The way the story goes, on December 23, 1940, the legendary science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov collaborated with science-fiction magazine editor John W. Campbell to create The Three Laws of Robotics. Those three laws are as follows:
| 1.) | A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. |
| 2.) | A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. |
| 3.) | A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. |
There's actually more to it, but not a lotta people know about it. In 1985, Isaac Asimov added "The Zeroth Law," which placed the interests of humanity over those of any particular individual (while high value on individual human life remained in place). "Star Trek" geeks may be reminded of conversations between "Kirk" and "Spock" about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few (or the one). Same thing.
The Three Laws of Robotics were created to govern the behavior of robots, but more accurately, it was to govern the behavior of artificial intelligence (which isn't limited to robots), and to this day, The Three Laws of Robotics is taken into consideration as robots and artificial intelligence are getting more advanced.
Isaac Asimov's book, "I, Robot," is not a novel. It's actually a collection of nine short stories (ten if you include the introduction). Most of the short stories involve a dilemma having to do with logical contradictions within the laws, and how the contradictions are eventually figured out, usually by "Dr. Susan Calvin," who appears in most of the short stories. After reading the book, it seems like Asimov is all for robots and artificial intelligence playing a major role in society. In fact, one of the stories in "I, Robot" ("Evidence") seems to hint that a robot that adheres to The Three Laws of Robotics would be an ideal President of the United States.
Having read "I, Robot," and thoroughly enjoying it, I must admit that there's a lot I don't like about the feature film version. In the book, Isaac Asimov argues that robots and artificial intelligence can make the world a better place, and whether or not you agree with that, that was the point of the book. The movie totally goes against that, being yet another in a long line of films where machines take over the world, like "The Terminator" and "The Matrix." Don't get me wrong, I love those movies, but here was a chance to do something different. Instead, the feature film version of "I, Robot" is a slick, glossy, excruciatingly Hollywood sci-fi action film that has almost nothing to do with Asimov's book. But ya know what? I hate to say it, but I found the movie very entertaining. That's right, I liked the movie. I may be annoyed that almost nothing in Asimov's book was in the film, but on its own, "I, Robot" is very cool. Sure, the story is nothing new, there isn't much originality, and Asimov purists will be furious, but I gotta tellya, I enjoyed every minute of the movie.
Saying that the movie is a feature film version of the "I, Robot" book is not quite true. The movie started out as an original screenplay called "Hardwired." 20th Century Fox later acquired the rights to "I, Robot," and they wanted the "Hardwired" script rewritten to have elements of Asimov's book added to it. The end result, to me, is a standard "machines take over the world" sci-fi action film with a little "I, Robot" thrown in. When all is said and done, the movie is definitely more "Hardwired" than "I, Robot," but like I said, I like the movie.
"Hardwired" was written by Jeff Vintar (he helped write the disastrous "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within"), and when it was time to add some Asimov-isms, Akiva Goldsman came on board for the rewrites. Goldsman won an Oscar for his screenplay for "A Beautiful Mind," but I'm not a fan of his because he wrote "Batman & Robin" and he helped write "Batman Forever." It'll take a lot of great screenplays for me to forgive him for his involvement in those movies.
Probably the biggest reason for me liking the movie as much as I did is the work of director Alex Proyas. He's the same man who directed "The Crow" and "Dark City," and if you've seen those movies, then you know what he's capable of. "I, Robot" is amazing to look at, and Proyas does a fantastic directing job. He's the main reason that this film is a lot better than it should be.
Will Smith plays "Detective Spooner" in the film (the main character, though he appears nowhere in Asimov's book). In just about every movie he's in, Will Smith plays the cocky wise-ass, and he does it well. In movies like "Men in Black" and "Bad Boys," he's perfect. Every now and then, he'll surprise me, like he did in "Ali" (I thought he was very good in the role, but the Oscar nomination may have been a bit much). However, what he's best at, and what he's known for, is playing the cocky wise-ass. For this movie, he basically plays a more subtle version of his trademark cocky wise-ass character, which I'm happy about. Will Smith added a warmth to the film that could have been too much if he did the usual thing, but he toned it down, and in doing so, provided the exact level of irreverence that the film needed.
"Dr. Susan Calvin" is a prominent character in almost all of the stories in "I, Robot," and fortunately, her character is in the film. In the book, she's an older woman, and she isn't very attractive. For the movie, she's played by the beautiful Bridget Moynahan ("Coyote Ugly," "The Recruit," "The Sum of All Fears"). Much to my surprise, however, Moynahan totally nailed it, coming across much like "Dr. Calvin" from the book. To give you an idea, at one point in the story "Evidence," she's asked by a robot if robots are different from men. Her response is: "Worlds different. Robots are essentially decent." That tells you all you need to know about the kinda person she is. Just like in the book, the character in the movie is very cold, and she trusts robots far more than she does humans. It's not till later in the film that the character veers from how she was depicted in the book, but Bridget Moynahan can't be faulted for that.
Although I can't say that I'm an Isaac Asimov purist, I can say that I read "I, Robot," I liked it a lot, and I wish that the feature film of the same name was at least closer in spirit to the book. At the same time, as popcorn movies go, "I, Robot" is very entertaining, great to look at, and never boring. The book and the movie both entertained me greatly, but for very, very different reasons. I recommend you see the movie, but you should also read the book.
Scale of 1-10: 8