Most people who have seen this movie are of the opinion that it was average at best. Indeed there is no complicated plot, no big action scenes and a predictable ending but there is a Story. It's Andrew with his Box of Chocolats, simply going through life searching for what eludes him and what we generally take for granted - humanity. The characters along the way are well acted - in particular the robot creator and his ditsy assistant. This movie is a tear jerker as Andrew's friends come and go and lifetimes pass him by without him really comprehending it all. The only real failings were the large gaps in time and how Andrew came about - but then it's difficult to compress 200 years into 1 1/2 hours. If you enjoyed Azimov's books as much as I did, then this movie is for you. Far better in my opinion than IA or I Robot who also took their cues from Azimov.
Add a Review
-
nlebay2 January 2005
-
ruby_fff2 January 2000Isaac Asimov, scientist, anthropologist, and philosopher all in one, thought of this Robotic subject beyond the mere joy of fantastic possibilities of computer technology -- it's a more encompassing inquiry to what if a Robot thinks, feels, loves, and yes, wants to be accepted as a human, the imperfections and all!
This Chris Columbus directed movie, with the ever-eloquent Robin Williams, and radiant double deliveries (two character portrayals) by Embeth Davidtz, is not the usual Robin Williams comedy fare. It's not "Flubber" or "Mrs. Doubtfire"; it's a philosophical fable at best. It's the reverse of John Boorman's "Zardoz" (1973), where man wanting to be eternally youthful -- here, Robot Andrew (Robin Williams) does not want to be immortal. He wants to experience and feel life, and with a beloved human companion.
This Robotic journey spanning decades, gives us life lessons, prompts us to think reflectively on questions of life and living, growing old and resignation to death. The point filtered through Portia (Embeth Davidtz) that being human is to risk and make mistakes/wrong decisions, hearkens to a quote by John Cage: "Computers are always right, but life isn't about being right."
Film score is by James Horner ("Legends of the Fall", "Braveheart", "Titanic"). Location shots include San Francisco landmarks with added air transport images (likened to "The Fifth Element") in a futuristic sky. There are no explosive actions or flying bullets, it's an immortal tale about the acceptance of being a mortal human. -
Movie-1212 January 2000BICENTENNIAL MAN (1999) ***
Starring: Robin Williams, Sam Neill, Wendy Crewson, Embeth Davidtz, and Oliver Platt Directed by Chris Columbus. Running Time: 133 minutes. Rated PG (for mild language and some sex-related material)
By Blake French:
Chris Columbus is very good at directing tearjerkers. He has a history of constructing such movies as "Stepmom" and "Mrs. Doubtfire." "Bicentennial Man" is being misadvertised as a humble family comedy. Although it starts out unsatisfying, the film gradually becomes more and more penetrating as we discover the film is really about inner emotions, the changing of times, how people change over time, and the meaning of life from an original point of view. "Bicentennial Man" is a sweet, touching production with lots of heart and a shapely message.
At first "Bicentennial Man" looks to be about a futuristic family who buys an android robot that is supposed to do housework and serve them. The family of four includes two children, one named Little Miss, and the parents who are called by the name of Sir and Ma'am. They adopt Andrew expecting him to be similar to all the other androids in the area. Nearly every household has one. However, Sir soon notices certain features about Andrew that make him unique, different from any other android he has ever seen. Andrew occupies creativity and emotional personality, elements that these robots are presumed not to contain.
The film doesn't contain a good an introduction to the family who adopts Andrew, which is mainly the reason why I was never entirely concerned for the characters. But the reasoning behind the lack of focus on the family is due to the fact that "Bicentennial Man" isn't about the family who buys Andrew, but a narrative of Andrew himself.
A running flaw in the film is our foundering curiosity that only grows more ponderous as the script progresses. The audience desires more information about why Andrew is so different from the other robots. There are obvious reasons, sure, but what I wanted was an explanation of why he is special. A lust for information that is never appropriately granted.
The film skips ahead a generation or so. Sir and Ma'am age and Little Miss grows to be a full grown woman. Many things change for Andrew. He begins to wonder what lies beyond the likes of his household. He longs for emotional reactions to take place on his face and the concept of freedom. Sir has taught Andrew about death, sex, love, humor, and time. He gradually wants more and more independence. This is where Andrew starts becoming interested in turning from a mechanical being to a biological being.
The age advancing make-up is believable and awe-inducing. I could hardly trust my eyes that Sam Neill wasn't an old man in the movie. However, although I can see that the filmmakers had no other reliable option, I disliked the jumps in time the it takes. The time gaps force us out of massive plot pieces, some of which are important to the character development.
There are some really funny moments in "Bicentennial Man." Most of them appear when the picture becomes a bit emotionally heavy, in order to relieve such tension in the audience. This is a wise choice in the writer's part; the viewers who do mistake this movie as a family comedy will gain some satisfaction from these insulated humorous moments.
