot as a friend? I mean, if it can empathize with me and all, could it?
And ultimately, what would make us humans?
What will our function in the world be? when machines run our lives and machines operate the machines that run our lives, what part of life will there be left for human contribution? humans are, as the borg put it in first contact, 'frail, weak, organic...' (which by the way does illustrate lieutenant commander data's struggle between borg's mechanical perfection and his want to be human).
yea, I know that this post is just full of questions, but I?ve never been the answer sort of person. I?m more of a ask-rhetorical-questions-and-leave-them-hanging sort of person.
giggles
