Bicentennial Man

[Stephen Speicher 0]

imdb.com listing for Bicentennial Man

Movie suggested for rating by StephenSpeicher

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Bicentennial Man was a thoroughly enjoyable and very touching movie, one which provoked thought about a lot of interesting ideas. The Robin Williams character gives new meaning to the idea of the self-made man. I understand the story is based on some of the few Asimov books I have not read (the story The Bicentennial Man, and the novel The Positronic Man), so I do not know how true it is to the original. As far as my experience was concerned, the film stood on its own, and it was well worthwhile seeing.

[JMeganSnow 0]

I loved The Positronic Man, but I thought the story was somewhat distorted by the inclusion of a romance as a major plot theme. Maybe I'm just a purist; Isaac Asimov's book displayed a passionate dedication to an abstract principle.

[TheWahlMighty 0]

I've been wanting to read a book by Asimov for years now. Can you two give me any recommendations?

[The General 0]

Stephen is right again, this is a very touching movie. One of the most enjoyable things is watching Robin Williams character "evolve" into an ever more "human" being, and the associated pleasures and values this brings with it.

I'm also a sucker for a good love story, which this movie managed to mix in as well.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I've been wanting to read a book by Asimov for years now. Can you two give me any recommendations?

←

I may not be the best person to ask because I am a sucker for time travel stories, and Aisimov's The End of Eternity is one of my favorites. He is much better known for his Foundation trilogy and and a gazillion other works, but I sure enjoyed Eternity!

[Zigory 0]

This is essentially a mediocre children's movie. I'm sure Asimov's works are far more intelligent. One of my pet peeves about it: Why do they insert the four-letter "sh" word in such a film, repeating it, even advocating it as the normal and expected word to say in certain everyday situations? It was utterly unnecessary to the story and unfunny. Was it a cynical attempt to avoid a dreaded "G" rating or another effort by Hollywood to bring down the quality of discourse among children and adults?

[SCS 0]

Warning: There are spoilers about this movie in this post.

This is essentially a mediocre children's movie. I'm sure Asimov's works are far more intelligent. One of my pet peeves about it: Why do they insert the four-letter  "sh" word in such a film, repeating it, even advocating it as the normal and expected word to say in certain everyday situations? It was utterly unnecessary to the story and unfunny. Was it a cynical attempt to avoid a dreaded "G" rating or another effort by Hollywood to bring down the quality of discourse among children and adults?

I strongly disagree. This is not essentially a children's movie, and it is far from mediocre. While Little Miss may be a child for a portion at the beginning of the story, the majority of the film is focused on Andrew's journey which lasts 200 years. While it may be appropriate for children, it certainly involves ideas that can be appreciated by the adult man-worshipper.

The story is about Andrew and his struggle to become a man - which is presented as a great thing. It does not present man as low and evil, but as creative, intelligent, and capable of great love. The movie is entirely benevolent, and the few "four letter words" that are included take nothing away from the overall theme, which expresses admiration for so many things that make life great.

[PhilO 0]

I really enjoyed the movie, and Sarah's comments are exactly right. Also, I'm a longtime SF reader, including a lot of Asimov, and my recollection is that the movie is very true to the original story.

As a tangential thought - there are *many* excellent science fiction stories (both short stories and novels) that were written from the 1930s through the present day, and unfortunately most of them have not been made into movies. Anybody discouraged by "modern literature" should take a closer look at the SF genre. (And dig deeper than the current "pop" favorites such as Michael Crichton - the worst story ever written by Heinlein is probably better than Crichton's best.)

[Rational_One 0]

I also agree with Sarah, and personally think this is one of the best movie's that I have ever seen. There are many levels a person could watch this movie on I suppose, but if you look at it as the ultimate self-made man story it is actually quite moving, and you (from personal experience) might just tear up at the ending.

[Zigory 0]

The following is about the movie, not the book:

While I saw the film about six years ago, I remember it as cliched and predictable, with some interesting ideas but not enough to carry the whole.

