From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Mar 1 23:16:22 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Walter Frith" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Bicentennial Man (1999) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 26 Feb 2000 18:15:28 GMT Organization: None Lines: 109 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <899580$gs76$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer21.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 951588928 553190 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23276 Keywords: author=frith X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer21.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22370 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2611 'Bicentennial Man' (1999) A movie review by Walter Frith wfrith@cgocable.net Member of the 'Online Film Critics Society' http://www.ofcs.org 'Bicentennial Man' is a test for ourselves and our attitudes. It is a test aimed at our degree of cynicism. How, in the age of ever increasing resentment towards many things social, can we ever like a film that reaches out and asks us to look at the world through the eyes of a machine? Not to draw a direct comparison, but 'Bicentennial Man' had that strange flavour a la 'Forrest Gump' where the world is viewed sometimes in a misunderstood way by those unfamiliar with its realities. What 'Bicentennial Man' does is it takes this premise one step forward and instead of using human eyes, the eyes and functions of a robot get to see it for two hundred years. Oh, how many of us would like to see the world two centuries from now. A cure for cancer? AIDS? Gasoline in cars? A cashless society? People living on other planets? Day trips to the moon? The next two top 100 lists from the American Film Institute of the greatest films of their given century? Seriously, 'Bicentennial Man' mixes elements of innocence and technology nicely to give the film a smooth texture and never tries to answer questions of society's progress a whole lot but concentrates on how one entity progresses and watches those around him go from one generation to the next. Chris Columbus is an interesting director. If he had been around twenty five or thirty years ago, I can see him having directed a lot of Disney 'B' fare. Perhaps those rascally 'Herbie the Love Bug' films or those cheesy but entertaining films with a young Kurt Russell. You know, 'The Strongest Man in the World', 'The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes', and 'Now You See Him, Now You Don't' to name a few. In this generation, Columbus has made the first two 'Home Alone' movies, a gem of a forgotten movie, 'Only the Lonely' with the late great John Candy, 'Mrs. Doubtfire' and a real sappy letdown entitled 'Stepmom' which was a film better suited for the likes of Garry Marshall. Beginning in the year 2005, Robin Williams is the voice of a robot named Andrew brought home to a family by the patriarch whom Andrew refers to as 'Sir' (Sam Neill). There is the lady of the house (Wendy Crewson) and, of course, you have to have children in a Chris Columbus movie. The youngest daughter, Little Miss (Hallie Kate Eisenberg) is the focus of Andrew's curiosity as he tries to learn about human behaviour. One day after a slight malfunction, Sir takes Andrew to be repaired. His strange, human like attributes are explained to the manufacturer (he would love to manufacture many Andrews like this), but Sir makes Andrew tamper proof and many years later, Andrew runs into Rupert Burns (Oliver Platt), the manufacturer's successor, who is also a relative, and slowly, Andrew is given body parts that make him more and more human. All the while, Andrew remains faithful to Little Miss, now a grown woman (Embeth Davidtz). Williams makes his debut in the movie about forty five minutes into the film as a human like character and his presence is a welcomed one as he continues his journey and has many visions of life in the two hundred years that he lives. Chris Columbus keeps the film on target and maintains a low key approach to the material. It feels like a quiet evening spent at home with family and/or friends doing something docile like playing cards, reading poetry or playing a board game. The film has no loud explosions, foul language, major bursts of emotion and is good family material most of the time. The film is based on the short story by Issac Asimov and the novel 'The Positronic Man' by Issac Asimov and Robert Silverburg with a screenplay written for the screen by Nicholas Kazan ('Reversal of Fortune'). Kazan brings up memories of some very familiar films such as 'Forrest Gump', as I mentioned earlier, Woody Allen's 'Sleeper' and a few other films that you can see for yourself. This hurts the film somewhat but the direction it dec ides to take compensates for this somewhat. When Robin Williams first landed in movies back in the late seventies and early eighties, I never thought he would elevate himself to the position he has today. An Oscar winning actor with an impressive list of important social films like 'The Fisher King', 'Dead Poets Society' and 'Good Will Hunting'. He makes films for the serious, the not so serious and the downright whimsical. Even a guest spot of television's 'Homicide' is something over looked by a lot of people as the measure of just how good Robin Williams can be. With the success of 'Apollo 13', Tom Hanks went on to involve himself with a study of the space program with the series entitled 'From the Earth to the Moon'. I would like to see Robin Williams dive into something close to his heart. Perhaps host a documentary of some of pop culture's greatest comedians or star in a bio pick of a real life comedian, something that would gain him even more respect than he's already earned from playing real life characters in films like 'Patch Adams' and 'Awakenings'. OUT OF 5 > * * * 1/2 Visit FILM FOLLOW-UP by Walter Frith http://www.cgocable.net/~wfrith/movies.