I suppose it's true what they say about beautiful women and they're not needing personalities, and if my supposition is correct, then it's possible some day we'll have an entire consumer line of supermodel robots who will look as good as Gisele Bündchen but not bore us with their effete boyfriends and acting aspirations. Until then, we've got former model Bridget Moynihan to fill all those movie roles based on the equation PRETTY + BRUNETTE (+/- GLASSES) = SMART (see THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, THE RECRUIT).
Anyway, in I, ROBOT Bridget has to convince us that she is brilliant robotics scientist Susan Calvin, whose specialty is giving robots more humanlike emotions. Not to pick on Bridg, but, I mean, really? As far as I could tell, the robots were light years ahead of her in that department.
The story of I, ROBOT, is set in 2035 Chicago, where I was happy to see the Sears Tower still on the skyline (and no sign of the Trump megatower that APPRENTICE Bill is in charge of getting built), though the dramatically designed HQ of US Robotics is the city's tallest building. USR builds the skinny, vaguely C3PO-ish robots that wander around performing all of life's little minimum wage or union work: they are sanitation workers, and newspaper sellers, and FedEx guys, and domestic help, and, well, you get the picture. We - or rather Chicagoans 30 years hence - just couldn't live without them.
In this world lives semi-Luddite homicide detective Spooner (an extremely buff Will Smith), who is sure them robots are up to no good even though one saved his life. He's always getting himself in trouble with his Chief by chasing after the likes of "purse-snatching" robots that are, in fact, running to bring asthma medication to their owner. Spooner's dislike of robots is both hilarious and stupid to his fellow cops. (Frankly, I can't imagine any homicide cop worth a walk-on part on CSI: NEW YORK wanting to have his after-work beer delivered by a robot in a bow tie, but maybe I just can't imagine the future!) Picture their surprise when it turns out that despite the logically ironclad "3 Laws of Robotics" (a robot cannot hurt a human, etc) there is a bad robot afoot. Yep, just like DAY AFTER TOMORROW or any X-FILES episode, the hero's worst fears happen within minutes of them being voiced out loud. The suicide - or is it murder? - of Dr Lanning (James Cromwell), the country's leading robot scientist, brings Spooner to US Robotics HQ to investigate the crime and make friends with the comely Dr Calvin. Following clues left by Dr Lanning, they set out to solve the mystery and save the world.
Setting aside the issues I have about robots and their usefulness, which I'll get to, this movie is just so-so. The filmmaker strives to have an easy, sexy vibe going on between Spooner and Dr Calvin, but - through no fault of the actors this time - it never gets off the ground. They'd be talking, the scene would be warming up, and then, splat. Either the directing or the dialogue or some flying gadget would terminate it prematurely. You wanted them to finish the thought, to get together, but alas. The robot character Sonny is interesting, but reminiscent of the first time you met C3PO - the original meshing of walking machine and manners (although, the scenes with Dr Calvin and Sonny were among the movie's most convincing). And what's with the 2 randomly tossed-in scenes with teenster Shia Le Beouf? Did he win a contest or something? When the movie hits its "plot" point, it's just nonsensical and also reminiscent of about 40 other movies-with-smart-computers plots (can you spell H-A-L?). And the endless CGI of the robots jumping, running, climbing, and fighting was more exhausting than watching the Olympics.
Yet I can't say I hated the movie, because there were those moments when the humans' story almost got developed and kept you interested.
And then I have a few problems with the whole robot thing in general. You asked. First of all, why would anyone want all those robots (they are as ubiquitous as cell phones-and potentially just as annoying)? I mean, are we to assume that in a mere 30 years - or 100 years for that matter - there will be so many high-paying, intellectually fulfilling jobs for humans of all abilities that the robots will be needed and not a source of boiling resentment? Robots like these always make more sense as a way of filling in society after some man-made or other catastrophe, not as the natural evolution of consumer products.
Second, as the robots obtain more human-like emotions, isn't "owning" them a bit offensive? I mean, they are portrayed here as virtually human, unfailingly courteous (ok, so I suppose robots could be useful at NYC grocery stores), and somewhat childlike. Isn't that a creepy concept? As I felt after Spielberg's A.I., what does wanting possessions that respond to us emotionally but require no response say about humans? The only answer I can come up with is, nothing good.
Here's my final thought on all this computer-generated film-making. Now that everyone with a light bulb knows that all the effects are done with a computer, it's not that intriguing anymore. It all feels so 5 years ago, like we've seen the guy fall 100 stories, we've seen the giant spaceships, we've seen the emoting robots and the flying toasters and gunshots and the lasers and the [thankfully] faux atomic explosions and the tidal waves and the who knows what. While those are all cool, they can't take the place of characters and a sensible plot. What we need to be seeing is the end of those scenes with Dr Calvin and Spooner, the human connection that keeps movies like SPIDERMAN glued together while I, ROBOT goes the way of the 8-track.