Too many problems ** MANY SPOILERS **

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?

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.

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!"

- 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

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.

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.

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.

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