jay-1007 I'm checking the "spoiler" box, but nothing I say here is a surprise if you've ever seen an action movie before in your life.This movie had some potential. It brought up some serious issues: If people could act out their most evil fantasies -- rape and murder and so on -- in a way that no real person is harmed, would they then "get it out of their system" and be less likely to harm anyone in real life, or would they want bigger and bigger thrills and be more likely to harm someone in real life? The analogy to violent video games is obvious. If people created artificially intelligent robots, at what point should these robots be considered "people" with human rights? That one's been done before but they could have brought new thoughts to the table.But instead the movie very quickly devolves into one of those action movies where the violence doesn't even make sense. I can believe a story where poor and oppressed people with nothing to lose engage in desperate violence. I can believe a story where an intelligent person with wealth and status hatches a carefully-planned criminal plot. But I have a hard time believing a story where a supposedly intelligent person with wealth and status commits violent crimes with some lip service about protecting his wealth and status but where anyone with an IQ of 20 would realize that he has far more to lose by committing these crimes than any of his other problems. I'm sure a skilled writer could make the story believable by showing the rich person getting more and more desperate as things go against him, let us see his growing paranoia or whatever until he snaps. But there was zero attempt to explain the villain's totally irrational behavior here.In "Vice", there's a resort where, presumably for a large fee, people can act out their worst fantasies on robots, "killing" them, "raping" them, etc. Then one of the robots breaks out of its programming and escapes. At that point, absolutely zero harm has been done. As far as anyone in the world of this movie is concerned, it's the moral equivalent of an auto mechanic having a car roll out of the shop and into the street. In the case of the car or the robot, you'd have someone run out to get it back. If it did some damage or harmed someone, your insurance company pays up, and that would be the end of it. But in the movie, the owner of the resort sends armed men out to kill anyone who has seen the robot. They have a shoot-out with the police. How could he possibly expect to get away with this? Is his company such a bunch of yes-men that absolutely no one says, "Umm, before we become involved in a conspiracy to murder police officers, why don't we just call the authorities and tell them that one of our robots is malfunctioning and could they please help us track it down?" Then the hero, a police officer, decides he's going to destroy the resort. He gets a computer hacker friend to sabotage the robots so they start killing the guests of the resort. He then breaks in with a machine gun and starts shooting all the employees. Now I'm no legal expert, but no matter what crimes the owner of a company commits, I'm pretty sure the police are not allowed to go to his office and start killing all his employees and customers.The other illogic is barely worth mentioning. Like they have a tracking device on the robot. At one point someone disables the tracking device for her. Then they stay in the building where he disabled the tracking device for what appears to be hours. Despite the fact that she is in the exact same place where the tracking device last registered her, the villain doesn't have the vaguest idea where she is or where to start looking, until he gets a clue from a totally unrelated source. Because the tracking device is disabled.

kimbieandi Why do movies always have women wearing heavy not smudged or smeared makeup, like in this movie, or appearing to have makeup on when getting out of bed in the morning? Otherwise I really like this movie!Lots of action, moves along well.Lots of focus on sex and exploiting women - which I don't like.

SoCalRPS I'm not adding much that hasn't been said already, but, absolutely horrific "film." I couldn't finish.Plot: Paper-thin and looks like a diluted version of the fantastic, "Westworld" series currently airing on HBO and the classic, "Westworld"/"Futureworld" movies from the 1970s. Some of the plot elements appear to be essentially the same as the HBO series which makes me wonder if the writers/producers of this piece of garbage got their hands on an advance, very raw, script and then rushed to release ala the straight-to-video knock-offs of summer blockbusters - e.g., "Cretaceous Park," "XYZ-Men," "Bats-in-the-Belfry Man vs NY Apartment Complex Super . . . man," etc. The whole "film" is like a mash-up of a Cinemax soft-core, a mini-series made for the SyFy channel, a snuff film, and a Lifetime movie about gals who are raped/assaulted and fight back.Cast: As noted by many others, Willis and Jane are barely there and that seems fine to the producers. Show your face, say a few lines (we'll even use a teleprompter), go home. Maybe they're taking a cue from Eric Roberts these days . . . although Mr. Roberts can at least give his lines via cell phone (See: "A Talking Cat!?!").Ambyr Childers: OK, I can't get past that this is actress's apparent REAL name and had to Google whether this was not the first "movie" she has made outside of the Valley . . . if you catch my drift. Geez, it's like her parents were setting her up for a life on the pole . . . does she have a sister named, Cinnamon or Chablis?! Her "acting" seems much more at place in the Valley, too, although it is a stitch better than the even more porno-ey "actresses" who plays her "friend" (the gal with the English accent) and the news anchor who I was expecting to start undressing while Enigma's, "Sadness Part I" played in the background. This track would be equally appropriate for the "first thing in the morning" repeat scene between Ambyr/Kelly and her "Page 3 Girl" friend. Johnathon Schaech: now, granted, the only thing I can remember him in is, "That Thing You Do" (which I hated even in the 90s when it came out), but, he seems to have fallen on hard times as well career-wise. He gives some of the worst lines in this bag-of-dog-s*** and randomly refers a Maya Angelou poem and a John Updike novel title (to "scare" Ambyr/Kelly? . . . unclear) when trying to nab Ambyr/Kelly. Totally out-of-context, and proves that the "writers" of "Vice" probably ditched their high school English class.I couldn't watch more than about the first 20 minutes of this garbage. Spare yourself. Not even "fun bad" to watch.

Ryan Harper I liked the movie and don't know why you all are giving so less points. It is a classical Sci-Fi movie like surrorgates, which is also with bruce willis in it. The story is a little bit shortened, maybe because of the time limit, but it is still a movie which can entertain anyone. The casting of the police officer could have been better, but the girl looked awesome. Maybe a longer view in to the virtual world would have been a better point. But as I wrote, it is a nice movie and has much more potential with more money and some better actors. People who doesn't like it, have another taste. But i think for those who like a crazy, maybe true, view in to the future, the movie is good enough So good idea, nice actress. For me not less than 6 points...