Search

» » Двухсотлетний человек (1999)

Двухсотлетний человек (1999) watch online HD

Двухсотлетний человек (1999) watch online HD
  • Original title:Bicentennial Man
  • Category:Movie / Comedy / Drama / Sci-Fi
  • Released:1999
  • Director:Chris Columbus
  • Actors:Robin Williams,Embeth Davidtz,Sam Neill
  • Writer:Isaac Asimov,Isaac Asimov
  • Budget:$100,000,000
  • Duration:2h 12min
  • Video type:Movie

Watch online HD Download HD

Short summary

An android endeavors to become human as he gradually acquires emotions.
This film follows the 'life' and times of the lead character, an android 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.

Trailers "Двухсотлетний человек (1999)"

When Andrew regales the family with jokes, the jokes themselves were unscripted. Robin Williams ad-libbed all of the jokes. The other actors' reactions to the jokes and their laughter are real.

The aria that Andrew is listening to when he first uses the record player is from Dvorak's opera "Rusalka." The opera is concerned with the fairy-tale story of a water nymph who wants to become mortal for love.

Adam Bryant, who appears as the android head, has been Robin Williams' stand-in for more than a dozen films.

The three rules that govern Andrew's behavior are the Three Laws of Robotics, originally defined by Isaac Asimov in his science fiction stories.

Disney asked that the budget be cut by approximately twenty million dollars, and when the film was released on Christmas Day, it flopped at the box-office. Robin Williams blamed Disney's marketing, and the loss of content the film suffered because of the budget cuts. As a result, he fell out with Disney again.

The female robot, Galatea, is named after the statue brought to life by the gods in the Pygmalion myth.

In the original "Bicentennial Man" story by Isaac Asimov, the robot manufacturer was named "U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men". Around 1971, a new modem-manufacturing company took the name "U.S. Robotics", partly to honor Asimov. Unfortunately, since in the movie the robot manufacturing company is not portrayed positively, the real-world company asked the filmmakers to use a different name. Hence, "NorthAm Robotics". There are a few places in the film where you can see the old name and logo.

Third and final collaboration between Robin Williams and Chris Columbus, which started with Meie issi, proua Doubtfire (1993) and Üheksa kuud (1995). A plan to do a sequel to Mrs. Doubtfire had to be canceled after Williams's death.

On 17 June 1999, crews filming in the brand new San Francisco City Hall building set off the sprinkler system, flooding hallways, causing serious damage, and angering San Francisco mayor Willie Brown.

The car that Ma'am drives in the film is the same car used in Purustaja (1993).

Sir's actual name (revealed when he and Andrew go to NorthAm Robotics for the first time) is Richard Martin. Miss and Little Miss are named Amanda and Grace. When "Sir" and "Ma'am" are sitting on the bench in the yard, you can hear him say, "Rachel," and since the girls' names are revealed, this can be seen as "Ma'am's" name.

Robin Williams later provided a voice in A.I. - tehisintellekt (2001), which was also about a robot who wanted to be human.

The futuristic headquarters of "NorthAm Robotics" are actually the headquarters of Oracle Corporation, in Redwood Shores, California.

Chris Columbus later admitted that although he wanted to direct the film to work in science fiction for the first time, the production ended up being more work than he was ready for and there should have been a different director.

This was originally planned with Tom Hanks starring and Wolfgang Petersen directing.

Tim Allen was considered for the role of Andrew Martin, but turned it down due to his commitment on Galaxy Quest (1999).

The motorcycle used in the film is the Motó 6.5 designed by the famous French industrial designer Philippe Starck in 1995 for the Italian motorcycle company Aprilia. It's slightly modified to look more futuristic.

The film's main setting San Francisco is where both director Chris Columbus and actor Robin Williams were residents.

Isaac Asimov novella was originally published in 1976, the year the USA celebrated its own bicentennial.

Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Michael Keaton, Alec Baldwin, Bill Paxton, Jeff Bridges, Richard Dreyfuss, Howie Mandel, Martin Short, Billy Crystal, Jack Nicholson, Robert De Niro, Steve Martin, Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Anthony Hopkins,William Shatner and Kurt Russell were considered for the role of Andrew Martin.

Robin Williams shaved off his considerable body hair to play the robotic Andrew.

The backpack Andrew wears when going around looking for surviving robots like him is made by Swedish company Boblbee.

In one of his later comedy routines, Robin Williams talked about how he regretted making the film.

Shot over a period of four months.

In one scene, Andrew refers to Portia's fiance, Charles, as having a chin that can sink the Titanic. The film's composer, James Horner, previously scored Titanic (1997).