I wanted more information on how the robot Andrew gradually becomes ''human.'' I felt cheated out of a lot of decent, noteworthy material here. I felt this way because the scenes where we do have the privilege to see Andrew reinvented are wonderfully inventive and interesting. The film should have leaned towards that material a little more.
The movie features super charged performances by the entire cast. Robin Williams offers an emotionally accurate acting job that brings the confusion and imagination of the android Andrew to life. The supporting cast is also filled with fine performances with Sam Neill, Wendy Crewson, Embeth Davidtz, and Oliver Platt.
Even though I can admit that "Bicentennial Man" contains several flawed motives, I still was a little surprised that the film opened to many negative reviews. This isn't a bad movie, just a differently anticipated one. The movie sets up its effective conclusion from the very beginning; it is the only logical climax for such a story. Although it leaves viewers with a sense of well-being, I thought it posed too many spiritual and biological questions. Overall, however, the movie is a well-depicted idea that deserves more appreciation from audiences than its receiving.
Brought to you by Touchstone Pictures and Columbia Pictures. -
Buddy-5125 June 2000Owing to the fact that it is based on an Isaac Asimov story, `Bicentennial Man' turns out to be a more interesting and meaningful film than both its advertising campaign and its own opening section would indicate. The caveat for those seeking out a fun film for the entire family is that this movie, though initially sold as a warm cuddly comedy in the tradition of say `Mrs. Doubtfire,' actually deals with some very heavy and heady issues like sexuality, aging and dying, which may make it less-than-ideal viewing for young children.
The first section of the film is, by far, its weakest. In 2005, the wealthy Martin family receives delivery of a brand new servant android (Robin Williams) who, almost immediately, begins to display a remarkable range of human emotions and interests. Thus, we are set up for yet another in a long line of predictable tales (i.e. `Harry and the Hendersons,' `Stuart Little') in which a family comes to adopt a strange, not-quite-human creature, welcoming him in as one of their own. Indeed, in the film's early stages, there is no shortage of either bland humor or drippy sentimentality as Andrew, the android, ingratiates himself with all but one of the Martin household. The `wit' in the film consists, basically, of endless jokes about how Andrew takes all idioms at literal face value, a running gag that is, finally, as unoriginal as it is wearying.
Then, however, just as we are about to give up hope in it, the movie becomes more intriguing. Rather than staying within the context of the present life of this one family, the screenplay begins to move ahead in time, exploring Andrew's gradual growth toward total humanity, while the initial family grows up and eventually dies off. Actually, despite how one may feel about the film itself, one must admire its boldness and audacity, for it is not often that, in a film billed as a mass audience comedy, all the main characters pass on to their heavenly reward at one point or another but, then again, how many comedies span a two hundred year time period? `Bicentennial Man' obviously has more on its mind than mere fish-out-of-water buffoonery, as it becomes an often-elegiac reflection on the transience of life, the meaning of being human and the search for societal acceptance. The mood of the film is remarkably hushed and reflective at times, which again might make it slow going for the modern mass audience more conditioned to a faster pace and giddier tone, especially in a Robin Williams film (though, of late, his films have certainly been taking on a much more somber quality, vide `What Dreams may Come,' `Patch Adams' and `Jakob the Liar'). There are times when `Bicentennial Man' seems overly impressed with its own self-importance, yet one appreciates its refusal to settle for the easy path of cheap comedy and upbeat sentiments. There is, indeed, a real sadness to much of the film.
Special acknowledgement should be made of the superb art direction, set design, costume design, makeup and special effects that together give the film its understated and believable futuristic look. In addition, James Horner's melancholic symphonic score, though a bit lubricious at times, does create an atmosphere of contemplative seriousness that perfectly matches the tone and purpose of the film.
`Bicentennial Man' may not turn out to be what you are looking for when you first seek it out, but, if you approach it with an open mind and a certain degree of tolerance and indulgence, you may be pleasantly surprised and, perhaps, even rewarded. -
Good Will Hunting is WIlliams' best role; this is his second best; not bad company. Sam Neill is better in this film than any other as well. Oliver Platt is better in this film than any other. When you get three performances of three good actors at the top of their game, you are bound to have a good film. Oh, wait; this is the best Issac Asimov story of all time, and the music, even though it sounds pretty much like the sound track from The Mission, is one of the better film scores of the year. The special effects, cinematography, and supporting cast are all first-rate. But the script is what really makes the film. There are lines of dialogue that will choke you up (if your human), and other lines that will have you laughing out loud. Chris Columbus is a very good director, and with a script like this, it must have been a pleasure making this film. How it did not win Best Picture of the Year instead of American Beauty is beyond my comprehension. How ironic that 20 years after this film was made, people are looking to become immortal with body and body part replacements. They should view this film. Immortality sounds like a great idea (especially when you are dying from something), but the film shows us without preaching how this is not the best idea for humans. You stay alive while some of your loved ones die? If everyone is immortal then the planet will not be able to sustain itself. What if your son or daughter did not want to opt for immortality? You would have the pleasure of watching them grow old and die before you; talk about a guilt trip. We are humans trying to become robots, and the robots want to become humans. There is some irony in that as well. This film only reinforces my belief that robots are potentially superior to mankind; they do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill (unless programmed to do so by mankind). They can be kind, understanding, sensitive, funny, and more humane than most humans. A film ahead of its time.
