MovieChat Forums > Robot & Frank (2012) Discussion > Too many problems ** MANY SPOILERS **

Too many problems MANY SPOILERS

posted 12 years ago by musicmango
77 replies | jump to latest

For a movie like this to work, it has to be honest with the premises, especially those upon which the plot hinges. There are a few glaring problems that effectively render the entire plot unbelievable, and therefore pretty much wreck what could have been a great movie. In no particular order:

- we're led to believe that Frank has no knowledge of his former wife and mother of two kids? Sure, his mind is fading but he has enough in there to remember his kids. Not once in seeing his ex-wife in the library, he would've remembered? He remembers how to pick locks, spray-paint security cameras, the fact that second-story windows aren't always alarmed... but he doesn't remember her? Come on.

- a robot like this would be backing up its memory daily or hourly or continually, much like any computer or device today does, to the cloud or via Time Machine or whatever. A robot can get hit by a car or fall into a lake, and any owner who paid big $ for a robot would want to know that the replacement will be identical to the one just lost with memory intact, sort of like re-loading a new iPhone from a backup. Therefore, there will be copies of the robot's memories all over the place, easily accessible to cops doing an investigation

- there's no way these robots would be programmed to allow illegal activity. It's a fundamental law of robotics. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from teaching one of these things to kill? Would it know that killing is wrong? Why is it any more or less wrong than stealing?

- the cops could've asked the robot what it knows about the robbery. What's it going to do, "cover for Frank?" How about, as the robot is programmed to look after Frank's best interests, you tell it "hey robot, tell us what you know or Frank goes to a rat-infested prison for the rest of his life"

- a robot would also have some sort of GPS/tracking in case it gets lost. Somewhere, memory erased or not, it an accurate log of that robot being on the premises of the library and that house during the time of those robberies.

There are other little things, but these are fundamentally game-breakers when it comes to a movie like this, where the science-fiction framework laid has to be faithful to reality and not bend little rules to suit the plot. In this case, the plot depends on a number of things that just aren't plausible within the context the movie itself defines.

[–] gortx 12 years ago

The robot tech stuff is a bit far-fetched, but, for the most part, I'd let them slide as creative logic. If you think of the film as a 90 minute TWILIGHT ZONE episode, you can enjoy it as a parable, and not hard-wired sci-fi (which is the best way to treat almost all sci-fi TWILIGHT ZONE episodes).

But, the alzheimer's thing is another matter. Luckily, it doesn't run in my family, so I don't have much personal experience with the issue. But, I agree with musicmango's reaction to the film. I, too, had a hard time believing that Frank could have so much critical knowledge at his finger-tips, but that he failed to recognize his own ex-wife. I know the mind does mysterious things, but, you would think he'd have at least have come across photos of them together someplace in his home, his son's, or his daughters, no? And, as in many films, it's all so convenient that the protagonist doesn't seem to have any friends, co-workers or relatives around - any, of whom could have jogged his memory. And, nobody at the Library knows they were a couple? NOBODY?

BUT, I will defer to those with practical and scientific knowledge of Alzheimer's. Does the film portray it accurately?

[–] mtm_29 11 years ago

How is the robot tech so far fetched? At the very end during the credits, those scenes were of real robots. This takes place in the future, they'd improve their already impressive technology, and I think this is the first real step towards iRobot, eventually Surrogates (minus the dystopia). I'm glad they didn't go the same route, instead focusing on humans and robots getting along/working together.

We live in a world filled with deception. It's hard to pick out the truth.

[–] todde53 12 years ago

Yeah and what about the police harassing frank by going on no leads just the fact jack thinks it was frank. Also the police go into his house without a warrant the first time when he was in the backyard with his daughter, the second time they search his house and harass him more. They need search warrants and going on franks history you'll think he knows what rights he has. Also my opinion on the film is they did not go into more detail on th evolving relationship between frank and the robot, it would of made the film twice as good but they rushed through it.