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, which govern all the robots in his stories, are as follows: First Law - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

The film takes place from April 3, 2005 to April 3, 2205.

It could be argued that Galatea did not contradict the Three Laws as, to leave Portia plugged in would have caused her more pain in the long run than simply ending the natural span of her life.

The second film in which Robin Williams plays a character that asks for his freedom from his master. The other being the Genie in Aladdin (1992).

The women in this film would have been having babies at old ages. The robot, Andrew was made in 2005. He lived for 200 years. Little Miss was about five or six in 2005. But her granddaughter, Portia, is Andrew's love many years later. When Andrew dies at 200, Portia is about 80. That means that there were about 65 years between the generations and thus, the average ages at which each person in the link conceived the next person. So, Little Miss would have been 60 to 65 when she gave birth to Portia's mother or father, who in turn would have been 60 to 65 when Portia was born. And, if Portia was alive as a young girl when Little Miss died, Little Miss would have been more than 125 years old.

This film and Mrs doubtfire have a lot of similarities since they both have Robin Williams in the lead role and Chris Columbus directing and San Francisco as the setting. In both films, the main characters Daniel hillard and Andrew Martin both played by Robin Williams are undergoing problems. In Daniel's case, he's an unemployed actor, and a divorced father who desperately wants to see his kids, in Andrew's case, he's a robot who wants to be human. Both undergo changes to try to get what they want. Daniel with help from his gay brother Frank is transformed and disguised as an old woman to be a nanny and to spend time with his kids, while Andrew with help from friend Rupert burns is transformed into android human by upgrade from robot to android. Both try to get what they want and try making a speech in court and are denied their rights by a biased old judge and senator who says "nothing more". Both still try to fight for their rights and in the end get what they want. Daniel gets to be with kids and Andrew gets his humanity and dies an old man.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: TheSuspect
    I heaven't read the book, but BICENTENNIAL MAN is a very touching and heartwarming movie about a house-robot (Robert Williams) that begins a 200-year journey to become and to be legally recognized as a human. During his journey, he has to face the fact and live with it that all loved ones around him grow older and eventually die while he is immortal.

    I think that this was one of Robin Williams' best performances ever, if not the best. He proves that he can either play a 'funny wacky' character but also a serious character that will touch the hearts of the viewers. And this movie does just that.

    I like the purity and the innocence of the story and I wonder why this movie has such a low rating. It's a must see for all open minded people.
  • comment
    • Author: Nilasida
    Owing to the fact that it is based on an Isaac Asimov story, `Bicentennial Man' turns out to be a more interesting and meaningful film than both its advertising campaign and its own opening section would indicate. The caveat for those seeking out a fun film for the entire family is that this movie, though initially sold as a warm cuddly comedy in the tradition of say `Mrs. Doubtfire,' actually deals with some very heavy and heady issues like sexuality, aging and dying, which may make it less-than-ideal viewing for young children.

    The first section of the film is, by far, its weakest. In 2005, the wealthy Martin family receives delivery of a brand new servant android (Robin Williams) who, almost immediately, begins to display a remarkable range of human emotions and interests. Thus, we are set up for yet another in a long line of predictable tales (i.e. `Harry and the Hendersons,' `Stuart Little') in which a family comes to adopt a strange, not-quite-human creature, welcoming him in as one of their own. Indeed, in the film's early stages, there is no shortage of either bland humor or drippy sentimentality as Andrew, the android, ingratiates himself with all but one of the Martin household. The `wit' in the film consists, basically, of endless jokes about how Andrew takes all idioms at literal face value, a running gag that is, finally, as unoriginal as it is wearying.

    Then, however, just as we are about to give up hope in it, the movie becomes more intriguing. Rather than staying within the context of the present life of this one family, the screenplay begins to move ahead in time, exploring Andrew's gradual growth toward total humanity, while the initial family grows up and eventually dies off. Actually, despite how one may feel about the film itself, one must admire its boldness and audacity, for it is not often that, in a film billed as a mass audience comedy, all the main characters pass on to their heavenly reward at one point or another – but, then again, how many comedies span a two hundred year time period? `Bicentennial Man' obviously has more on its mind than mere fish-out-of-water buffoonery, as it becomes an often-elegiac reflection on the transience of life, the meaning of being human and the search for societal acceptance. The mood of the film is remarkably hushed and reflective at times, which again might make it slow going for the modern mass audience more conditioned to a faster pace and giddier tone, especially in a Robin Williams film (though, of late, his films have certainly been taking on a much more somber quality, vide `What Dreams may Come,' `Patch Adams' and `Jakob the Liar'). There are times when `Bicentennial Man' seems overly impressed with its own self-importance, yet one appreciates its refusal to settle for the easy path of cheap comedy and upbeat sentiments. There is, indeed, a real sadness to much of the film.