-
stormhawk202125 May 2017Bicentennial Man is an overlooked family film that isn't perfect, but nonetheless doesn't deserve all the negativity it has received. Chris Columbus directs this with flair and he makes something really good here, and quite entertaining. Due to some scenes, this may upset younger viewers, but this is sure to appeal to anyone looking for something unique to watch. I can see why some people may dislike this one, but I on the other hand found it very entertaining and very well done. The special effects are truly wonderful and they add so much to the film. I thought that Robin Williams was truly great in the lead role. This is a fine drama that manages to overcome its shortcomings due to its heart. The cast are wonderful and they elevate the material significantly. Bicentennial Man is not perfect, but it definitely entertaining and is worth watching. Chris Columbus has directed something truly incredible that is very much underrated and like I said does not deserve the flack it has received. Of course Columbus has made better films in his career, but this is an overlooked gem that definitely is worth your time. Robin Williams is a good actor and he deserves credit in giving the film its charm as well as some humor here and there to lighten the tone of the drama. There are things that could have been done better, but overall the film really soars above the negative aspects that all the negative reviews have pointed out. Give this film a shot if you're in the right state of mind, you may be surprised at how good it really is.
-
This film is absolutely outstanding. Forget the reviews of the critics who seem to love bashing films, this is a tremendous, epic film with such a great heart that explores the values and meaning of humanity and life in general. I saw it for the first time in ages today and its still as touching as the first time I saw it a few years ago. In fact I remember it being shown on a plane I was on the year it came out and I watched the first 5 minutes on a screen with poor picture and sound and remember thinking it was just cheesy family comedy which just plays for humor and nothing else. When I first saw it a few years later when there was nothing else on I was completely blown away by it. It was the complete opposite of what I was thought it was originally. This film does have its humor and that humor is often hilarious in parts, but thats because its delivered so brilliantly by Williams who plays his character to perfection. More importantly it is not supposed to be a comedy. Its a drama and features brilliant performances from an underrated cast including Williams, Sam Neill, Embeth Davditz and Oliver Platt among others.
The film is also outstanding from a technical perspective. The futuristic cities, buildings and vehicles look fabulous along with the new household appliances, but the most important thing that really steals the show is the Script and Direction from Kazan and Columbus respectively. I will certainly be watching more of Kazan's films in the future and already thought he did a great job on Matilda beforehand. I've always been an admirer of Columbus and this has to be his best film to date. His vision of the film is splendid and I applaud him for bringing such a brilliant set of actors and sets together to make such an epic and unforgettable film.
For most of my reviews for films, I don't like commenting too much on the plot, but here I feel the need to because it touched me so much and the plot helps explain why this happened. It is about a Robot that over 200 years, learns about humanity and seeks to be a part of it. At the beginning its more of a comedy as the robot (who's called Andrew) gets used to the way humans are and learns about simple well known things in life i.e Laughter, Sex, Family Life and Change.
But further on as he becomes close to the youngest in the family, he learns more about love and how life is. I sympathised with him as he has to witness this and we follow him as he experiences the deaths of the people closest to him. I felt for him due to him being unable to experience these things like we do. Throughout the film I felt (although the critics certainly didn't and many here probably don't) all these things and became closer and closer to him as he constantly never gives up hope on becoming a human. I found it very emotional and I actually appreciated many of my abilities that I as a human have. To love, to cry, to experience changes, to reproduce, watch my children to grow up, to get older and to eventually move onto another life. As Andrew learns about all these things and begins to want them I really did feel for him like I say because I would find it incredibly hard to live if I was like that.
SPOILER Having witnessed the ups and downs of Andrew's life throughout the film and his epic journey to finally become a human being, by the end of the film Andrew has managed to fully achieve this. He is fully human and unfortunately misses this declaration by a few seconds. But he didn't need to like his lover Porscha (His closest family member's granddaughter) says. He has done it. He has found the love he's wanted all those many years with her and he won't have to experience the sadness of watching things change ever again. He has moved onto another life like we're all destined to do and Porscha decides to join him. END OF SPOILER
Basically, after seeing this film I did learn just how lucky I am to possess all these extraordinary and unique abilities and I don't believe it is just an accident or coincidence. We each have a destiny and I believe God wants us all to experience these things in life and I'm grateful to be here today and will certainly not be taking any of them for granted.
