Summary:
In the "not too distant future of 2005", the Martin family purchases a robot that they have named "Andrew" (Robin Williams) for housework and cleaning. At the suggestion of the father of the house, whom Andrew knows as Sir (Sam Neill, Jurassic Park), Andrew strives to learn as much as he could, leading to a friendship with a descendant of the Martin family named Portia (Embeth Davidtz, Matilda), and a personal journey spanning centuries with Andrew learning what it means to be human, and the desire to become more like one.
-------------------------------
Bicentennial Man was released in 1999, based off two books written by renowned science fiction author Issac Asimov. The books and the movie feature roughly the same premise: a robot being bought by a family that slowly learns what it means to be a human, and dealing with all of life's joys and tragedies, in a span of 200 years, hence the title. Asimov's science fiction stories, from my understanding, are really characterized by intricate and realistic scientific and technical details. He is the one that created/popularized the idea of robots that do not turn against their creators because of stringent laws devised by one of Asimov's peers. These three guidelines, known as the Three Laws of Robotics, are as such:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow another human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders to not conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
But this review isn't an in-depth analysis on the Three Laws of Robotics. I just wanted to provide some context on why Asimov is regarded as one of the pioneering Sci-Fi writers, and why movies such as this one are made. The three laws aren't even a central focus of the movie anyway. The movie for me is good...for the first half. The second half of the movie is where it goes to downhill, but not to the extremes I think reviews made back then tend to feel. There's nothing outright offensive or anything really bad in the movie, it just gets a little dull and at times a little silly and too whimsical. And ultimately your likeness for this movie really depends on how invested and interested you are in the story and its conflicts, because if you are not interested in the story, then this movie will be an utter snorefest.
As such, for me, the best part of the movie is the story and characters. Par the course for a writer like Asimov, we follow the story of a character that yearns to find his destiny, and that is to learn what being human really is, and the ultimate desire to become more and more like one. The character of Andrew is almost like an audience surrogate, which is to say the representation of us. As we follow Andrew's life story and the more he learns and starts evolving into something nobody expected from a robot, it makes us think too and really contemplate on how we live our lives and why we need both the good and the bad for a prosperous and fulfilling life. Other characters, like various members and descendants of the Martin family all help and inspire Andrew one way or another, and when they ultimately die, we feel for them because of their influence, and we feel even moreso for Andrew because of his inability to express proper emotions.
It's a shame then, that a lot of the other elements really drag it down a few notches. First is the acting. The secondary characters, practically everyone else, does a good job in their roles with no significant complaints on my part. But the issue here is the leading man himself, Robin Williams. Now I am not insinuating that I dislike or hate Robin Williams; the man is hilarious, ever since I first heard his voice in Aladdin. But I'm not sure how to feel about other movies he's in. It seems to me that while he is a great comedian, I'm not convinced when he does dramatic roles or when he is required to act dramatic. In some movies he can balance that out, like Mrs. Doubtfire, others he cannot, like Patch Adams.
Ironically, in this case, I feel his dramatic moments in this movie were done well for him, or when he starts out as an emotionless robot and learning. Moments like those where he expresses sadness, or tries to find the best way to express negative emotions, are great, because that is his role. Later on though, when he starts becoming a little more well rounded, is where things get iffy. Which leads to another problem I have: the story execution. Even though I really like the story, that's strictly speaking from the ethical, moral and analytic side of it. But they are ultimately a layer of skin that covers the truth of the script: Being written with Robin Williams in mind and playing with his "strengths". But those strengths do not gel all that perfectly with the more serious side of the movie. For example, we have scenes where Andrew starts acting more and more like a human to the point of being one except in brain, and he starts having romantic feelings towards one of the family descendants. While that concept is an understandable and reasonable evolution of the character, it is interspersed with Robin Williams-style quips, jokes, and what have you.
I didn't feel like Andrew was becoming more like an individual human being after learning for over a century from the Jurassic Park dad, the Pepsi commercial girl or the teacher from Matilda, I felt like Andrew was becoming more like a perfect robotic duplicate of Robin Williams. That really drags the movie down during the second half of the movie. Fortunately, the final 10 minutes of the movie go back to the dilemmas that Andrew faces and they are done well. You just need to sit through a lot of fluff in order to get there.
Beyond Robin Williams, there's nothing much else I really dislike. The director, Chris Columbus, did good, if a little too whimsical at times due to his own style of directing, the effects for Andrew and other robots looked alright. If there's one other thing I have against the movie, it's just the humorous nitpick of the idea that 2005 is the "not too distant future". Where are our robots? Next thing you'll tell me that in 2015, we will have flying cars, hoverboards, self-lacing Nike shoes, and television waiters.
Final thoughts:
Bicentennial Man is flawed, and deserving of the criticism it got at the time. The lead actor is really the one who brings it down, but its story, characters and story ideas are what hold the movie up for me personally. I recommend it for those who are fans of stories of high concepts, moral discussions, and ethical dilemmas. Just be prepared to handle a lot of blegh before, during and after. If you also like Robin Williams I recommend it, as I feel it's one of his more underrated films. But it is the the three elements of story, story ideas, and characters that hold it. If you are not interested in any of these, you are really going to be bored.
My score: 2.8/5
NEXT REVIEW: Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