    Special acknowledgement should be made of the superb art direction, set design, costume design, makeup and special effects that together give the film its understated and believable futuristic look. In addition, James Horner's melancholic symphonic score, though a bit lubricious at times, does create an atmosphere of contemplative seriousness that perfectly matches the tone and purpose of the film.

    `Bicentennial Man' may not turn out to be what you are looking for when you first seek it out, but, if you approach it with an open mind and a certain degree of tolerance and indulgence, you may be pleasantly surprised and, perhaps, even rewarded.
  • comment
    • Author: Tolrajas
    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
  • comment
    • Author: Perdana
    Best robot film ever. This really is a great film, which shows how a machine who strangely is endowed with creativity, thought and awareness unlike other robots, strives to become more than he is. This is a great film and very much about family life, emotions, what it means to be human, and trying to better oneself through both serving others and learning with others about oneself. If you ever wanted to be more than you are then watch this film. This is not so much a film about robots or sci-fi, but a film about life and humanity and relationships, love and family. The robots and sci-fi are just a scenario which allows us to explore ourselves more as humans and wonder about our existence.
  • comment
    • Author: Falya
    This movie surprised me. Having been a fan of Issac Asimov for many years I thought that this adaptation with Chris Columbus at the helm would be terrible. I was wrong. Some may complain that this movie is too long and slow, but I would wager that their attention spans are somewhat lacking. If you are looking for a high action movie with robots then you have come to the wrong place. If you are looking for a sci-fi based romantic comedy about the personal growth of one man...er robot, then this is the movie. The comedy was well written and well played, appropriately placed in each moment. AS for the character of Andrew(Robin Williams), though he is supposed to be a robot you really connect with his character and sense his growth over time. Unlike A.I. his character learns and grows and has real not fabricated emotional attachments. I give this movie an 8 or 9. Very good.
  • comment
    • Author: CONVERSE
    This film is absolutely outstanding. Forget the reviews of the critics who seem to love bashing films, this is a tremendous, epic film with such a great heart that explores the values and meaning of humanity and life in general. I saw it for the first time in ages today and its still as touching as the first time I saw it a few years ago. In fact I remember it being shown on a plane I was on the year it came out and I watched the first 5 minutes on a screen with poor picture and sound and remember thinking it was just cheesy family comedy which just plays for humor and nothing else. When I first saw it a few years later when there was nothing else on I was completely blown away by it. It was the complete opposite of what I was thought it was originally. This film does have its humor and that humor is often hilarious in parts, but thats because its delivered so brilliantly by Williams who plays his character to perfection. More importantly it is not supposed to be a comedy. Its a drama and features brilliant performances from an underrated cast including Williams, Sam Neill, Embeth Davditz and Oliver Platt among others.

    The film is also outstanding from a technical perspective. The futuristic cities, buildings and vehicles look fabulous along with the new household appliances, but the most important thing that really steals the show is the Script and Direction from Kazan and Columbus respectively. I will certainly be watching more of Kazan's films in the future and already thought he did a great job on Matilda beforehand. I've always been an admirer of Columbus and this has to be his best film to date. His vision of the film is splendid and I applaud him for bringing such a brilliant set of actors and sets together to make such an epic and unforgettable film.

    For most of my reviews for films, I don't like commenting too much on the plot, but here I feel the need to because it touched me so much and the plot helps explain why this happened. It is about a Robot that over 200 years, learns about humanity and seeks to be a part of it. At the beginning its more of a comedy as the robot (who's called Andrew) gets used to the way humans are and learns about simple well known things in life i.e Laughter, Sex, Family Life and Change.

    But further on as he becomes close to the youngest in the family, he learns more about love and how life is. I sympathised with him as he has to witness this and we follow him as he experiences the deaths of the people closest to him. I felt for him due to him being unable to experience these things like we do. Throughout the film I felt (although the critics certainly didn't and many here probably don't) all these things and became closer and closer to him as he constantly never gives up hope on becoming a human. I found it very emotional and I actually appreciated many of my abilities that I as a human have. To love, to cry, to experience changes, to reproduce, watch my children to grow up, to get older and to eventually move onto another life. As Andrew learns about all these things and begins to want them I really did feel for him like I say because I would find it incredibly hard to live if I was like that.