[–] MaxxxFreedom 11 years ago

Agreed. They used the phrase "probable cause" so many times, they forgot that they had none, including opening the trunk of the AUDI.

[–] android_movie 11 years ago

Actually, if you invite the police in, police doesn't need a warrant then.

Police has the right to ask to search your car trunk, and you have the right to refuse. If you do not refuse, and police finds something, then, you are screwed. There are videos on youtube called "Exert your rights" which teach you how to say no to the police.

Same with the house. If you invite the police in, and if police finds something later, well, too bad. The court will NOT throw out the evidence.

Show me the holes!

[–] move_over_fatso 10 years ago

In certain jurisdictions, you do not have the right to prevent police from executing a warrantless search with "probable cause", if you're an ex-con. But that may only apply to the parole period.

[–] MelCooley2 12 years ago

Clearly a case of overthinking something beyond the point of reason and enjoyment. This is not a documentary about what it's like to live with a robot. It's a story about a man clinging to the last bits and pieces of himself before disappearing forever.

-Is Alzheimer's so selective that it will allow the brain to remember some things and not other, possibly even more important things? Yes, that is exactly what the disease can do.

-Should the robot's memory be backed up and accessible to the cops? Probably, yes, but in this case it wasn't, and I can live with that.

-"there's no way these robots would be programmed to allow illegal activity." LOL, dude, how do you know WHAT this particular FICTITIOUS robotics company might do or what the "fundamental laws of robotics" will be in the FICTITIOUS future where this story takes place?

-"the cops could've asked the robot what it knows." They could've but they didn't. And maybe they would have but the robot tricked them with the self-destruct gag and they never got the chance after that. (Let me guess: "A robot would never intentionally trick a human." Just let the movie entertain you!)

- "a robot would also have some sort of GPS/tracking in case it gets lost." Haha...dude, this is not an episode of CSI. You're kidding with these nit-picking items, right?

You are clearly looking for reasons not to like this movie. Give yourself permission to overlook details like you mention. It's called the "willing suspension of disbelief," and it allows us to forgive things like the unlikeliness of a giant shark stalking a single boat off Amity island because it's mean and has a personal, human-like grudge against the people on it. If I were you, I'd stick to documentaries.

I gotta go back to your first sentence: "For a movie like this to work, it has to be honest with the premises." The movie IS honest about what is vital to the story: The human element. THAT'S the heart of this movie. If I were you, I'd go back to my programmer and ask him or her to rewrite my code to help me better understand something that is essential to the human experience: Things don't always happen with specific, digital predictability. The other humans and I already understand this.

I would love to have been there when you came back from seeing this movie and sat down at the weekly meeting of the North American Gamers Strategy Council: "Hey, MusicMango, how was 'Robot & Frank?'" You slam down your jacket and keys: "Terrible! Just terrible! They got it ALL WRONG! I don't even want to talk about it!"

[–] musicmango 12 years ago

Wow... for some so literate as yourself, I'm surprised how the entire meaning of my message sort of whoooshed over your head. Here, I'll try to dumb it down a little so you "get it".

I don't nitpick little details that are wrong in movies just for fun. I'm hardly looking to find things wrong with movies. All movies have little mistakes and we all let them go. And, in fact, the more we know about a subject, the more we should be willing to forgive because it's a little too much to expect non-experts to get it all right.

However... when the entire premise of a movie, and in this case, more than one... including the most important "reveal" of the entire movie -- is based on a fundamental flaw, it renders the entire plot useless.

Movies like Inception or Star Wars or even Jaws, as you mention, are brilliant in that no matter how unbelievable the "universe" in which the movie operates might appear, the plot and characters all remain faithful to the environment. They don't pull rabbits out of hats at inopportune moments just to make the plot works. It cheapens and actually destroys the entire movie.

