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.