    SPOILER Having witnessed the ups and downs of Andrew's life throughout the film and his epic journey to finally become a human being, by the end of the film Andrew has managed to fully achieve this. He is fully human and unfortunately misses this declaration by a few seconds. But he didn't need to like his lover Porscha (His closest family member's granddaughter) says. He has done it. He has found the love he's wanted all those many years with her and he won't have to experience the sadness of watching things change ever again. He has moved onto another life like we're all destined to do and Porscha decides to join him. END OF SPOILER

    Basically, after seeing this film I did learn just how lucky I am to possess all these extraordinary and unique abilities and I don't believe it is just an accident or coincidence. We each have a destiny and I believe God wants us all to experience these things in life and I'm grateful to be here today and will certainly not be taking any of them for granted.

    I really think that that this film with a rating of just 6.1 and with the harsh and very unfair criticism its got from critics has to be the most underrated misunderstood film ever made. The film is not really in my opinion a family comedy although it unfortunately has been marketed that way. Its a drama about humanity with bits of comedy that should be watched by anyone of any age. I believe it can help people to become, like me, much more grateful for things we as humans perhaps take for granted in life.

    I thank you for reading this review and advise you to watch this film and prepare to be moved in a way I don't think any film has done or ever could do.

    10/10 Not my favourite film of all time but certainly in my Top 5. Stunning.
  • comment
    • Author: Rarranere
    For Ray Bradbury the masterwork of perfect poignance is Drink Entire: Against the Madness of Crowds. For Isaac Asimov it is Bicentennial Man. Only Asimov could remake Pinocchio as compelling science fiction. So many have tried to create a sweet and funny story of the machine that would be man, but this is it's perfect telling.

    Only Robin Williams could play the unlikely hero of this story with perfect comedic timing and perfect emotional pitch. Embeth Davidtz as his leading lady matches his skills at every turn, and Sam Neill turns in one his best performances as the man who first recognized the irreplaceable uniqueness of his mistuned android.

    Bicentennial Man is first rate science fiction – without physical conflict, without wars, without new ways to incinerate each other. In the end, it makes you glad to be a messy human. Watching this truly beautiful film is a wonderful way to spend an evening, and a guarantor of better dreams than you've had in many years.
  • comment
    • Author: Boraston
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Perongafa
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Uafrmaine
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Yggfyn
    Chris Columbus has another hit on his hands. Robin Williams gives his usual first rate performance, along with Sam Neil and Embeth Davidtz. They highlight a well cast movie that will pull at your heart strings more than once, in a tale written by Isaac Asimov that brings a lot of human emotion to this science fiction piece.
  • comment
    • Author: ᴜɴɪᴄᴏʀɴ
    After reading the mixed to negative reviews, I was a bit worried that this film wouldn't be that great. But, to my surprise, I found that I couldn't disagree more with some of those reviews, because this movie was really damn good. The performances are great, the story is touching and well written, the narrative is gripping, and the premise is really well executed. The music score, which isn't something I usually talk about, is surprisingly great in this movie and is something worth noting. However, despite this movie being a pleasant surprise, I did find the script to be a bit messy at times. It isn't really that bad, but there were times a few lines felt out of place and/or kind of half-assed. Another thing I noticed is that this movie can drag on a bit too long in a few scenes, which, while it doesn't necessarily ruin this movie, can still be a tad bit of an annoyance when you just want to know what happens next. Overall, despite these few flaws, this is one hell of a movie, and the fact that so many people didn't enjoy it as much as I did kind of makes me sad, as I genuinely think this is one of the smartest and most heart wrenching movies I've seen with Robin Williams, as it does a good job of not only having a few funny moments, but also having a lot of heart warming moments, whether it be Andrew slowly becoming human or Andrew finally finding love. I thought this film was great and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, because, while this is definitely not a perfect movie, it is still, in my opinion, an underrated classic.
  • comment
    • Author: Voodoosida
    I know it was much better than =I= was expecting. Yes, it's too long, yes, too much time is spent on the romance plot toward the end (and it's not very convincing), and yes, there are too many obvious, familiar robot jokes in the first two reels.

    But guess what? Many of those jokes, thanks to razor-sharp timing, actually work. And the robot Adam Martin becomes so very appealing that you'll miss him when he eventually turns himself into Robin Williams.

    The movie is very honest and open about its emotions (though the Horner score goes too far in trying to appeal to OUR emotions), and Williams is -- surprise surprise -- excellent as the robot. We believe in the character, we believe (mostly) in his world, and we believe in his journey toward humanity.

    It's too bad that so many people already regard Andrew as a kind of variation on Star Trek's Data, because he's really a robot of another color altogether.