It isn't malevolent, it has a worthy and benevolent theme, but it is executed in an unimaginative, uncreative way, and the best word for it is mediocre. I recall that it has moments that show promise and then dissipate. If the theme inherently has depth, the execution is shallow--by the weak acting, the overly slow and boring pace, the weak humor, the by-the-numbers directing.

There is more depth and intelligence in "Star Trek's" dramatizations of Spock's internal conflict over human emotions (which he represses), or in Data's slow and bumpy advancement toward more human qualities in "Star Trek: TNG". Other "Want to be Human"-themed films that make "Bicentennial Man" seem old and trite include the more creatively sparkling if less philosophical films, Disney's "The Little Mermaid" and "Pinocchio". One can feel brief, mild emotion at the end of "Bicentennial Man" but that doesn't make it an adult-level, sophisticated or original film. I've reacted as emotionally to excellent, carefully constructed 30-second TV commercials.

Place "Bicentennial Man" next to Spielberg's "Minority Report" or "Schindler's List" or an intelligent thriller with psychological richness like "The Bourne Identity". These are all in different genres but they are intelligent, fresh, and full of implications psychologically and philosophically. You feel enriched by these films, you feel your emotions are earned by the experiences and thoughts that are built up carefully by the filmmaker and writer, you feel you have had an experience with much to ponder. Your thinking skills are challenged. I usually did not have that experience with "Bicentennial Man" although its story had value in its basic outline.

Perhaps a more appropriate film to compare it to is "Kate and Leopold", which is a light, humorous but thoughtful romance (a man from the past falls in love with a woman from the present) with mild science fiction (time travel) elements. It is similarly benevolent in sense of life but it has more style in its direction and wit in its dialogue, and in its themes of modern life vs. the values that have been lost. It also has an admirable, worship-worthy hero and heroine, and a good sense of pace.

One Amazon.com reviewer wrote about "Bicentennial Man", "I felt like I'd truly wasted the day and just like the film it seemed 200 years had passed. The script was flat and boring, full of misplaced jokes and inappropriate sexual innuendoes ... the acting mediocre, in no way moving." I agree with the thrust of this view.

Since most here like the film, I welcome any comments: Am I missing something? Am I too focused on the style and not the story? Is there a cleverness I have forgotten or failed to notice?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Am I missing something?

←

Your entire long critical review was missing concrete facts, absent of specifics in terms of characterization, dialogue, plot, filmatic techniques, etc. You presented your feelings and conclusions but no reference to the actual facts on which they were based.

(Please note that this was not meant by me as an invitation for you to provide concretes to which I will respond. It would be too painful for me to do so. I truly value this film too greatly to defend it against the depth of your emotional response. Perhaps others, though, might care to do so if in fact you connect your feelings and conclusions to concretes within the film.)

[JRoberts 0]

Zigory,

Would you please help me understand the criteria you use to judge a film?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think a film is good or bad if it is:

1.) Intelligent-which I take to mean, more intellectually filled.

2.) Psychologically rich-I don't understand this criteria as much

What else do you use to judge a movie? And what are the reasons behind judging the movies in this manner?

*

[Zigory 0]

It sounds like I had better see the film again, because I respect the opinions of people on this forum. Perhaps I missed some of its virtues.

Warning: Potential spoilers follow.

I just would like to clarify and revise a couple of things.

Unfortunately, because I saw it only once and my memory of it has faded, I wrote my reaction to it in emotional-response terms. I vividly remember my reaction but not enough of the details. Simply stated, I thought the story was better than the execution. On the negative side, I remember a child teaching the robot, Andrew, to say something is "a bunch of s---" or something similar, as if that is humorous (and that the seriousness of the story was repeatedly compromised in this way). On the positive side, I remember him choosing mortality over immortality in a dramatic context, and wishing to experience love. Some of this was effective and rose above the rest of it. In fact, I now recall that at the climax, it became a much better, more serious and dramatic film--showing real conflict and bold use of free will--than it had been. (So I was wrong to compare its impact to a TV commercial.) I remember thinking, why wasn't the whole film like that, why is its style so inconsistent? (It almost wavers between "Mork and Mindy" and "Notre-Dame de Paris"--of course I'm exaggerating both extremes.)