I really think that that this film with a rating of just 6.1 and with the harsh and very unfair criticism its got from critics has to be the most underrated misunderstood film ever made. The film is not really in my opinion a family comedy although it unfortunately has been marketed that way. Its a drama about humanity with bits of comedy that should be watched by anyone of any age. I believe it can help people to become, like me, much more grateful for things we as humans perhaps take for granted in life.
I thank you for reading this review and advise you to watch this film and prepare to be moved in a way I don't think any film has done or ever could do.
10/10 Not my favourite film of all time but certainly in my Top 5. Stunning. -
Erewhon9 December 1999I know it was much better than =I= was expecting. Yes, it's too long, yes, too much time is spent on the romance plot toward the end (and it's not very convincing), and yes, there are too many obvious, familiar robot jokes in the first two reels.
But guess what? Many of those jokes, thanks to razor-sharp timing, actually work. And the robot Adam Martin becomes so very appealing that you'll miss him when he eventually turns himself into Robin Williams.
The movie is very honest and open about its emotions (though the Horner score goes too far in trying to appeal to OUR emotions), and Williams is -- surprise surprise -- excellent as the robot. We believe in the character, we believe (mostly) in his world, and we believe in his journey toward humanity.
It's too bad that so many people already regard Andrew as a kind of variation on Star Trek's Data, because he's really a robot of another color altogether.
There are some missteps toward the end (where are all the other robots?), Galatea is an unnecessary character, and at times the characters seem to be existing in different movies. But it's surprisingly warm and amusing, it's authentically touching even when you think it can't possibly reach you, and St. Robin or no St. Robin, he's fine in the role. -
Maarten198513 August 2006I heaven't read the book, but BICENTENNIAL MAN is a very touching and heartwarming movie about a house-robot (Robert Williams) that begins a 200-year journey to become and to be legally recognized as a human. During his journey, he has to face the fact and live with it that all loved ones around him grow older and eventually die while he is immortal.
I think that this was one of Robin Williams' best performances ever, if not the best. He proves that he can either play a 'funny wacky' character but also a serious character that will touch the hearts of the viewers. And this movie does just that.
I like the purity and the innocence of the story and I wonder why this movie has such a low rating. It's a must see for all open minded people. -
Denver533 August 2000We finally watched Bicentennial Man on PPV yesterday. We never went to see it at the theatre because the commercials made it look like a Mrs. Doubtfire as a play-thing robot instead of as a cross-dressing estranged dad.
We (and especially I) were surprised to discover that Bicentennial Man is more a relatively faithful adaptation of the Asimov I, Robot novels and not a Christmas family movie about a toy robot. I am a long-time fan of sci-fi and I never had an inkling from the trailers and commercials for this movie that it was this kind of treatment of Asimov. If I were a cartoon, my jaw would have hit the carpeted floor by about half-way through the movie.
I think this mismarketing explains some of why Bicentennial Man sort of came and went with little fanfare. I bet the people who saw the commercials and expected a Home Alone type experience left feeling somber and wondering what the heck they just watched. The sci-fi types likely stayed away out of disinterest and fear of seeing Mrs. Doubtfire II: Aluminum Nanny.
As for me, I watched it only because my wife wanted a light, pick-me-up home movie. As the film went on, I became more interested while she became more confused. I read all the Asimov robot books years ago and I never suspected that was what I would be watching on the screen.
This movie is somber, relatively slowly paced and is centered around a basic theme of what constitutes a human, philosophically and legally. My only major knock was the pacing. Some of the scenes really dragged. I was pleased to avoid a long, drawn-out legal battle with lots of onscreen court scenes. Instead, we saw a touching and determined effort by the main character to first develop his humanity and then legally claim it.
I found the passage of time depicted in the film especially emotional, but that's probably just me. I have a hard time with the thought that when a person dies so much is lost, yet the world goes on. Here our robot friend learns the same lesson, and eventually decides he doesn't like it, either. But you have to see for yourself how he addresses his unique situation.
We rated Bicentennial Man a 6, only because it was a bit slow and a tad too somber. I really wish the studios would get their acts together when it comes to marketing films. They need to learn you can't mash a square peg into a round hole no matter how much you want it to be a family feel-good movie. How's that for an awkward turn of phrase? -
maitreg24 January 2001Very long. Very boring. This movie did not hold my attention very long. I made it about 1.5 hours through and realized that you were basically watching the same story being repeated over several generations in the same family. The whole "freedom" and "declaration of humanity" themes just didn't save it. It's very difficult to portray the life of a single character spanning 200 years, and "Bicentennial Man" didn't pull it off.
The biggest problem is that the life of "Andrew" is portrayed so quickly, moving through time like the years are broken blades of grass, it's impossible to make a connection with the character. Once you think you may be connecting with him and feeling what he feels, BAM, the movie just skipped 16 years, and you're left with, "Hey, wait a minute, I was just getting into that period."
Robin Williams and the special effects guys did a fantastic job. Other than that, it's just plain dumb.