    There are some missteps toward the end (where are all the other robots?), Galatea is an unnecessary character, and at times the characters seem to be existing in different movies. But it's surprisingly warm and amusing, it's authentically touching even when you think it can't possibly reach you, and St. Robin or no St. Robin, he's fine in the role.
  • comment
    • Author: Anen
    I 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).
  • comment
    • Author: Goodman
    'Bicentennial Man' is set in the very near future. The current 'in thing' is to have a robot that does tasks such as housework and cooking. The Martin family have just got their own robot, and decide to call him Andrew. It seems as if the Father is the only one that really likes having Andrew around, one child is scared of it, the other hates it. And the Mother seems very uncomfortable with Andrew around. One night the oldest daughter causes Andrew to brake himself. And from then on Andrew shows signs of intelligence. Is this machine capable of intelligence and human emotions?

    Andrew quickly becomes apart of the family. Bonding mostly with the Father ('Sir') and the youngest daughter ("Little Miss').

    The film follows the 'life' of Andrew and the humans around him. The family grow up and get older, but Andrew of course stays the same. The first time jump is amazing.

    I must mention the make-up, costumes and the sets. As the film is set over a long time period the humans age. And what a job the make-up artists did! Sometimes you feel as if the movie was made over a long period of time and the actors aged naturally! As the film is set in the future the clothes have changed slighty from the present. Most of the clothes aren't that typical future clothing stereotype of white or silver jump suits (thank goodness!). The clothes look futuristic without being over the top. The sets are a real treat later in the movie. I especially liked the set in the last scene. Somehow it feels like something Kubrick would do. The special effects are also wonderful. Look out for some American icons spruced up in the future. Amazing!

    I felt this movie was rather poorly marketed. It seems as if it was being sold as a comedy and a children's movie. Firstly, while there are a lot of funny moments I wouldn't really call it a comedy. And it doesn't seem like a kids movie either. I was also surprised to hear the "s" word used a few times.

    The film starts of a little slow, but give it a chance, it gets better with time. I particularly enjoyed Robin Williams performance, although everyone put in a good job.

    If I have a complaint it would be the portrayal of the oldest daughter. It felt to me like a very stereotypical 'brat' character. Also the character of Portia seemed to change to quickly.

    8/10
  • comment
    • Author: Agarus
    As an Isaac Asimov fan, I approached this movie with some skepticism. As a Robin Williams fan, I approached it with hope. It's been years since I read Bicentennial Man or the early robot stories that are more-or-less the basis for the movie but I found the movie entertaining and quite acceptable as an adaptation of Asimov's work. I watched it with someone who is quite emphatically NOT a science fiction fan and she enjoyed it, too.
  • comment
    • Author: Sat
    I'm giving it 6 stars because when the movie tries to be interesting it definitely succeeds. Unfortunately, when it tries to be anything else, it rather flunks out.

    For me; Robin Williams is the kiss of death to any movie. That sherbet-lemon-sucker's smiling-with-pain, I've-got-my-heart-on-my-sleeve expression is just a bit too much of a good thing. I liked him in 'Good Morning, Vietnam.' The idea and his character worked well there. Unfortunately, since then he seems to have been typecast. Every subsequent role he has played has entailed a bigger and bigger bag of sherbet lemons. Lachrymosity has become his trademark.

    The coming of self-awareness amongst robots - or at least, computers - is a concept which has been evaluated in any number of movies, and with every kind of prognosis. Though I still suspect it will catch us largely unprepared both socially and morally when it happens.

    Here, Williams plays a robot that is different in some indefinable way. And - indulged by its kindly owner, who gives it ever-greater latitude - the thing embarks upon a journey of self-realisation. It has difficulty coming to terms with the passage of time. Humans grow up and grow old, while the robot remains constant, unaffected by age. This area of the story is well-handled, but when the robot wants to become more human and when it starts to fancy its owner's younger child; the scenario becomes rather inept and also slightly sinister. There are overtones of 'Demon Seed' (1977). But - Hey; you can see what'll happen a mile away: it's going to BECOME human in the end. And you know it will succeed because this is Robin Williams, Captain Lachrymosity, and if he doesn't get his own way he will almost certainly weep till he rusts.

    This scenario requires a progressive suspension of belief both at his increasingly improbable and bizarre modifications and the attitudes of commerce and law. Handled more objectively - which means a little more cruelly - the story could have been a bit more believable, but then it would have called for a part that Mr Williams manifestly cannot play (without him, I'd have awarded at least another star). But the thing must stumble on, for his sake if no other, to its ultimate and implausible conclusion.

