I really didnt need to see Will Smith's ass...

I, Robot

Will Smith as a robot hating cop? Loved the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and since the progression of a male child’s preference is as follows: 2-5 Candy 5-7 Ninjas and Robots 7-13 Video Games 13+ Females, I bit the bullet and rented I, Robot from my local Blockbuster franchise.

This movie is an incredibly stylized portrayal of the future and the storytelling is clear and concise. The visual depictions of the robots is frighteningly believable and in no way over done. What makes them freaky is their almost-but-not-quite human translucent faces. The “dream” motif laid out herein is provocative, even though it’s been done to death. Will Smith’s acting is bearable, I mean that. It’s tough to pull off a wise-cracking cop with a chip on his shoulder these days. It’s hardly ever done! (I really started with no intention of being sarcastic, then I realized I was going against my natural tendency on that one.) Seriously though, I enjoyed Will’s performance here. With lines like, “Look, I understand you’ve experienced a loss, but this relationship just can’t work. You’re a cat, I’m black, and I’m not going to be hurt again.” How can you not laugh? I do, as always, have some qualms about this particular movie though.

I don’t usually have problems with product placement in movies; it’s all a part of the moving going experience. And anyway, advertising is fucking everywhere these days. The problem that I have is not the product placement; it’s the world that those responsible for the screenplay, Jeff Vintar and Akiva Godsman, along with director Alex Proyas create. While this is the future it is a specific future. It is the future that has progressed from our present. How do I know this? Well, lets see: Will’s car is an Audi, he wears “vintage” Converse All-Star hightops, and one of the delivery robots seen in the beginning of the movie is branded with a FedEx label. Good enough? No? Fuck you then..

Since I, Robot is the screenwriter’s and director’s vision of our future why the FUCK do they give their character, Dr. Alfred Lanning, credit for Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics which are given in text prefacing the first scene of the movie and following the opening credits? Anyone who reads science-fiction knows that these laws of robotics were the brain-child of author and visionary Isaac Asimov. The problem I have here isn’t a plot problem; it’s more of a respect issue. Those three fuckers stole Asimov’s work. How hard could it have been to say that Dr. Lanning read Asimov as a child and built his work around it? How mother fucking hard could that be? Assholes. Oh, one more thing. If you stick around and watch the credits they say, “suggested by Isaac Asimov’s book” Those cock suckers couldn’t even say it was inspired, or which book! Assholes³. (Yes, cubed)

Another problem that I have with I, Robot is one particular scene near the end involving Susan Calvin. Near the beginning of the movie Dr. Calvin states that her “general fields are advanced robotics and psychiatry. Although, I specialize in hardware-to-wetware interfaces in an effort to advance U.S.R.’s robotic anthropomorphization program… I make the robots seem more human”, near the end of the movie when Spoon (Smith) and Calvin (Moynahan) need to get into the U.S.R. building where Calvin works, she knows where there are access tunnels into the building that aren’t under surveillance. Uhhh… how the shit is a nerdy bitch like Susan Calvin gonna know where there are “hidden” access tubes? And come on guys, why didn’t you at LEAST make the hidden tunnel some where else, not at the bottom of the front steps of the U.S.R. building? That’s just retarded.

The final few thoughts I’d like to say are a bit of a spoiler. So, if you haven’t seen this movie and want to without knowing the ending, then don’t read the next paragraph. (highlight w/ mouse to read)

It’s not really a complaint; it’s more of something interesting to think about. So yea, by now you know that it isn’t the robots that are the “bad guys”. The bad guy turns out to be a bad computer program known as V.I.K.I. (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence), who, programmed with a female voice is also responsible for the U.S.R. building as well as the infrastructures of Chicago in 2035. While having this disembodied female voice as the villain of this movie by giving her the notion that humans are a threat to themselves is political and clever, sort of like how there used to be a lot of “green” ethics in the movies of the 90’s, it is also makes this movie a bit dated. Why does it have to be a woman’s voice? All the robots were given male personalities, why did the “real” bad guy have to be a woman? Not that I’m a feminist or anything ridiculous like that, it was just too there for me.

Something else to think about is this idea that there are no more master texts. In my Contemporary Literature course we talked about the facets of Postmodernism. Even though postmodernism is a bullshit throw-away term that literati like to throw around because their weanies aren’t as big as mine, I still had to learn about it and now you do too, fuckers. Postmoderism, in the most simplistic of understandings of it, is the period in literature (film and art as well, but since I know fuck all about art, and jack shit about cinema let’s just say literature) that comes about AFTER MODERNISM. (hahaha... you'll never get those seconds of your life back)

A more complex understanding would have to talk about those things specific to Postmodernism, which, in actuality, are stylistic choices, narrative structures, and a whole bowl of other shit that can be found in various periods of literature which are taken as mish-mashed into postmodern stories. So, essentially, if someone asks you “Hey man, what’s Postmodernism?” you can affectively, and without hesitiation, in the greatest of confidence say, “A whole bunch of shit stolen from other periods of literature and human history used to create something new.” Or you could say, “historical plaid.” That works too. Anyway, back to the master texts.

Master texts are essentially the stories used to tell other stories. These Master Texts are the text that writers sometimes use as an outline for their stories. An analogy might help. Think about a colouring book with the black outlines depicting a rose, some grass, and the sky. A Master Text would be akin to the colouring book page being coloured thus: Rose – Red bloom, green stem. Grass – Green. Sky – Blue. A writer working with a Master Text would colour the shit completely different. So, to recapitulate for all you fuckers that are still reading this shit, Master Texts are the outlines for stories, the basic gist, the plot structure.

Well, when Spoon and Dr. Calvin are in Dr. Lanning’s office/lab Spoon and Dr. Calvin have an exchange.

Spoon: Yeah, I know, the three laws. Your perfect circle of protection.
Calvin: A robot cannot harm a human being. The First Law of Robotics.
S: Yeah, I know. I’ve seen your commercials. But doesn’t the Second Law state that a robot has to obey any order given by a human being. What if it was given an order to kill.
C: Impossible. It would conflict with the First Law.
S: Right. But the Third Law states that a robot can defend itself.
C: Yes, but only when that action does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
S: Well, you know what they say. Laws are made to be broken.
C: No, not these Laws. They’re hardwired into every robot. A robot can no more commit murder than a human could walk on water.
S: Well you know there was this one guy a long time ago…

The main robot, the “unique” one that gets the name Sonny, is this robot that is capable of choosing to follow Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics or not. Man, another variation of the Jesus story. Who says the master texts are no longer in use. You just have to look, you blind fucks.

I highly recommend this movie for anyone whole likes science fiction movies. It’s fun, fast paced, with few plot holes. There’s are some funny parts, and very few corny lines. (Depending on who you are, that might not be a good thing)

8/10

Quick Quibbles:

• What was the purpose of the Farber character, that kid who throws Spoon the basketball in the beginning of the movie? We see that fucker again, but the relationship between Spoon and Farber is never explained. There are cases when leaving it to the imagination of the movie goer is a good thing, this isn't one of them. It comes off as Michael Jacksonesque. Maybe that's just me. Probably.
  

• I didn't need to see Will Smith's ass. Thanks.