I gave it 3 out of 10. -
Avoura29 November 2004Best robot film ever. This really is a great film, which shows how a machine who strangely is endowed with creativity, thought and awareness unlike other robots, strives to become more than he is. This is a great film and very much about family life, emotions, what it means to be human, and trying to better oneself through both serving others and learning with others about oneself. If you ever wanted to be more than you are then watch this film. This is not so much a film about robots or sci-fi, but a film about life and humanity and relationships, love and family. The robots and sci-fi are just a scenario which allows us to explore ourselves more as humans and wonder about our existence.
-
lizziebeth-121 August 2002I remember Asimov's story far more emotionally; but then, I was a mere teenager when I first read Bicentennial Man.
The short story has no expressed romance between Little Miss and Andrew Martin, as there is in the movie, and I'm sure it was better that way, because that just heightened the pathos: surely the very core of this story. Instead the film is forced to invent a lookalike granddaughter Portia in order to compensate for the robot's long lifespan. Cheesy.
I was disappointed in this, I have to admit. The reactions of the wife/mother Ma'am(Wendy Crewson, a wonderful actress under normal circumstances) are especially irritating, and frankly, not believable. Women, of all people, would accept robots far more readily and respond to them emotionally. For exactly the same reason that Little Miss liked Andrew almost instantly, any mother could and would muster--at least--warmth for him, ESPECIALLY if he was as gentle with the children as Andrew clearly was.
Remember Sarah Connor, who decided that she would let The Terminator raise her one and only child because he would make the best father of all the candidates? Well, if she could think like that (despite being highly suspicious), then why couldn't Ma'Am? It's crazy, and not believable.
The always-under-foot syndrome, too, could've been handled with more subtlety or just minimalist comedy, to show intelligent adjustment. Did the mother want to perform household chores herself or not? I completely fail to understand the woman's emotional/intellectual wherewithal (ineptitude).
Basically, we're forced to conclude that except for Sir and Little Miss, the rest of the family were lost causes. This despite that robots were supposed to be commonplace.
This abysmal character development has to be inherent to the Nicholas Kazan screenplay, we can't blame the unfortunate Wendy Crewson. The very same thing is wrong with AI(2001). The mother, again(?!), is even more insipid and daft. Such characters do test one's patience, because they are such an obvious fraud, for the sake of some plot-development or other: it is CLUMSY WRITING.
The Martins actually had a helpful, and an astonishingly verbally adroit android (compared to current technology), amazingly well-socialized into the family. He was safe (for them), and in his own way funny, courteous, smart, talented, and permanently so! I'd trade him in for any of my last three boyfriends. Why wouldn't any of these people come to terms with Andrew? Ridiculous.
Perhaps the problem was that Chris Columbus et al waited too long to make the movie. Other sci-fis like Terminator(1984), in fact, had already surpassed Asimov's notions about humanity's political incapacity and rejection of androids/robots. We've also (suffered through) I-don't-know-how-many "court cases" about android rights on Star Trek, and the Voyager Doctor's frankly irritating harping about hologram rights ad nauseam, so that declaring a robot as in fact human is no longer such a biggie. That had been the guts of the original 1976 story, but audiences are now far too sophisticated - watched 14yrs of Star Trek!
(Viewers interested in more Asimov robot stories should read "I, Robot" and "The Rest of the Robots". They are excellent short stories.) What I think happened was that certain contractual obligations about movie-making, and particularly this script, may have gotten in the way of creative output (eg the option was about to run out, and since the CGI technology was OK, it was now or never). We may have ended up with an out-evolved turkey because of the business being "not show-art". I don't know that this is what happened, but it sounds plausible to me.
The Three (really Four, Asimov added another one) Laws of Robotics is a very good place to start robot ethics; they are not in debate. The hard part about making Andrew real would be socializing him to the degree he was in the movie. That's what we still can't do. We can't teach context. That's the stumbling block. Neural nets do their learning usually with human cheating (called back-propagation - don't ask, I always thought the technique completely disreputable, so I cringed and winced may way through 7 years of Data's pride in his own neural net on ST-NG). But context requires generalization into abstracts from the concrete, and then reversing back again, and the mapping onto the real world has to be accurate >95% of the time. So it's a whole new kettle of fish. Roger Schank modularized layers of contexts as individual nested subroutines, and called them schemas, which a computer could simulate. But you just couldn't schematize/digitize enough of reality, it takes too much room. The human brain excels at filling in blanks (based on this bi-directional mapping of the "essential" & the "generalized"). Computers and robots suck at this. They have no real life experience to guess with. They need a background library the size of a planet to carry around just to take a walk in the park. Which is why Andrew Martin is so impressive. So. Wherefore art thou, Bicentennial Man? Perhaps Rodney Brooks (bottom-up architecture with Cog, Kismet) needs to team up with Doug Lenat (CYClist, top-down architecture, hand-codes reality one step at a time) so they can hit paydirt somewhere in the middle. That they should join forces is EXTREMELY unlikely: they are both using diametrically opposed concepts and code. The other possibility is that Honda will beat them to it, with their human-shaped white robot that walks up stairs. Otherwise, Bicentennial Man may be another couple of centuries away.