In this case, there are SO many things that need to be wrong for the plot to work, it just isn't worth it. I thought up another 20 just while writing this reply. The spray-painted camera would've seen something, someone would have seen them walking to from the library and/or the house, there would be robot track marks all over the place, as well as Frank's.

Or, let me guess, you'll suggest that an Alzheimer's patient who's completely forgotten about his wife and mother of two children wouldn't forget a single thing in covering his tracks on two separate robberies. Do you really accept that?

Sure, let it go if it's irrelevant. In this case, those are fundamental points of this movie. The movie and its story depend on them. And they are such huge, fundamental holes in the story that it wrecks the whole thing.

And by the way, the human element doesn't work either. I'm sure I, along with a lot of other people, was confused about Frank's state of mind at any given point. Does he know what's going on? Is he totally confused? Is he putting them on? The development of the relationship between Frank and the Robot is hard to understand because we never really wrap our head around Frank.

I'm not looking for reasons to dislike this movie, but I'm finding lots of them.

[–] MelCooley2 12 years ago

"...wouldn't forget a single thing in covering his tracks on two separate robberies. Do you really accept that?"

Yes, I accept that. (And he did leave his glasses at the library break-in.)

But, okay. We don't have to agree. Yes, you are correct, there are a lot of ways Frank could've/should've gotten caught for either robbery. Robot tracks on the floor, sure...good point. Also...Frank's fingerprints on the glasses he left behind. But, in this movie, for whatever reason, he got away with it, and I can live with that.

As for Frank's selective Alzheimer's Disease causing him to forget his wife but remember other things, I don't really have a full understanding of how the disease works, but from accounts I've heard, it is possible. Either way, I'm okay with it in the context of this movie.

But if we're going to find fault, let's get to the heart of the problem with "Robot & Frank." Why wasn't the Robot a sexy, Japanese robotic geisha?

[–] musicmango 12 years ago

Indeed, I think we agree that there are problems with the movie... you find them irrelevant and I find them destructive to the movie. We can certainly leave it at that.

Now... your last comment is an interesting one, and you're right. The fact is, even today, they are able to create fake human-looking robots that are far more stupid and useless than the robot in this movie, but look eerily human, with subtle facial movements and all that. We are very close to having a remote-control human acting robot.

I say remote-control because what's really missing is the logic and intelligence that the robot in this movie portrayed. We're still decades away from that, in my opinion, because the field of AI hasn't really advanced much in many years. We can emulate all sorts of intelligent behavior but we're nowhere close to the kind of self-concious intelligence this robot portrayed.

And, that being said, by the time robots ARE able to think like in this movie, you can be sure they will look and act and behave like super-humans. And yes, with certainty, they'll provide all the... services... you'd expect from a geisha.

In fact, here's version 0.01: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MeQcI77dTQ

[–] MelCooley2 12 years ago

Now all I need is for the "Live Long Enough To See It" technology to kick into gear.

[–] rufurious 11 years ago

Melcooley 2: lol. So good!

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 12 years ago

- there's no way these robots would be programmed to allow illegal activity. It's a fundamental law of robotics. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from teaching one of these things to kill? Would it know that killing is wrong? Why is it any more or less wrong than stealing?

There's a HUGE leap from stealing to murder. There is no circumstance in which killing someone or something is OK. That's easy to program. But whether an activity is stealing depends on the context. There are circumstances when I go into someone's house when they are not there and take something of theirs, and it is not stealing. Same thing with a store. There can be free samples, for example. Training a robot to distinguish between when it's stealing and when it's not would be pretty complex.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] subterraneancannibal 12 years ago

I personally didn't have a problem with him not recognizing his wife. Alzheimer's can be very selective in what memories/skills remain intact and which are utterly annihilated. Also, we don't necessarily know that he NEVER recognizes her. Could be he recognized her on several occasions before the movie started and we just weren't privy to it. Could be she's told him before and he forgot again. It would have been very cool if there was a scene where they spoke more familiarly and you realize in retrospect upon a second viewing that this is a lucid period for him... but I don't think there is such a scene.

