Bicentennial Man Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
One robot's 200 year journey to become an ordinary man.
This film follows the 'life' and times of the lead character, an android (Robin Williams) who is purchased as a household robot programmed to perform menial tasks. Within a few days the Martin family realizes that they don't have an ordinary droid as Andrew begins to experience emotions and creative thought. In a story that spans two centuries, Andrew learns the intricacies of humanity while trying to stop those who created him from destroying him.
| Robin Williams | Andrew Martin |
| Embeth Davidtz | Little Miss Amanda Martin/Portia Charney |
| Sam Neill | 'Sir' Richard Martin |
| Oliver Platt | Rupert Burns |
| Kiersten Warren | Galatea |
| Wendy Crewson | 'Ma´am' Martin |
| Hallie Kate Eisenberg | 7 Year Old 'Little Miss' Amanda Martin |
| Lindze Letherman | 9 Year Old 'Miss' Grace Martin |
| Angela Landis | 'Miss' Grace Martin |
| John Michael Higgins | Bill Feingold, Martin's Lawyer |
| Bradley Whitford | Lloyd Charney |
| Igor Hiller | 10 Year Old Lloyd Charney |
| Brett Wagner | Robot Delivery Man |
| Stephen Root | Dennis Mansky, Head of NorthAm Robotics |
| Chris Columbus |
6.10 out of 10 (14515 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Better than billed
posted on 16 Aug 2009While taking my daughter to this movie, the trailers led me to believe this was another kiddie movie by Robin Williams, a la Flubber, Mrs. Doubtfire, etc. Boy, was I surprised. Nearing the end of this pleasing, longer-than-expected movie, I noticed the kids were squirming and the adults were crying.What a delight. A very poignant movie about the human condition. And of course, another great performance by Williams. People are just now beginning to realize his gigantic talents and range.Go see it, this one will surprise you and move you.
Good, but too long.
posted on 25 Jul 2009Bicentennial Man was a really good film. I enjoyed it a lot. The only problem with it was that it was too long. It would have been better off as two films, as there were two definite halves to the film (first when he's a robot with Sir, Miss, etc. and second when he's with Portia and on a quest to be human).
A disappointing adaptation that veers between so-so comedy and so-so drama
posted on 13 Jul 2009The core of "Bicentennial Man" we know from "Pinocchio": something made in the shape of a man discovers it desires to become a real man and has many adventures and setbacks along its journey. By following this journey we learn what the storyteller wishes us to know about what it means to be human.The Isaac Asimov novella (and the later novel with Robert Silverberg) is one story among many that are set in a future history during which the development of humanoid robots results in a number of societal and ethical conflicts. The movie, standing alone, all but ignores the wider issues while being faithful, in part, to the original story. Unfortunately, because it ignores the wider issues, the movie ends up being somewhat shallow.The movie opens with the arrival of a domestic robot at the home of the Martin family. Christened "Andrew" by the youngest daughter, "Little Miss", the robot quickly becomes janitor, chef and nanny but not without tension in the family. Andrew, played by Robin Williams in a rather nice metal outfit, appears programmed to resort to imitation in learning human pleasantries and tends to hover annoyingly when not doing anything. While subservient, and apologetic, to its owners, one soon wonders why Andrew wasn't programmed to ask questions like "Would Ma'am prefer to serve breakfast herself?" instead of getting in the way.Nevertheless, the Martins become used to Andrew and soon discover that he seems to be somewhat different from other domestic robots of his type. He displays a surprising self-motivation, artistic talent and appreciation for music, art and literature. The family realizes that he has the desire and capacity to learn beyond his programming and encourage this. As the years go by, Andrew learns the concept and develops a desire for freedom. His request is met with consternation but is granted and Andrew--Andrew Martin--truly begins his journey to becoming a man.It is at this point that the movie begins to stray from the original story: Andrew begins a journey to find other robots of his kind, seeking the companionship of his own kind; he discovers an eccentric genius, who alters his body to become more human in appearance; and, he meets a descendant of the Martins, to whom Andrew becomes close and with whom he learns more of what it means to be human.While the changes may have been more cinematic, I felt they failed to take on the challenge of portraying the consequences of Andrew's goal. Instead of exploring the questions of what it means to be human we are given some predictable emotional scenes--strange, when it is not clear Andrew has emotions. When Andrew makes his desires