Subject: Review: Bicentennial Man (1999)

From: "Alex Ioshpe" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Nov 2000 01:50:08 GMT

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.

--