Growing up is aardvark (hard work). -
mr2times11 March 2002This film was based - loosely based - on Issac Asimov's story 'The Bicentennial Man', also printed as 'The Positronic Man' It's not unusual for a movie to not be as good as the book it is based on (which was certainly the case here), and my problem with this film isn't that it didn't live up to my expectations from the original story, it was that it completely missed the point of the original story. Before I get into that, let me first say that even if this film had not been based on any book, it was still very weak; Robin Williams has talent, but not enough to make up for such a weak story. This was just a series of cute little silly sequences where Andrew the robot flip flops between putting his foot in it and then turning on the warmth now and then. It's TV movie material, I don't know how else to put it - it does everything you expect, and nothing you don't, then ends tied up with a sweet little bow. There is little imagination expended on the character of Andrew...really, any Star Trek episode featuring Data provides a greater exploration of this movie's subject matter, and that is managed in less than one hour. One of the biggest complaints I had were Andrew's motivations for wanting to be deemed a man in the first place; why throw in the inane love story? Does Hollywood truly believe that moviegoers will short-circuit if they found themselves sitting through a film where the main character did not have a corresponding 'love interest'? Andrew did not take a lover in the book - Andrew's desire to be officially considered a man was all about being human, and all of the freedoms that come with being human. Andrew's journey was a very long one, but he always struggled forward for that reason - not for love, and especially not for the love of one person in particular, which I thought was a ridiculous throwaway and completely changed the point of the whole story. Andrew (kind of like Data in Star Trek) wants to become human because he feels that is a goal worth achieving; for all of its reasons, because he feels that being human is something unique and special. Of course, both Andrew and Data may have changed their minds about us had they been forced to at some point sit through this stinkburger. In the end of the book, Andrew chooses death because gaining mortality is the one last step which at that point separates him from humans. In the end, Andrew finally achieves his goal, and spends his final hours as the man he had struggled his whole life to become. He didn't tell jokes (we know Robin Williams is a comedian, it was forced and pointless to showcase that fact), he didn't fall out of windows and run around like an idiot, he never fell in love with anyone (except perhaps the affection he felt for the original 'Little Miss' who he took care of as a child, but the affection was platonic). If it hadn't been based on the book, this movie would have been simply another forgettable sci-fi failure from that conveyor belt of cookie-cutter, second-rate Hollywood drivel. Since it is based on the book it's a complete travesty; Asimov must have twisted in his grave when this thing hit the theaters. It has probably also ensured that fans of the original will never see it done right.
-
Kirpianuscus25 July 2016the emotions are pillars of this lovely modern fairy tale. because it is only version of the old myth of Pygmalion. because it could be an useful reflection of the struggle of different minorities for be accepted. because it represents a nice meeting between Isaac Asimov text and the art of Robin Williams. it is strange to define it more than trip in future and to remember old lectures. it preserves the flavor of childhood. its dreams, stories, desires and projects. its bitter steps to the self definition. its sweet romanticism. its silhouettes from a time of precise rules and noble feelings and the chosen. humor, delicacy, few splendid scenes, version of Pinocchio and, maybe, for a part of its public, homage to Collodi.in more measure than adaptation of Asimov. a nice film. and embroidery of emotions. .
-
raulfaust16 December 2010The synopsis of the movie drew my attention and I went for it desperately. "Bicentennial Man" was truly involving, touching and heart warming until the death of "Sir". The relationship they had was so natural, they talked to each other like normal friends, I just felt they missed a hug. It was impossible not to cry when "Sir" was about to die and called Andrew to speak the famous last words. I saw in this film a big message about prejudice, racism and problems involving intolerance, and we are able to feel and be in the place the underdog is.
But I felt the movie could have explored even more the friendship between them and could have ended after "Sir" and "Ma'am" deaths. Sadly, they rolled the movie and explored it without being necessary, the message of it was almost all already showed. The only necessary thing in the end was to show we have to fight for our rights and for our own happiness, and Andrew fortunately made it. Don't get me wrong, the movie isn't bad and I would watch it again in a rainy day.
PS: What's up with IMDb reviewers claiming this movie is overly sentimental? This is a drama movie, it's written in the synopsis that a robot begin to show feelings, what were you expecting? If you don't like emotional movies, don't even bother watching dramas -
'Bicentennial Man' was one of Robin Williams' last films in the 90s; possibly his worst decade for film. Despite some major triumphs (Good Will Hunting, Awakenings, Mrs. Doubtfire) Williams also had his fair share of failures (Toys, Jack). In between these were some flicks with great intentions that ultimately flopped (Patch Adams, Father's Day). 'Bicentennial Man' does not really fall into any of these categories because it is not entirely good or bad. Just watch the film for yourself and be the judge and summon your own opinion on this gentle sci-fi picture.
