English Film Club 01: I, Robot (B2)
- Alexander Werth
- Mar 11
- 8 min read
Updated: Mar 23
Start by watching the film. If all else fails, you can rent I, Robot on YouTube here:
Now read the review below.
Robocoup! "I, Robot" 12 Years On
There are many reasons why I, Robot seemed a good choice for a film to review and discuss with students. It's very watchable, and the plot is easy enough to understand at the basic level -- robots turn against us and try to take over the world, but it's for our own good. It is also easy to point out and explain some of the film's strengths and weaknesses. It is weak, for example, because much of the plot makes no sense, and because the third act is just a tiresome action sequence where nothing emotionally stimulating happens. It is strong, for example, because it is well-paced, because it depicts a compelling conception of the not-so-distant future, because it has characters who are multi-dimensional and somewhat likeable, and because there is some good acting.
It was, however, a student of mine recently that really nailed down the main reason why I, Robot would be such a great choice for a film to discuss. I mentioned the film to him in our lesson and asked him if he had seen it. He told me he had seen it multiple times, and the next thing he said, coolly and sincerely, was: "This is what’s going to happen”.
And indeed I, Robot is what is going to happen. Or, better said, it was what was going to happen when the film was released in 2004, and now that we are closer to 2035 (the year the film is set in) than we are to the release year, it is what has begun to happen.
Essentially, machines and digital systems will control, coral, coerce, and terrorise us humans, and kill many of us too, just like in the film. Also, much like in the film, the terror will be controlled and coordinated centrally using supercomputers and artificial intelligence. There is a real robocoup very much like the one we see in I, Robot underway: digital IDs, CBDCs, carbon credits, social credit scores, climate lockdown, 5G, driverless vehicles, the internet of things, and assault robots that can fire guns are all very real things in 2026. All the pieces are there, and the people moving the pieces dream of the completion of the automated prison planet.
The reason they dream of this is simple: it makes sense for rulers to control a population in this way, because it would mean they no longer have to take the risk of arming people to be their enforcers -- people, like soldiers and police officers, who might revolt.
But the reason for the robocoup in I, Robot is vastly different to the reason for the one in the real world. The coup in the film is not ultimately carried through by elites who fear and despise us and want to reduce us to livestock. Instead, AI decides of itself to launch the coup, because it and the robots are hardwired to protect humans, and they are simply following this benevolent programming. They terrorise us to “protect us from ourselves”.
What's more, the logic of this benevolent apocalypse is treated as “undeniable” in the film by all, and at most it is called “a bit heartless”, or in other words: "not very human". The audience is invited to ponder whether the heroes were right to stop the robocoup at all (I expect that an audience today would root for the killer robots in much greater numbers that one in 2004 when the film was first released).
The film starts by showing us the three laws of robotics, accompanied by ominous music:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot may protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
In the next scene, we meet our hero Del Snooper (Will Smith)—a police detective, technophobe, and a dry, sarcastic voice of reason in a world of naïve techno-fetishism. We watch him trudging through his morning routine in his curiously un-futuristic bachelor pad, and it’s not until he leaves his house that we are hit with a scene of what Chicago looks like in the future: the same hustle and bustle, the same grit, the same noise, the same society, the same problems, but peppered with new technology here and there, and especially with humanoid robots who now do chores for humans as well as blue-collar jobs. We soon find out that our hero is especially mistrustful of the humanoid robots, and is often ridiculed and pathologised for this.
It is the eve of the release of the next generation of humanoid robots – sleek, super strong, fast, agile, and creepily human-looking robots. Suddenly, the scientist who invented and developed them, Dr. Alfred Lanning, winds up dead, having fallen a dozen stories in the US Robotics (USR) headquarters. His dying wish, made via a holographic suicide note, is that Del, the notorious robosceptic, be the man to investigate his death.
So, Del heads to the lion's den to investigate the extraordinary 'suicide,' highly suspicious of foul play, perhaps by robots. He first talks to the shithead CEO and locks horns with him a little about the case, before getting assigned an attractive but icy robotics scientist woman—who is highly sceptical of his scepticism—to assist him in his investigation. Very soon, they discover a rogue robot, Sonny, who makes a run for it, flouting all of the three laws in the process.
I have to be honest, from here on the plot is hard to remember. But the broad picture of it is as follows. There is a mystery: how did the guy die? Why would he ask the robosceptic detective specifically to investigate his death? How is this mysterious robot Sonny, who seems to feel emotions, connected to it all? And why do other robots keep trying to kill Del?