    The evaluation of affection is particularly strange. This robot seems able to transfer its preference from daughter to grand-daughter at the drop of a hat, which surely cheapens the very sincerity for which it supposedly strives. Further; whilst the robot may indeed have a uniquely intuitive glitch, how did it identify with its own sexuality? Intelligence and sexual identity are two completely different issues. It is reasonable to suppose that the former might be artificially replicated, but how does one impart a billion-year-old evolved instinct to an electrical appliance? Here, the movie-makers fell into their own anthropomorphic trap. The very trap that the robotics executive warned them against and for which he was subsequently ridiculed. Just because it looked like a man, didn't make it a man, or imbue it with male instincts and feelings. The thing was first and foremost a machine. It was a completely original invention with no ancient genetic archive to draw upon and guide its behaviour. The thing might as easily have been gay. Or something else as yet completely unimagined.

    Neither do I much care for the treatment of 'Galatea'. She is represented as the epitome of chauvinist evaluation: the female as a sexual object, tease and flirt. And when it becomes irritating even to our proto-human hero, he attacks it with a power drill and we hear it screaming. Apparently, domestic violence is also intrinsic to the 'male' machine. And equally justified. Remind me about the 3 laws of robotics, again.

    And can a robot really make 10 times as much as a corporate executive by building ornamental clocks out of scrap wood? I don't think so - not unless it's called Damien Hirst.

    Finally, I don't believe I ever heard an orchestra lay-on the sentimental strings quite so thickly. If anything they demonstrate how the mood of a movie and its audience can be manipulated by the sound-track.

    Cloying, turgid, over-sentimental, pretty unbelievable, and above all - inept, but with some well-observed incidental details about relationships and the passage of time. Watch it if its there and you've nothing better to do.
  • comment
    • Author: Bradeya
    Bicentennial Man is an overlooked family film that isn't perfect, but nonetheless doesn't deserve all the negativity it has received. Chris Columbus directs this with flair and he makes something really good here, and quite entertaining. Due to some scenes, this may upset younger viewers, but this is sure to appeal to anyone looking for something unique to watch. I can see why some people may dislike this one, but I on the other hand found it very entertaining and very well done. The special effects are truly wonderful and they add so much to the film. I thought that Robin Williams was truly great in the lead role. This is a fine drama that manages to overcome its shortcomings due to its heart. The cast are wonderful and they elevate the material significantly. Bicentennial Man is not perfect, but it definitely entertaining and is worth watching. Chris Columbus has directed something truly incredible that is very much underrated and like I said does not deserve the flack it has received. Of course Columbus has made better films in his career, but this is an overlooked gem that definitely is worth your time. Robin Williams is a good actor and he deserves credit in giving the film its charm as well as some humor here and there to lighten the tone of the drama. There are things that could have been done better, but overall the film really soars above the negative aspects that all the negative reviews have pointed out. Give this film a shot if you're in the right state of mind, you may be surprised at how good it really is.
  • comment
    • Author: Akinohn
    The synopsis of the movie drew my attention and I went for it desperately. "Bicentennial Man" was truly involving, touching and heart warming until the death of "Sir". The relationship they had was so natural, they talked to each other like normal friends, I just felt they missed a hug. It was impossible not to cry when "Sir" was about to die and called Andrew to speak the famous last words. I saw in this film a big message about prejudice, racism and problems involving intolerance, and we are able to feel and be in the place the underdog is.

    But I felt the movie could have explored even more the friendship between them and could have ended after "Sir" and "Ma'am" deaths. Sadly, they rolled the movie and explored it without being necessary, the message of it was almost all already showed. The only necessary thing in the end was to show we have to fight for our rights and for our own happiness, and Andrew fortunately made it. Don't get me wrong, the movie isn't bad and I would watch it again in a rainy day.

    PS: What's up with IMDb reviewers claiming this movie is overly sentimental? This is a drama movie, it's written in the synopsis that a robot begin to show feelings, what were you expecting? If you don't like emotional movies, don't even bother watching dramas
  • comment
    • Author: Fordregelv
    Warning: Depending on your definition of "spoilers", there might be a spoiler here. Tread carefully.

    Like most other reviewers, I could not help but notice how "perfect" the future was, yet how much it resembled the 20th century. However, all that, IMO, is irrelevant to the plot.

    Now, I haven't read Asimov's book (as a matter of fact, I had no idea this movie was based on a book till I logged on to IMDb), but even if I had, I wouldn't go in with the highest expectations, knowing how Hollywood mucks things up.