public, there should be some reaction from the population. We are also introduced to Galatea, another robot similar to Andrew, who takes over the comedic role in the latter half of the movie. Galatea was so irritating and even less competent than the early scenes of Andrew that I was rooting for her to be caught and dismantled during one scene.Because the Asimov story is a favorite of mine, I was apprehensive at a theatrical adaptation. I did like that the world of the future was portrayed with matte shots and few props. More would have distracted us from the story although it would have been nice to see a few other kinds of robots instead of people dressed strangely.I was annoyed that the movie took the time to (loudly) introduce Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, the immutable programming that all robots are governed by, at the beginning of the movie but have the plot and actions of the robots conveniently ignore them to advance the story. It would have been better not to introduce them at all or have changed the script. It became so flagrant that it took away from my enjoyment of the movie.On the other hand, I believe Robin Williams was a good choice to play Andrew. While he is in the metal suit, and later out of it, he is talented enough to control is body language and delivery to make him look and sound believable as Andrew Martin. And while it is funny to watch Robin Williams perform some light comedy and slapstick to liven things up, the movie meanders between that and the so-so drama of Andrew's growth and journey that I felt Williams' talent was wasted.IMDb vote: 5
A Big Surprise
posted on 09 Jul 2009When I first heard of this movie, I was expecting another cheesy movie in which Robin Williams tried anything to get a response. And then I rented the movie and ended up re-watching it a dozen times. Heck, I even cried, and movies don't usually evoke that kind of response from me. Whenever I was worried it would get cheesy, it didn't, although I will say it got slow at a few places. I expected (and was hoping) for it to be long, because it needs to be if it's going to cover 200 years. I felt they caught some moments correctly but did leave some gaps.Anyways, I was thinking this was going to be some Disney movie in which they try to shovel emotions down your throat, but in the end I was very satisfied. It had a great soundtrack, great characters and a great story. I definitely recommend.
Excellent movie, an instant classic
posted on 09 Jul 2009Movie making at it's best, no guns, no blood, no extreme language, Robin Williams was perfect for this role, the future is set as a backdrop and is not "in your face", which allows the story to unfold over 200 years, and still keep to the story.
A terrific Movie... Robin Williams is great, AGAIN!
posted on 07 Jul 2009I wasn't sure about this one due to the poor reviews it had and I didn't go to the theatre to see it. I should have. Robin Williams puts in yet another, bashed by the critics, but great performance. What do they have against this man? Every movie he has put out since Good Will Hunting won him an Oscar has been totally bashed by the critics. Patch Adams was one of the best films of 1998. I liked it more than Shakespeare in Love although less than Saving Private Ryan. This film is just the same steady good movie that Robin always produces. The other actors were even good, including the usually wooden Sam Neill.
Oliver Platt was great.I was into the movie from minute one and I loved the overriding theme of outliving the ones you love. This is what my 92 year old neighbor told me when I was 10 and only a few months before he left us: "It has been a curse to outlive my children." The plot was solid and the Special Effects were TOP NOTCH. Rent this on DVD. It is the only way to do it justice.
131 Dreadful Minutes of Moralizing
posted on 30 Jun 2009If I could get back the two hours I wasted on "Bicentennial Man" I would be a better man. What sounded like good Robin Williams movie is a bad piece of film work. He acts like a man in a robot suit, even when he finally wears clothes.
Starring Robin Williams as Andrew the Android, I expected the movie to have the dramatic excellence he showed in "Awakenings" and "Good Will Hunting." It isn't there. His acting is canned, reeking of predictability. Known for his comedic strength and range of vocalizations, his personality shows up mechanical. The casting director might as well have chosen Anson "Potsie Webber" Williams instead of Robin.
The plot of the robot becoming human is old in SF circles. Isaac Asimov gave the screenwriter the same story as seen in many "Outer Limits" and "Twilight Zone" episodes, minus the succinct, intelligent writing that defined both shows. It draws out too long, and tries to carry too many transitions that should have been left in the original novel, "The Positronic Man." "Dances With Wolves," in its 236 minutes, seems shorter than this 131 minute fiasco.
