The Flipcritic

In Hollywood, two types of robots abound. Those that are cute and pleasant (R2-D2), and those intent on destroying mankind (The Terminator). ROBOTS falls squarely into the first category, and has no intention of leaving. It creates a magnificent-looking universe, with fascinating mechanical creatures each distinct in their appearance and personality. But it is all a house of cards, ready to tumble down upon a simple logical inquisition. It has the style, but no soul.

The plot essentially is about a youngster chasing his dream in an unforgiving environment and emerging triumphant (if you think I spoiled it for you, you haven’t been watching any American animated films lately). The youngster in question is Rodney Copperbottom (voiced primarily by Ewan McGregor), an aspiring robot inventor offspring to his poor robotic parents Herb (Stanley Tucci) and his wife (Dianne Wiest). He leaves his home for the big city to search for his childhood hero Bigweld (Mel Brooks), the great inventor and most admired robot of all.

On his way to the big city he meets several robot misfits. The most notable one being the loquacious Fender (Robin Williams). Most of the movie’s moments involve their dealings and quirks. Eventually he acquires a love interest in Cappy (Halle Berry) and meets the movie’s villains in Ratchet (Greg Kinnear) and his mother Madame Gasket. The former runs Bigweld’s corporation, making immense profits through unlimited upgrades, and cares less about his boss’s values for achieving perfection (Bigweld seems to be incommunicado during Rodney’s search). The latter plans to remove all obsolete robots by creating a shortage of spare parts. Therefore, deficient robots that cannot afford upgrades and cannot be repaired will have to be replaced. And yes, Rodney and his friends must save the day.

There is no doubt that the movie looks incredible, as it contains one of the most impressive cities that I have ever seen, almost as remarkable as Fritz Lang’s METROPOLIS (1927), Rintaro’s METROPOLIS (2001), and Alex Proyas’s DARK CITY. Like those mentioned, it doesn't merely gloss over the city's entirety like THE FIFTH ELEMENT or BATMAN, it is alive as a whole, in the details. We move through its streets and dwellings with freedom and expectation. It’s as if a mechanized capital had followed Darwinian principles, growing and evolving through the ages. Its denizens are as varied and as human as... well... humans. Like Tim Burton’s PLANET OF THE APES, the film is not content with creating swarms of clones like I, ROBOT. It fleshes out each individual, giving them distinct characteristics.

Though its attention to detail is astounding, its exterior encapsulates emptiness. Its story has nice lessons about endless upgrades and striving for perfection. But its central theme about striving for your dreams is as recycled as they come. It portrays corporations as the usual villains (they and the Nazis are the most dependable villains in movies), and its in-jokes are uninspired, ranging from movie star names like Jeremy “Irons” (hollow laugh) to another Brittney Spears joke (Kubrick afficionados may spot a "2001" moment though). As time goes by, this movie will become less and less funny due to its tiresome topicality.

Its prevalent humor though is not its most unlikable aspect. What is is its utter disregard for reason. If you wish to scan back to my plot summary, ask yourself these questions:

· How does a robot age? Does it grow?
· Why would a robot need to procreate? Why would robots marry? Why would they need genders? Do they have sex? If so, do they exchange lubricants?
· Why would a robot need a job? Why would it need commerce at all?
· What are a robot’s aspirations? Why would he have them in the first place?
· Why would a robot need to be annoyingly talkative? Why would he have human characteristics at all?

Perhaps I am thinking too much for a movie that requires little thought. And I admit, part of an enjoyable movie-going experience involves the appreciation of wondrous images and ambience a movie provides. But I could not get shake off those inquisitive thoughts poking me all throughout this picture. If you ask yourself any of the questions above, the house of cards collapses.

There are many excellent movies that provide marvelous imagery and entail little reasoning. But even they need a hint of believability, a basic logical framework where our emotions can play upon. The TOY STORY movies plays on our childhood fantasies of what they might be doing when we aren’t looking. MONSTERS, INC. has our young notions of monsters under the bed or in the closet, coming from who knows where. FINDING NEMO, shows the beauty of the ocean and all those that dwell about it (unlike SHARK’S TALE which gives the human preoccupations and facilities). And THE INCREDIBLES delves into the family troubles of superheroes, in ways we never imagined.

ROBOTS has nothing to refer to. It conjures a world that has practically nothing meaningful to do with robots, and everything to do with humanity. Which leads me to my next question? Why oh why aren’t humans (even CGI ones) playing individuals that are all too human? Simple, because it wouldn’t sell (this movie has “The Jetsons” written all over it). The title is a major part of the movie’s appeal, but it is also evidence of its great deceit.

Chris Wedge and Carlos Saldanha know all about blending good storytelling with splendid visuals. But I can only wonder if they really cared about what they were trying to tell. ROBOTS has nothing new to say about the beings its title espouse. It falls into a long line of Hollywood familiarity, not knowing how to compel audiences into knowing the fascinating influence of these artificial intelligences. The last two films that dealt with them compellingly were A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, and THE IRON GIANT. I’m still waiting for a third.

Posted by FLIPCRITIC at March 17, 2005 04:59 PM