HOWEVER, the plot twist creates a huge logic problem that undermines the whole premise that kicks off the movie. I liked the movie but I find this rather frustrating. Hunter buys the robot for Frank because he is tired of driving 10 hours roundtrip once a week. It's shown to be a somewhat estranged relationship and the primary purpose of the trips is implied to be checking on Frank's health, not emotional bonding. To get out of making the trips he buys a "very expensive robot" with the idea that it will be Frank's healthcare provider. Soooo.... if Frank's ex-wife, who is clearly still fond of him, lives in town (which is walking distance) why isn't she the one making weekly checkup visits? NOPE, she's making her son leave her grandkids fatherless every weekend because she can't be bothered to spend an hour a week checking in on her ex-husband, who she still kinda likes anyway... and once the son is fed up with that she still won't check on Frank, letting the son spend her grandkids' future college tuition on the robot. Worst mother ever.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] exophase 12 years ago

Frank's wife divorced him a a really long time ago. And probably left town because of this - it's a pretty small town so there's a good chance that she only returned there because she came from there in the first place. So leaving was probably pretty significant for her. An ex wife isn't going to have the same feeling of devotion and unconditional love that a child will. So while she might have been on good terms with him and even had some fondness for him I can see why it'd be too painful for her to try to take care of him. Especially if he can't even remember her.

Besides, he saw her as a friend and romantic interest, I don't think he'd appreciate her outright pity and would consider her attempts to look after him in the same way the son did as inappropriate.

I wouldn't assume he spent the kid's college tuition on the robot either, we really don't know just how expensive it was or just how much money he has.. Hunter seemed pretty well off though. And I don't think he's spending the whole weekend there, just one of the days.

[–] angeleyes8568 12 years ago

First, do you ever wonder if Frank did get caught in the end? All we know is that he ends up in the "brain center", but we don't know the details. We don't know if we went willingly or if his family had him committed. Or maybe he was taken to court (I imagine running away and reformatting a robot's memory is reason to suspect wrongdoing) and instead of throwing him in jail the judge agreed that he could live out his life in a treatment facility.

Second, coming from someone who recently watched a family member decline and eventually pass away from a brain tumor (that was "written off" as dementia and not diagnosed until it was too late), I can tell you that Frank's actions and selective memory loss were very realistic. We only get a small glimpse into Frank's life, so it's hard to say that he forgot his wife completely. We see several times that he moves in and out of normal reality and only certain things jog his memory. At least twice in this film (at the beginning and the very end) we see Frank look at a photo and have a moment of confusion and realization. Not to mention that he breaks into his own home, he's certain Harry's is open and his son is still at Princeton. And yes, it's entirely plausible that he can still remember how to pick a lock, but has spoilt food in his refrigerator.

Diseases of the brain are devastating in that they are so hard to understand and predict. There's a book called The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat which is a collection a psychiatrist's clinical experiences in treating various brain disorders. The story that gives the book it's title is about a man who experiences agnosia and can no longer see his wife's face. Does that sound plausible? No, but it's been documented, and while we understand it or not, it is a real thing.

[–] ArmandoSerrano 11 years ago

My issue with the movie was its lack of imagination. They could have done so much more with the premise, but the movie is just very thin. Peter Sarsgaard manages to squeeze a few funny moments out of the robot's dialogue, but the robot ultimately feels like a bit of a gimmick, like it could have just been another human character instead. Finally, the twist was pulled off much more poignantly in the film Lovely, Still with Ellen Burstyn. I think it was worth making the movie for Langella's performance, but just barely.

[–] cljohnston108 11 years ago

- there's no way these robots would be programmed to allow illegal activity. It's a fundamental law of robotics.

Actually, Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are...

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 the orders given to 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 Laws.

Nothing about stealing in there. It's all about preventing injury/death.