But I don't remember enough of the concretes to make a better argument. I mainly recall that the good stuff were exceptional moments in an overlong, too-slowly told tale, that, if it was original when Asimov wrote it, has become too familiar since. I'm willing to give it another chance.

[Zigory 0]

Zigory,

Would you please help me understand the criteria you use to judge a film?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think a film is good or bad if it is:

1.) Intelligent-which I take to mean, more intellectually filled.

2.) Psychologically rich-I don't understand this criteria as much

What else do you use to judge a movie?  And what are the reasons behind judging the movies in this manner?

*

←

My criteria is much the same as Ayn Rand's in The Romantic Manifesto. The story is the main thing and everything else is secondary and subservient, but a cinematic story ought to be especially visually-expressed, since it is a visual medium. A free will-oriented story is important.

My judgment of a film also includes, is it beautiful, original, creative and honest (rather than formula-following, cliched, second-hand) not only in story but in directing, acting, cinematography (including mise en scene), editing rhythm? Are these elements serving the essence of the story, helping it convey its emotions and themes? Is the style consistent or haphazard? Is the film interesting both in story and in how the story is dramatized? Does it seem first-hand in the decisions by the director (where to put the camera, what details to focus on), in a word, fresh?

Some films are so interesting in their visual or musical features or acting or directing style alone, I am able to enjoy them despite thin or episodic plots, or nonexistent ones (e.g., Ryan's Daughter, Mary Poppins, the individual segments of Fantasia).

I think it's self-evident that one wants a movie to be interesting to experience (while giving you useful and inspiring concretizations of abstractions like free will), and that is what sums up my criteria.

When I mention "intelligent" I mean, I cannot enjoy a movie that takes too long to make very simple points, or makes very old ones as if they are new. I enjoy more a movie that keeps me thinking, challenges me. This too would fall under the heading of: is it interesting; subcategories: is it well-directed, well-written? Does the director/writer show awareness of his ideal audience's age and knowledge level?

When I mention "psychologically rich" I am referring to the use of free will in the plot, shown in the making of difficult, challenging decisions or discoveries; "the human mind in conflict with itself" is how it has been described (by Harlan Ellison, a good writer, paraphrasing William Faulkner). All drama is based on conflict, but drama based on psychological or philosophical conflict is of a higher quality.

[JRoberts 0]

My criteria is much the same as Ayn Rand's in The Romantic Manifesto...

Would you mind providing me with some concrete examples of where the movie Bicentennial Man fails to live up to these standards?

When I mention "intelligent" I mean, I cannot enjoy a movie that takes too long to make very simple points, or makes very old ones as if they are new. I enjoy more a movie that keeps me thinking, challenges me.

Can you not enjoy a movie for the sheer benevolence and "fun" factor of the film? For example, Chity-Chity Bang-Bang?

When I mention "psychologically rich" I am referring to the use of free will in the plot, shown in the making of difficult, challenging decisions or discoveries; "the human mind in conflict with itself" is how it has been described (by Harlan Ellison, a good writer, paraphrasing William Faulkner).  All drama is based on conflict, but drama based on psychological or philosophical conflict is of a higher quality.

←

How are the struggles of the robot to become a man not conflict?

[Zigory 0]

Would you mind providing me with some concrete examples of where the movie Bicentennial Man fails to live up to these standards?

I've already written all I can without seeing the film again. I tend to forget films I don't like or feel neutral about, more quickly than those I like or love. However, if I passionately hate a film (like Pulp Fiction), then I remember it too well.

Can you not enjoy a movie for the sheer benevolence and "fun" factor of the film? For example, Chity-Chity Bang-Bang?