The saving grace with any Robin Williams film is Robin Williams (well, Toys is the exception). There are many funny-as-hell people that are also excellent serious actors, but Williams had a way of really reaching deep inside someone's soul and resonating his angelic soul within the viewer. And 'Bicentennial Man' was tailor-made for Williams' true self. He plays a robot named Andrew who is bought to service the Martin family. There are parallels with Andrew and Robin. Sure he's hilarious and talented, but it is his inner self that lingers on. The difference with Andrew and most other robots in movies is his growth to attaining human emotions. He loves the parents (played graciously by Sam Neill and Wendy Crewson), youngest daughter he nicknames "Little Miss", even the older daughter that hates him. They quickly think of him like one of the family, equal to them. The chemistry between Andrew and the family is fantastic. Anybody that says the relationship between Andrew and the family is cheesy and Hallmark-y is dead wrong. It's not just Robin Williams that is owning his part, it's something the entire cast and crew needed to contribute properly. And it works perfectly.
Clocking in at over 130 minutes and having a title like "Bicentennial Man" it is obvious that Andrew and the Martin family was not going to happen throughout the duration of this film. But boy, I wish I wish it did. Just over an hour is Andrew and the Martins. I was absolutely loving this. There are some ups and downs in the family, none of which are cheep. There is a scene where Andrew and Little Miss are playing piano and it flashes forward about twenty years, so the flaws that are in this are forgivable. I'm not saying this first hour is perfect, but is sure is wonderful.
Following the death of Mr. Martin, I was ready to eject this, thinking it was over and the time went by fast. I was so wrong. After this the movie becomes a run of the mill, equality, Pinocchio, love conquers all movie. The second hour is where the movie becomes the shmaltzy, Garry Marshall, Hallmark movie I was afraid of. He wants independence and to be full human, yadda-yadda-yadda. And this 69 minute portion feels so stretched out. He meets and inventor (another great performance here by Oliver Platt) who holds the keys to Andrew becoming as human as can be. Now the Hallmark stuff gets put on hold for some fascinating robotic innovations and wickedly cool filming. This closes the chapter of seeing Andrew looking like a robot and Andrew looking like Robin.
While the special effects were cool, the progession of the story become more cliched. I know I've said numerous times how corny the second half is, but I can't stress it enough. After a long dry-spell from Little Miss, Andrew returns to surprise her with his humanoid expterior. Adult Little Miss is played by Embeth Davitz, as is her granddaughter. A romance blossoms between Andrew and this fourth generation woman. It is even cheesier than the romance in the recent 'Shape of Water.' By the end credits I went back and skimmed a few seconds from the beginning, baffled to think such a wonderful movie ended up so lousy. But, I have a talented actor to thank for helping me make it through this movie.
'Bicentennial Man' isn't entirely bad. Even some parts in the bad half are saved by excellent filming. They were nominated for an Oscar, a win would not have been a big deal. But the poor writing almost completely overclouds this aspect.
If you are a huge fan of Robin Williams, then I recommend giving it a watch. If not, I recommend watching the lovely first half and stopping once Mr. Martin passes away. That is what I will do from now on.
6.5/10 -
mjw230516 January 2005Firstly, i have not read Asimov's book and therefore cannot remark on any errors in translation from book to film.
I have read many of the comments posted here on the IMDb, but fail to see why so many people feel the need to mention that the world is perceived as perfect in the the future, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, the fact is, it's not important. This movie quite simply follows the life of a man trapped in a robots body and his quest to be accepted in the world, and be allowed to love and cherish the people close to him.
I have to say that i didn't expect much from this movie, i thought it would be a kids film, full of typical Robin Williams style laughs, i was way off in my assumption. This is probably Robin Williams's best performance and it is a very emotional journey through change and development of the human condition.
Overall the film is quite amusing, very touching and is full of realistic characters all very well cast to not overshadow 'Andrew' as he quests over 200 years for acceptance.
A great movie 9/10 -
breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com14 January 2014Robin Williams is the funnyman. He's the guy most people enjoy on screen when they want a good laugh. In fact, he's done a good job at being versatile as well. Williams has also shown that he can play very serious roles that involve a lot of emotion. And this Chris Columbus film is probably one of his most emotional performances. Here, Robin Williams plays a robot named Andrew whose original purpose was to serve mankind. Soon, he becomes self-aware and wants to understand more about what it's like to be human.
This triggers a switch in Andrew's mind and from then on, he makes it his goal to do anything he can to be human. It's a very sweet plot that really tugs at the heartstrings. Unfortunately, this is where people may draw the line because the screenplay can get very sappy at times and very emotional. If a viewer likes that kind of material than there should be no problem but because this is about a robot who wants to become human, he's going to have to go through many significant events that many of us regular people have to go through everyday. This will have viewers feel like the story drags on forever. That's the downside to the writing - it can be very sappy and drawn out at times.
