Der 200 Jahre Mann

BICENTENNIAL 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.

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.

Firstly, 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

Isaac 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.

the 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. .