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * - a must see * * * * 1/2 - don't miss it * * * * - an excellent film * * * 1/2 - a marginal recommendation * * * - can't quite recommend it * * 1/2 - don't recommend it * * - avoid it * 1/2 - avoid it seriously * - avoid it AT ALL COSTS 1/2 - see it at your own risk zero - may be hazardous to your health From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Nov 16 14:58:21 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Alex Ioshpe" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Bicentennial Man (1999) Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: 16 Nov 2000 01:50:08 GMT Organization: None Lines: 76 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8uvegg$q0dg$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer10.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 974339408 852400 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #26837 Keywords: author=ioshpe X-Questions-to: graham@jetcity.com X-Submissions-to: graham@ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer10.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:25432 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2803 DIRECTED BY: Chris Columbus WRITTEN BY: Nicholas Kazan CAST: Robin Williams, Sam Neill, Embeth Davidtz, Oliver Platt MPAA: Rated PG for language and some sexual content. Runtime: USA:130 REVIEWED BY: Alex Ioshpe (C) 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATING: 4/10 'Bicentennial Man' is a family film without any external motive with the exception of providing the minimum dose of entertainment. Chris Columbus, the director who gave you "Mrs. Doubtfire", plays on sentimental strings and mushy dialogue to make his point. Based on the short story by Isaac Asimov, it is supposed to be a science fiction story about a robot who wants to be human, which as you can imagine is very difficult. Starting in a not too distant future the film concentrates on a wealthy family that buys an android to help them with the house and children. Soon this robot, called Andrew (Robin Williams) shows abilities that makes his owner Mr.Martin (Sam Neill) very curious. Andrew is interested in art and music, he "enjoys" making clocks, which clearly shows that he has genuine emotions. It shows out that because of a small failure in the "electrical circuits" and "positronic brain" Andrew has accidentally gained a soul. This makes him unique and his evil creators worried. Then Mr.Martin decides to teach Andrew all the things he wasn't programmed to do. Soon Andrew wants to leave the house in pursuit of freedom, destiny and love. This film can be described as a Disney version of Blade Runner, a film that still shines as the biggest gem in the crown of science fiction. Ever since that film, the subject of humanity still stands as one big controversy. What makes us human? The thoughts? The emotions? Is it possible to become human? At what point can we say to a robot "Now you are one of us"? These are very tough questions that require a serious and thurral approach. It is obvious that Columbus didn't take them very seriously. When you think about it, this film is not really meditating on the question "When is a robot no longer a machine, but a human being?", but tells a story about racial discrimination and lack of understanding. Andrew is so complex and emotional from the very beginning that the audience immediately accepts him as a human being, and only the society has troubles with it. In other words, it is as far from reality as from the Academy Awards. Further more, there are other annoying problems. To this day no serious filmmaker has dared to speculate about the future in more than 50 years from now. This has not been done for obvious reasons, because the filmmakers are well aware of the fact that they lack the knowledge and imagination to perform such a difficult task. Columbus is the first to have crossed that line. The result is, as you might imagine, primitive, unrealistic and incredibly disappointing effort. The world is simply frozen in time. Neither the society, fashion, culture or values have changed over 200 years. Mom is still working at the kitchen, doing the dishes. When you think back to the late 17th century and then compare it to the world we live in today, you'll see a slightly bigger difference. I am not saying that everything should change. It is unlikely that the human rights will change, but it's even more unlikely that there will not be any progress in science, technology and fashion. I suppose it's possible to watch this as a some sort of bizarre fairytale, but it's really hard. Robin Williams is hidden behind c and speaking in a robotic way. As always he does a decent job, as does Sam Neill. But it doesn't really matter. It is the sentimentality and length that turns this picture into a tiresome experience. Pretty much like last year's "Meet Joe Black", this is a primitive and unresolved story which is presented with a splendor and professionalism that it doesn't deserve. Great actors and a talented crew have worked hard to achieve something that will be instantly forgotten. When Isaac Asimov wrote this story, the future seemed far away and magical. Everything seemed possible. Now is the future of Asimov's time, and we know that it is not as magical and perfect as it seemed a long time ago. For the same reasons that the young generation of today can not be amazed by Julius Verne's "20 000 leagues under the sea", so can't we accept this story as a potential reality. Let us hope that next year's "A.I." will be more rewarding. --