One scenes which caused me to cringe was Andrew's preaching to the World Council about what makes a man. John Merrick said it more powerfully in one sentence, "I am a man, not an animal" in "The Elephant Man." Instead, we get a soliloquy by Andrew.
Overloaded with morality messages, "Bicentennial Man" tries to tell us that people are different, that not all marriages need be procreative, that laws should be passed to validate the humanity of some people, that big corporations are bad, that artificial implants make for artificial people, and that euthanasia is no big deal. There are a few more statements beyond that had me shaking my head.
The ideological cliches presented are akin to "My Favorite Martian," with a dash of the Robot in "Lost in Space," and some portion of "Terminator."
The basic theme that humanity is not what we are but who we are is so oversold. By the time the credits came, I felt as if I had an Ayn Rand novel crammed down my throat. Asimov was no Orwell, and his books do not have the depth of thought or layers of intellectual insight about the human condition. Screenwriter Nicholas Kazan did not help the movie as he leaves it coming across like an unedited script.
Williams bombs in this one. He is much better in his video where he meets Koko the Gorilla.
Anthony Trendl
editor, HungarianBookstore.com
Bicentennial Man
posted on 21 Jun 2009If you like futuristic films with some good special effects, then you might like most of this one. Basically it is the not too distant future, and robots are the new thing of the 21st century and nearly every home has one. 'Sir' Richard Martin (Sam Neill) buys his family one of these robots, it's, or his name is Andrew. After being activated he always does work and tasks for the family. But it turns out Andrew (Robin Williams) is unique, he is discovering more about the world he lives in, and develops human qualities, e.g. feelings and emotions. He asks to be free and then travels the world searching for more unique robots, and he eventually finds Galatea (Kiersten Warren), living with robotics expert Rupert Burns (Oliver Platt. With his help, Andrew becomes essentially a real human, and falls in love with the niece of "Little Miss" Amanda (Matilda's Embeth Davidtz), Portia (also Davidtz). He lives for 200 years before cutting himself off and become a real human being. From director Chris Columbus (Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire) it is pleasant to watch, but I can see what the critics mean about too much sentimentality, it is almost drenched in it. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Makeup. Okay!
Not for me
posted on 20 Jun 2009In my humble opinion, this movie was way too simplistic, sometimes even silly. I couldn't even finish it. I feel really sorry for Williams, one of my favorite actors, whose career has to carry the stigma of this movie. Believe me, this is not a sci-fi flick; it's a soap opera.
However, I have to admit that a lot of people like this movie. The same people who like soap operas, reality shows, talk shows and who enjoyed "Evan Almighty". This includes most of my family. You might like it, too. Not everybody is a critic.
For the more critic among you, Spielberg's "Artificial Intelligence", "I robot" and even "The Animatrix" are better treatments of the same subject.
Age has nothing to do with being humane.
posted on 25 May 2009I found this to be a very good science fiction film, well made for the most part. I was intrigued to see it when it was first advertised and am surprised more was not done to advertise it better.
I gave it three stars simply because of the way the movie is formatted in its plot delivery. While Andrew, played by actor Robin Williams, starts as a robot who, being the exception to the rule, "becomes aware" from the day he is "switched on" and eventually reinvents himself into a human from his robot body; there were many gaps in the time passages of this film that left me with a feeling of "emptiness", a desire of wanting more of the story told about Andrew. Even when he is dismissed from his owners home, after gaining his freedom as a robot and builds his home by the sea shore with 20 years passing; you get a number of these large gaps of time passing with little said about Andrews development and growth as a robot slowly rebuilding himself and developing into a human.
I think the permise is intriguing to begin with, but in need of greater development. I do not see this as a children's science fiction film meant for laughs, but something that operates as serious science fiction to begin with. You certainly can take your kids to this film.
I think the personality of Andrew really teaches all of us what it is to be really "humane" in our dealing with others and that is a message I liked about the film. it was interesting to see a more toned down, serious side to Robin Williams; given how talented he is.