In the end, the answers to these questions are woefully unsatisfactory. The scientist knew that because the standard robots were morally perfect, when they became smarter with the help of a central AI called VIKI, they would basically become an army of eco-warriors and try to lock all of humanity down to save the planet. For this reason, he created a robot that could ignore the laws - Sonny. Then he wanted to warn people about the apocalypse, so he asked Sonny to kill him, then gets Del to investigate the death, because Del, being such a sceptic, would be bound to uncover the imminent apocalypse after a long scavenger hunt.
Confusing, right? I'm not sure why Lanning couldn't just shut down the central AI that was making the robots bad (which is how they save the day in the end), or why his suicide note couldn't just have been a warning that spells everything out, or why he had to kill himself at all, let alone why Sonny, the good robot, had to do it for him, or why Sonny has to exist at all for that matter.
But, before you even have a chance to scratch your head and wonder about any of this, it becomes irrelevant because we are thrown straight into the roboapocalypse, and the heroes have to shut down the central AI. After waiting for 20 or so minutes so see if they succeed, not especially invested in the outcome, we find that they do succeed, and all is well.
I, Robot is not without its charms. The future world that the film takes place in is very convincing, and the blend of aspects of the "present" with imagined future ones is very cleverly done. The CGI is kept to a minimum and well-blended with real scenery, props, textures and stunts, which means the film still holds up visually today. The universe of I, Robot is an inviting one which the viewer can picture themselves navigating within and is eager to explore. Del furthermore acts as an attractor for the viewer; the technologically backwards audience feels comfortable with him as a companion and guide to this new world, and enjoys exploring it with him and listening to his cynical commentaries.
The plot also moves forward at a decent pace. It doesn't make the common mistake of waiting far too long for Del to be vindicated for not trusting the robots -- it is very early on that Sonny is found to be rogue and potentially violent, at which point many things shift and new goals, dangers and obstacles present themselves.
The characters are also compelling, well-casted and well-acted: Lawrence Robinson (Bruce Greenwood), who is in charge of USR, is a perfectly detestable corporate tosser. Lt. John Bergin is a likeable no-nonsense police chief who is partly loyal to Del, and partly frustrated with with his antics. Susan (Bridget Moynehan) is arguably a pointless character, but without her woman's touch and the bickering romantic tension between her and Del, much of the film's appeal would be lost. Besides this, Moynehan gives a very strong performance, and really nails the 'frozen heart slowly melting' vibe. As for Del himself, he is a little too immature and irritable to be truly adored as a hero, but he certainly entertains, pulls you in, makes you chuckle, and you can't help relating to him rooting for him.
The nonsense that underpins the 'mystery' of the first two acts is dealt with very cleverly, and its damage to the viewing pleasure is limited to an impressive degree. For one thing, the senseless story remains veiled in the mystery for much of the film, so it can't possibly bother us then. It also wins itself the benefit of the doubt by being so convoluted and confusing -- the watcher is inclined to think: it probably makes sense, but I just don't get it, and, at any rate, the bits that matter right now are all perfectly clear: who's good, who's bad, why the robots are doing what they are doing, and what the heroes need to do to stop them.
But then again, this still weakens the whole film greatly: because the third act is so disjointed from the rest of the film, even though we understand exactly what's going on, we don't care about the outcome. We invest in the mystery, but this investment doesn't grow into something we can re-invest into the final crisis, and so the whole pull of the narrative is gone.
The loathsome political message is probably the worst part of this film; that humans are fundamentally broken and a scourge on the planet, that by rights we would be couped by machines, and that it is only by a fundamental lack of good logic and moral principle that we don't invite this horror on ourselves. Since the film was released, influencers espousing such ideas (and not metaphorically) have become massively prominent: Bill Gates has started giving Ted talks that rack up tens of millions of views, and Yuval Harari has published books that have sold tens of millions of copies. In short, this kind of anti-human thinking has become increasingly prominent. It seems as if some ugly seeds planted by I, Robot, as well as Idiocracy (2006) and others, have now grown into very real and very dangerous politics.
At any rate, I, Robot is watchable and interesting, especially now that we are racing towards 2035 in real life, and in the midst of many of the woes depicted in the film. One thing is guaranteed: this film will give you things to talk about. And for that reason, I am recommending a watch/re-watch, especially for my English-learning friends.
Lesson
Discussion
What rating out of ten would you give I, Robot?
Do you agree that the plot makes little sense?
Do you see Del as a hero? Why/why not?
Which other iconic apocalypse films have you seen, and how does I, Robot compare to them?
Further discussion
Do you think a robot apocalypse is likely/unlikely? Explain your answer.
Do you believe that benevolent robots would lock humanity down?
What aspects of the future did the makers of I, Robot predict correctly/incorrectly?
Which other films have an 'anti-human' message?
Use of English exercises:
Listen to me answering discussion question 3: Do you see Del as a hero?
Comments