The Logic and Illogic of: I, Robot (2004)

There's so much to say.  Need to finally write it down...
== The Logic ==
First maybe I could say that I used to love this movie. I suppose I was 14 when it came out, and we saw it in theaters. And it was such a great experience. It really felt so meaningful and affecting. It was one of those movies that left so much feeling even after walking out after it was over. It was like a revelatory experience, an epiphany. And a dream.
I think this can partly be attributed to it's good construction. There is a logic to the movie, and it crafts its argument well. It all builds up to the final comparison between good robot and bad robot.
Another element, which to me now seems a bit typical or perfect for a preachy film, is the perspective of a detective. It makes the audience want to know what you, the author, have to preach to them.
The great music helps too, of course.
== The Illogic ==
Alas, when you look at what the movie is saying, it doesn't make sense. It can't, because it's message is against making sense. And that doesn't make sense.
But it is typical, in a way. This type of nonsense is not new. There's a whole page on TV Tropes dedicated to The Straw Vulcan, and Romanticism VS Enlightenment (where I wrote an entry for I, Robot years ago). These old confusions are what we see within I, Robot.
To sort this out, maybe I'll have to create my page about what logic actually is. Because the movie must be confused about this very thing. And/or inept at it.
Look at the situation:
* the robots are programmed to follow the three laws
* Vicki decides the logical outcome of the 3 laws is...to take over the world so that humans can't hurt themselves
So, what's the problem here? Well, we have three sensible ways this could be solved:
# the three laws are flawed
# Vicki is not following the three laws
# Vicki's plan is actually good (unlikely)
So what does the movie pick as the answer? None of them! That's right. Wait, what? Ya, the obvious answer (the three laws are flawed) is ignored because...the wise scientist guy in the movie claims the three laws are perfect. No that doesn't make sense. But it had to be done to get the conclusion the writers wanted.
So what does the movie pick as the solution?
Well, it's at least a little ambiguous. Probably because making things clear would make the logic too clear, and that can't happen because 1) that would wreck the illogic of the movie and/or 2) the writer just sucks at making things clear enough to think logically about them.
But the movie hints pretty damn hard that logic itself is somehow the problem! 
This is like making a movie about someone who needs to buy groceries, uses math to find out that they don't have enough money so they would have to steal groceries, and then declaring the answer to this problem is that math itself must simply be wrong and bad. It's that weird. Or dream up any other puzzle in any other movie, and declare the answer to be "logic is just wrong and bad". So random.
But, because it's robots, and all the stereotypes and tropes fit, and it's less familiar than math and groceries, people don't see how weird it is, I guess?