It is a great film to watch, but I would have liked to see more even if it took another 45 minutes of added footage to fill in the gaps more during the time passages in the film as Andrew ages and how his friends die over time as he ages to be 200 years old. Still a very lovely film to view if you want a quiet thoughtful evening to send you off to bed.
decent attempt...under rated..williams delieving
posted on 24 May 2009williams quiet performance is really the best thing of this movie on the surface. he really shows how much of a dramatic performer he can truly be, unfort most are missing it. i loved the novella by the late great asimov. most people do not see subtle subtext, exploring our own humanity through someone that is not supposed to have one and our attempts to keep him from it. admitting the movie is a bit slow and does drag the longer it goes on, but hey of course the movie is supposed to take us thru 200 years. it would have been much better as a mini-series on TV. the closing scenes and credits, using a soft love song by madmoiselle celine makes it even more touching. overall an under-rated movie worth 2 hours of your time. more so than some of the other garbage hollywood has been putting out...like 'gigli'
Distrubing!
posted on 17 May 2009I have always hated the concept of machine taking over man. In this movie Machine tries to marry human? I thought that they would have created a female robot for William? I had nightmares about the concept of robot marrying human afterwards. When they finally grant him "Human Citizenship" I was a little freaked out.
Aesthetically great, but unconvincing
posted on 10 May 2009(spoilers ahoy) I have to admit this must have been a tough movie to make. Williams had to be robotic yet also human. This balance was tough, and admirably played, however something just didn't click. The Asimov books do a much better job at portraying robots that become as human or more so than real humans in character. 'Andrew' got more human through physical augmentation and more overt emotions, but never really seems to cross the 'Pinocchio Transformation Line' so it's hard for his love affair to be believable.I can see why this movie didn't do so well; it was too watered down for die hard sci-fi buffs and not believable enough to draw the chick-flick crowd.On the other hand, stylistically and aesthetically you've got to admire this movie, from the interiors to the futuristic San Francisco. It's almost worth seeing for the eye-candy factor. And it also has the ring of the more logical, scientific world of the future that so characterizes Asimov books.
Typical Hollywood trivialization of a great theme
posted on 08 May 2009Unfortunately, after watching this movie, I'm left with a very bad taste and regret that a great short story (I never came across to read the expanded version that Silverberg put together) was not treated properly.In fact, the last thirty minutes really ruin what otherwise could have still been a great movie. In the literary version, Andrew's wish to become human is not linked to emotional attachment. That was Columbus' add-on. They probably thought "Mmmmkay, now how would the audience really get the message that Andrew wants to be human, WITHOUT having to think too much?" It seems that unless you create a "romantic interest" nowadays, the Hollywood moguls will think that their products will not raise interest from the masses. That will probably explain, also, movies like the 2001 remake of "The Count of Monte-Cristo", which similarly ravage a literary gem, reducing it to a mere triangle, and putting "love above all." Or why did the filmmakers ask the terribly corny Celine Dion to sing over the Bicentennial Man's credits, in a rip-off of the "Titanic" theme...The short story could've even made for a great legal thriller - in a sense, most of Andrew's existence is spent in courts, winning little by little the acknowledgment that he is a person. The sad part is that some of us will probably live to see such trials for good, in a few decades, and rather than pay hommage to Asimov's clairvoyance, we will have some hazy impressions of a soapy film.The implications were also fascinating. Asimov sees Andrew as backed up by a corporation: "If a man had died, the firm of Feingold and Martin lived, for a corporation does not die any more than a robot does. The firm had its directions and it followed them soullessly. By way of the trust and through the law firm, Andrew continued to be wealthy." His metamorphoses are gradual, and occur much slower than in the film - and they are not taking place in a makeshift lab, led by some maniacal, anti-social geek - another romantic cliche too dear to Hollywood, which simply cannot comprehend the idea that the Frankenstein image is dated...Here's another sample from Asimov's work: Andrew says "I have the shape of a human being and organs equivalent to those of a human being. My organs, in fact, are identical to some of those in a prosthetized human being. I have contributed artistically, literally, and scientifically to human culture as much as any human being now alive. What more can one ask?" So, instead of spending his eternity courting a girl and making jealous scenes (like in the movie), Andrew actively makes the world a better place, acting in not just one (prosthetics), but