But for the cast, Robin Williams is very solid. He includes his mix of humor and emotion and performs well. His struggle to understand how to be human is very intimate because many of us can relate to such scenes that involve pain, love and joy. Sadly, he's also the only reason why people would want to go see this because through the running time, new characters come into play every scene which can be tiresome because the audience has to get to know a whole new set of faces. The special effects are good though. So much of it is well blended that it's hard to know what is real and what is CGI. But by far, the most effective element to this movie is James Horner's score. Every scene containing his music is to the point of magical and childlike simultaneously. Extremely emotional music. I would say it's for the true Robin Williams sappy story fans.
It has good special effects, excellent music and a performance many Robin Williams fans would love. However, the plot can be drawn out and overly sappy. -
clarkpark-117 December 2006For Ray Bradbury the masterwork of perfect poignance is Drink Entire: Against the Madness of Crowds. For Isaac Asimov it is Bicentennial Man. Only Asimov could remake Pinocchio as compelling science fiction. So many have tried to create a sweet and funny story of the machine that would be man, but this is it's perfect telling.
Only Robin Williams could play the unlikely hero of this story with perfect comedic timing and perfect emotional pitch. Embeth Davidtz as his leading lady matches his skills at every turn, and Sam Neill turns in one his best performances as the man who first recognized the irreplaceable uniqueness of his mistuned android.
Bicentennial Man is first rate science fiction without physical conflict, without wars, without new ways to incinerate each other. In the end, it makes you glad to be a messy human. Watching this truly beautiful film is a wonderful way to spend an evening, and a guarantor of better dreams than you've had in many years. -
CappieGuy18 June 2000This is an emotional film. It is a film of a robot learning about human life and changes within it. The movie takes place for 2 centuries as Andrew the Robot learns to deal with human losses and changes. This movie is a little comedy but more dramatic. I gave it a 6 because it is kind of long and the characters whom he loved have died over and over. It is not a funny mishap movie like Mrs. Doubtfire or Short Circuit. If you want a funny movie involving robots, rent Short Circuit.
-
Albicastro30 May 2002As far as I am concerned, there is no excuse for a movie like this. Neither the director nor the actors lack talent, and yet what a miserable film they have managed to concoct! I can see why some people might like "Bicentennial Man," but I was infuriated by the absence of any shred of subtlety or shame in the relentless succession of "heartwarming" scenes the film forced me to endure. I hated "Bicentennial Man" even worse than "Patch Adams", and that is really saying a lot.
-
hokanu12713 February 2004This movie surprised me. Having been a fan of Issac Asimov for many years I thought that this adaptation with Chris Columbus at the helm would be terrible. I was wrong. Some may complain that this movie is too long and slow, but I would wager that their attention spans are somewhat lacking. If you are looking for a high action movie with robots then you have come to the wrong place. If you are looking for a sci-fi based romantic comedy about the personal growth of one man...er robot, then this is the movie. The comedy was well written and well played, appropriately placed in each moment. AS for the character of Andrew(Robin Williams), though he is supposed to be a robot you really connect with his character and sense his growth over time. Unlike A.I. his character learns and grows and has real not fabricated emotional attachments. I give this movie an 8 or 9. Very good.
-
vithiet17 April 2020This is not a perfect movie but it's cute, charming and has a lot of heart. Pacing is uneven and some parts feel very much like "a 90s movie" (meaning it has aged a bit) but the story still managed to surprise me in the direction it took. No big plot twist or wildly original concept, just a nice way to look at human connections. On the one hand, I wish I had watched it sooner; on the other it was a pleasure to be able and discover a new-to-me movie with the greatly missed Robin Williams.
-
nafps20 March 2022So did Asimov in his original book. The film has only the vaguest resemblance to the book. Why even bother using Asimov's title?
Both Star Trek and Asimov explored the issues of a robot wanting to be human, to have emotions, to love even. They did it without:
Bad and very predictable unfunny jokes.
Maudlin sleep inducing schlock music.
And pandering pandering pandering to little kids.
Asimov shouldn't be Disney-fied. Ever.
Neither should any intelligent sci fi of any kind.
The only thing even close to intelligent sci fi in this film are the courtroom scenes, less than two minutes. Both Asimov and Star Trek spent a lot of time on courtroom scenes.
Had the film done that and avoided "cute" jokes and that godawful boring soundtrack, this might have been a good film.
But like this, it's no wonder it's regarded as one of the worst films. It deserved to be panned by critics as it was, and its Razzie nomination.
God, I need to see a documentary to get this schlock out of my head, and hear speed metal after that soundtrack kept putting me to sleep.
Awful, awful, awful.
ETA: I'm glad of the strong reactions to my review, both the downvotes and the higher than I expected number of up votes. Good to know some others feel the same.