    My parents, who have already watched this film, praised it quite highly, but my sister trashed it as boring. I went in with mediocre expectations, particularly because I don't have much affinity for movies dealing with artificial intelligence.

    I was pleasantly surprised by the plot. Perhaps it's just me, but I really felt I could actually relate to the robot. I didn't care that it was Robin Williams. I didn't care the future was totally unrealistic. In a sense, I think I related to Andrew because of my personality; I'm awkward in social situations, and am always utterly agreeable.

    I probably fell for the plot like a sucker, but I liked falling for it. Whatever superficial goofs the movie made were more than made up for me by the story, which I found brilliantly beautiful. I really cannot think of adjectives that would sufficiently describe it, but.... it's just something that really appealed to me.

    Besides the similarities I found between myself and Andrew, I think I was also touched by many elements of the plot; independence, freedom, recognition, a spurned love...

    And the philosophical issues, most imperatively. I've always enjoyed pondering the moral issues surrounding robots, immortality, and so on. I think that's probably what drew me in. Watching the people Andrew loved die was probably the part of the film that touched me most, because I'm a very nostalgic person at heart - I love recalling past incidents, people I knew... and I felt Andrew's pain at losing the people he loved most.

    A lot of reviewers criticised this movie for its unrealistic portrayal of the future, its failure to properly adapt Asimov's book (from what I've heard about it, it does sound like a great pity, as the book seems more powerful), hell, even the music played.

    But none of that stuff really matters to me. The story was quite philosophical, with all the touches of sentimentality that make me melt like butter in a frying pan. This movie is probably one of the most touching and brilliant dramas I've watched, outdoing A Beautiful Mind, my previous most favourite drama. Neither films are without flaws, but the stories, which is what a movie is about, are beautiful.
  • comment
    • Author: lacki
    When this film was released 18 days before the turn of the century it was hurt at the box office by two nearly fatal blows. The first was the temporary backlash against Robin Williams at the time for his performance in the manipulative Patch Adams. The second was the onslaught of reviews that called it "schmaltzy" and "overly-sentimental". Well, I never found it to be that way. If you want to watch a horribly manipulative and sentimental emotional rape then check-out the other Columbus/Williams movie Mrs. Doubtfire. I'd rather throw myself into the path of an oncoming combine harvester than watch that again.

    The film opens in 2005 (the "near future" at the time) as Mr. Martin (Sam Neill), a wealthy businessman has a robot servant delivered to his luxurious home. As soon as the robot is powered up he seems to be...different. His name is Andrew (which means "man" or "manly") and while his body may be robotic, his personality is not. In fact he very slowly develops and learns human characteristics as he interacts and responds to the world around him.

    Mr. Martin is astonished by Andrew's ability to understand art and music. He treats him like a member of the family and educates him by the fire every night on the customs and history of mankind. As the years pass and lives fade away Andrew sets-off on a decades-long journey to find other robots like him. The quest ends when he meets Rupert Burns (Oliver Platt), a robotics engineer who turns Andrew from a simple robot into a life-like android. Upon returning home with his new appearance he falls in love with his old master's great-granddaughter, who is an exact double of her grandmother. They want to be with each other so badly but know they will never be accepted by society unless Andrew can become fully human. Which is impossible.

    Or is it? It's a question for the atheists and religious zealots to fight over. At what point does Andrew develop a soul? Why is he different from other robots? Did God give him the gift of human emotion? It is a cosmic selection or is it up to the World Council to declare Andrew human? It all builds to a heartbreaking ending, that is honestly one of the toughest movie endings I have ever had to sit through. I can't even write about it so I'll end my description here.

    This is familiar territory for Williams though. His performance as Mork learning about Earth and marrying a human woman is rather close to Andrew Martin's journey to become a man. And although I wouldn't call it a kid's film, or even a comedy, there are still a lot of laughs. But not in the usual anarchic Williams style. Andrew's curiosity of the world is a much more refined and quieter performance. It's a shame that most people can't see that it's Williams inside the suit for the first hour of the film as it makes us forget he's there on the screen and perhaps appreciate his acting ability less.

    James Horner's score is also simply wonderful. It's hard to believe the man who gave us the storming action sound of Commando and Aliens could also be capable of something so warm and beautiful. I guess they didn't give him the award for Titanic for nothing. For this movie he again teamed-up with Celine Dion to record the song "Then You Look At Me", which is the perfect tune to roll the credits to. I don't care what you think about me, I love it. Even if the lyrics make that ending even more harrowing.