several directions. Wow! Now, why wasn't that "photogenic" enough for Columbus and Co. ?Here's another example: In the story, Andrew's lawyer tells him "We've done two things, Andrew, both of which are good. First of all, we have established the fact that no number of artificial parts in the human body causes it to cease being a human body. Secondly, we have engaged public opinion in the question in such a way as to put it fiercely on the side of a broad interpretation of humanity, since there is not a human being in existence who does not hope for prosthetics if they will keep him alive." Now, these are issues that are becoming as important and striking as humanity itself. Some of those who still read books will remember that the French writer Vercors raised the same issues regarding the definition of humanity in one of his novels, "Les animales denatures". These are truly important themes that need to be discussed much more than they are...Last but not least, the film embodies another Hollywood cliche, which I want to criticize harshly. Why is it that so many movies lately (meaning in the past 20 years), have been pedalling on the idea that death is inevitable, that it has to be embraced, that it is "the order of things", and so on? The best - and ludicrous - example was the case of "Cocoon 2: The Return", in which we were treated to similar ideas, but which simply demolished the original film and its characters. Why do filmmakers need to pound us over the head with the idea that even 200 years into the future will people choose to die after living the same 75 years as today? Do they think humans cannot produce and enrich their lives - and those of others - while enjoying a longer span? Not to mention that, in this particular case, THIS BLATANTLY CONTRADICTS ASIMOV'S CENTRAL THEME! Andrew Martin helps people live longer so that they can enjoy life and be happy, and he is, in a sense, sacrificing himself, refusing to follow the same destiny which he brilliantly offered others, but dying happy, knowing that he was officially recognized as a man - while the film steals even this from him.These, and other shortcomings, make Bicentennial Man a cute movie, but one that is as forgettable as an episode of Friends. I wonder if Asimov would have approved of it. This film could have been a second "Blade Runner", not your average silly "Comedy/Romance"... I guess those are choices that were made for us, by the men who tell us, through their on-screen characters, that "To be human is to make mistakes". Wonderful, guys, you just brilliantly proved your humanity!Note: All the quotes from Mr. Asimov's "The Bicenntenial Man" are given here strictly for educational purposes, and therefore do not legally constitute a copyright infringement.
A real let-down
posted on 30 Apr 2009I was hoping to see Asimov's short novel brought to life on the screen. Instead, it was almost as bad as the hatchet job done on Starship Troopers. This movie's Andrew Martin was nothing like Asimov's positronic robots in his novels. His creations were logical and devoted to a fault, not silly. I'm sure Asimov would be very upset to see one of his robots violating the first law of robotics and killing a human being at the end of the movie. This movie made me sad to think of how a simple but pleasant to read story line could be so badly distorted on the big screen.
Outstanding movie
posted on 30 Apr 2009While this is not a comedy as such, it is one of the best films that I have seen in some time. I am one that looks at a movie for it's entertainment value, and this movie definitely entertained me. It was a long movie, but I really did not notice how long it was until after I got out of the theater and looked at the clock. I will more than likely be going to see it again. I really did like this movie. If you go to see this expecting a robotic Mork, then you will be disappointed. If you go with no preconceived notions what it is about and with a open mind to be entertained... you will not be disappointed!
dazzling
posted on 11 Apr 2009this was a great movie. it was very emotional. I would actually beef up the rating to PG-13 but who cares it was very well put togerther and the plot was simply. There were a few acting problems but the cinematography was simply amazing! who ever wrote the script is a oviously one of the few guiness on the face of the earth. I simply loved it!
Isaac Asimov's classic Big Science sci-fi brought to film. Tearjerker. 7/10. SPOILERS!
posted on 06 Apr 2009I 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).
Silly Robo-Human Lovestory
posted on 16 Aug 2009The move The Bicentennial Man starts out as a pretty good movie, the story is intruiging and feels like a Disney movie. The story is rather gay, and becomes even more ridiculous when you realize that this movie is all about a Robot which develops feelings of love and the dilemma it creates. The movie has a few occasions and scenes that are entertaining, but all in all this is just a silly movie about a ugly robot which, due to a malfunction, has feelings. It briefly touches the issue of immortality and which problems this might create, but doesn't have anything overly interesting to say. My advice to you is that unless you are looking for a utterly stupid lovestory you shouldn't watch this movie even if it was free.