I don't like that film, which is derivative and second-hand, ripping off Mary Poppins's originality and lacking its panache and spirit as a result. (I think I remember liking its story, though--similar to my reaction to Bicentennial Man's strengths and weaknesses.) But yes, I like benevolent, simple movies that are fun. If a movie is fun, it is interesting, not too slow or too similar to other films.

How are the struggles of the robot to become a man not conflict?

I definitely think the basic story of Bicentennial Man involves that type of conflict, especially the mortality decision. I criticized the acting and direction and some of the script choices that undercut the values of the story. But I'm willing to believe that (other than the scene I have mentioned disliking) the script is fine and the directing and acting are where its flaws lie, I can only decide after viewing it again.

One more perhaps incidental note: If you look at Chris Columbus's other films (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001060/), the only one I thought had a genuine, original, first-handed quality was Only The Lonely with John Candy. Parts of his Harry Potter films rose above his usual work also, mainly the second one. His films are otherwise uniformly shot in flat, boring cinematography with too much use of telephoto lens, the acting is overbroad or flat, the music is used too much for emphasis, the stories are rehashes. There is almost nothing original or creative in his work (except what Robin Williams provides). Still, most of them are light comedies and are enjoyable as they don't require much directing artfulness.

[MichaelJ 0]

On a more postive review, I really enjoyed Bicentennial Man.

I haven't got too much to say because some of the early reviews in this thread took the words right out of my mouth.

I really loved watching Andrew as he developed to become more like a human.

I also loved the movies portrayal of humans as creative, wise individuals. That free will made up a large part of our identity, and it also made a strong point on freedom.

It will be a movie that I will always be sure to keep a copy of in my personal movie library and that I will always treasure close to me.

[JRoberts 0]

I've already written all I can without seeing the film again.  I tend to forget films I don't like or feel neutral about, more quickly than those I like or love. However, if I passionately hate a film (like Pulp Fiction), then I remember it too well.

Would it be correct to define your dislike for this film as emotional? Or your review of it as an emotional reaction?

But yes, I like benevolent, simple movies that are fun. If a movie is fun, it is interesting, not too slow or too similar to other films.

Why can't a film be "too similar" to another? Are you saying that, after reading Cinderella, you can't enjoy any other movie about a poor, oppressed girl who finds the right man in the end?

[Zigory 0]

Based on Mr. Jenkinson's and Mr. Speicher's and others' strong favorable reactions, and examples given by them, I hope to see the film again to re-evaluate. Mr. Jenkinson's examples remind me of the good qualities of the film. I suspect I reacted badly to it because it had worthwhile ideas which were undercut by the childish style--but right now I'll withhold comment.

I only thought that it was being overpraised here, that it was directed more like a children's film when my choice would have been to treat it in a more adult style, so I wrote that it is mediocre and things in it undercut the seriousness of it.

Mr. Roberts wrote:"Would it be correct to define your dislike for this film as emotional? Or your review of it as an emotional reaction?"

Since my memory of the film is limited, my comments are mainly based on my emotional summary reaction to it, which at the time were based on my thoughts in observing elements and details of the film.

But in my review I don't dislike the film so much as think it is mediocre, not as good as it could have been. But for now I must stop commenting since I need to see it again to be sure I still agree with my original evaluation.

Mr. Roberts asks, "Why can't a film be "too similar" to another? Are you saying that, after reading Cinderella, you can't enjoy any other movie about a poor, oppressed girl who finds the right man in the end?"

If Rodgers and Hammerstein included the words "bibbidi-bobbidi-boo," and birds and mice making a dress, in their version of Cinderella, I would argue that they are lacking in first-handedness and originality and it would annoy me. But they created a fresh and witty new version. It even addressed, in a brilliant song, the biggest problem of the story, which is how can the prince and Cinderella trust love at first sight enough to base a marriage on it. So I thoroughly enjoyed Rodgers and Hammerstein's 1950s and 1960s TV productions as well as Disney's earlier version.