    Despite going as far ahead as the year 2205, there's no utopia or dystopia subtext to distract us from the story of Andrew's life. The evolution of technology and architecture is handled subtly and is unobtrusive. It's a quirky irony though, that Andrew's inventions and discoveries help save lives and forward the human race despite not being fully human himself.

    Bicentennial Man is certainly the most mature and subversive film of Chris Columbus' career as a director. As I said, not a kid's film but a masterpiece of science-fiction and character drama. How anyone could ever truly hate this film is beyond me.
  • comment
    • Author: Unereel
    I adore this movie and have watched it over and over again. It continues to hold my attention every single time. The storyline is lovely and very moving. How Andrew forms a very close bond to Little Miss and Sir is enchanting. I thought the clothes chosen for the film were perfect - Portia's ball gown was absolutely stunning and the music throughout was wonderful! The character of Andrew played by the brilliant fantastic Robin Williams is absolutely delightful. Robin is a superb actor and I have just finished reading his autobiography. In my eyes everything he touches turns to gold. I totally love this film and will watch it forever!!
  • comment
    • Author: Rainbearer
    It never fails to amaze me, how some people either don't want to or simply do not get what a movie is about. This movie is not about robots, the future, or science fiction. It is about that which is most basic, and yet often, most overlooked by all of us. Life, living, our short time in the scheme of the grander scale of things. It deals with some of the most elemental, and difficult, issues we ultimately most face in our lives. We want to be happy,we want a sense of purpose, we want to feel we belong, we want to feel loved.

    I have seen A.I. as well, and the it shares many of the same themes laid out in this film. I only hope, and pray, mans' vanity and blind ambition never produce a machine that truly achieves sentient thought. The profound, deep, and inconsolable sadness and grief it would suffer as it deals with seeing all whom it cares about slowly pass away and leave it lonely would surely be a torment beyond any ability to conceive.
  • comment
    • Author: Coidor
    This to me was one of the greatest movies ever made. I thought the director, the producers, and the creators of this movie did such a great job making this movie, the robots looked so real. especially andrew. The stuff in that movie I got really interested in because I'm a television major and i'm taking courses that are based on what they used to make this film and thanks to that it's actually getting me upto the point of graduating sometime soon. even though i know i started college 6 years ago but when i started watching it i started to get the feel for the movie and thats how i was able to pass computer art 2d and the rest of my TV classes then. but now since it's been years since i've seen it i haven't passed much of anything but now come to think of it i'll go back to watching it again. and for any of u guys that are TV majors and are about to take science or new developments or anything that is based on robotics or any kind of science work like they used for this movie i'd recommend first to check with your advisors to see if this movie will help u guys with your assignments for classes and if so go either rent this movie or better yet because u'll need it for the rest your entire college learning, buy the movie. it's worth watching. i have to give an award to chris columbus for making this movie and thanks to him and robin williams this has been helping me pass classes and now i'm at the greatest danger of graduating the community college.
  • comment
    • Author: Aria
    This is an overly sentimental Scifi comedy drama based on an Asimov short story. Robin Williams is rather muted as a robot and many jokes fall flat. The humor is sporadic and the film would have worked better as a straight drama. The production design of the film never convinced me that the film was taking place in the future. Dramatic fire is also curiously missing and the film manages to sidestep some critical issues. However the ending worked for me despite being heavy on the sentiment. Oliver Platt has a brief but welcome role. Sam Neill and Embeth Davidtz are fine. Watchable but not fully satisfying.

    Overall 5/10
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    Robin Williams Robin Williams - Andrew Martin
    Embeth Davidtz Embeth Davidtz - Little Miss Amanda Martin / Portia Charney
    Sam Neill Sam Neill - 'Sir' Richard Martin
    Oliver Platt Oliver Platt - Rupert Burns
    Kiersten Warren Kiersten Warren - Galatea
    Wendy Crewson Wendy Crewson - 'Ma'am' Martin
    Hallie Eisenberg Hallie Eisenberg - Little Miss Amanda Martin - Age 7 (as Hallie Kate Eisenberg)
    Lindze Letherman Lindze Letherman - 'Miss' Grace Martin - Age 9
    Angela Landis Angela Landis - 'Miss' Grace Martin
    John Michael Higgins John Michael Higgins - Bill Feingold - Martin's Lawyer
    Bradley Whitford Bradley Whitford - Lloyd Charney
    Igor Hiller Igor Hiller - Lloyd Charney - Age 10
    Joe Bellan Joe Bellan - Robot Delivery Man #1
    Brett Wagner Brett Wagner - Robot Delivery Man #2
    Stephen Root Stephen Root - Dennis Mansky - Head of NorthAm Robotics
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com