"Where Movie Critics Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine!"
|
|
Is Robot story backwards?
by Herb Kane
January 17, 2000
(PG)
CRITIC DOCTOR EXAMINES: Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly), Jay Carr (Boston Globe), Chuck Schwartz (Cranky Critic), Michael Wilmington (Chicago Tribune), Peter Stark (San Francisco Chronicle), James Hebert (San Diego Union Tribune), Ed Johnson-Ott (NUVO Newsweekly), Jon Popic (Planet Sick Boy), Shawn Levy (The Oregonian) and Michael Elliott (Movie Parable).
The movie "Bicentennial Man" would be better titled "Bicentennial Robot." Though Williams was capable of making us like his robot character Andrew (like a child would with a favorite stuffed animal), the story didn't have the stuff to make this film believable.
Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) said, "'Bicentennial Man' could have been an intelligent, challenging science fiction movie, but it's too timid, too eager to please. It wants us to like Andrew, but it is difficult at a human deathbed to identify with the aluminum mourner." In my opinion, it was difficult to identify with a robot as a human - period. Star Trek's robot character, DATA, is another irritating reminder of how we humans will stretch our far fetched imaginations. But Williams at least makes this film worth watching.
"Williams makes us feel there's enough good behind it," says Jay Carr (Boston Globe), "to really preclude anyone hating it." Chuck Schwartz (Cranky Critic) comments: "Again and again, Williams takes a character with all the potential of a cartoon and infuses it with a humanity that is moving in more ways than one." It was somewhat moving, but the unrealistic notion of a machine becoming a human outweighed any humanity instilled by Williams.
Chicago Tribune's Michael Wilmington says the movie "has heart, but lacks bite. It's sentimental but it's also superficial." It's this dividing line that separates any true sense of reality in this story. The movie's amazing special effects, however, was realistic.
Peter Stark (San Francisco Chronicle) said, "No movie has depicted the look of human aging as accurately and, coincidentally, as wonderfully, as this one." James Hebert (San Diego Union Tribune) adds, "Especially eye catching is the almost seamless melding of the of robot and human..."
At first glance, you study the robot and search for physical signs of Williams. I wonder what it would have been like if an unknown actor had played this part. It may have been more intriguing in the beginning scenes - and less distracting. No matter. Williams did a fine job playing this unrealistic bucket of bolts, but some critics have launched unwarranted attacks on Robin William's performance.
Ed Johnson-Ott (NUVO Newsweekly) scoffs at how writers like him race to the word processor to warn people of the "latest manipulative drivel from the human Care Bear" and that audiences ignore the warnings of writers like him - making "Bicentennial Man" a gazillion dollars at the box office. He is concerned that the talented Robin Williams is in "danger of becoming a habitual hack." So Ed valiantly calls for us all to "Save Robin Williams!" Then he tells you, stupid and ignorant readers, "Don't go to Bicentennial Man!"
Why Andrew himself wouldn't stand for this, Ed! I, the Critic Doctor, say to all - IGNORE THESE EGOTISTICAL CRITICS! Think for yourself and make your own decisions. Get a life, Ed.
Anyway, the problem with this movie is not Robin Williams. It's the story, the concept of machine turning into a man. Even the underlying themes of freedom and individual rights are thwarted by this thin line drawn between man and machine. Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly) admits, "It's hard to appreciate the philosophical details, however, when Chris Columbus (director) working once again with his 'Mrs. Doubtfire' star Robin Williams, seals this comedy in an impenetrable bubble of hollow humanism."
Jon Popic (Planet Sick Boy) makes a good case against the film's "PG" rating, complaining of the frequent use of words like "a**," "bit**" godd*** and "sh**." Popic reasons, "This rating seems particularly wrong following the MPAA's 'R' rating for 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo'." The films had similar content, but Deuce's audience was targeted for adults - giving it an "R." Popic continues, "'Bicentennial Man' is being pushed on kids, and ended up with 'PG.' Go figure." Though I think Deuce was more graphic, Popic does have a point. The film's rating should have been more restrictive.
Shawn Levy (The Oregonian) summed up this movie best calling it a "knuckle headed story about a robot who lives long enough to evolve into a near-human and bed the great-granddaughter of his original master." Strange concept indeed.
The stuff needed to make a story like this believable and approachable from a human standpoint is to reverse the premise. If the film had started out with Williams as human, maybe growing old and eventually replacing his organs to the point where he is almost a machine, it would have played better. "Bicentennial Man" was simply made backwards. But of course, that would ruin the concept which was based on the novel The Positronic Man by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg.
Michael Elliott (Movie Parable) summed up "Bicentennial Man" best: "Despite the technological breakthroughs of the modern world, one thing remains clear. Regardless of how much man may make something to resemble a human, the God-given life that is in us cannot be duplicated."
Let's hope Robin Williams doesn't duplicate a role like Andrew again.
--THE CRITIC DOCTOR
FILM CREDITS:
Movie: Bicentennial
Man MPAA Rating: PG (Language and sexual themes)
Starring: Robin Williams, Embeth Davidtz, Sam Neill, Oliver
Platt, Wendy Crewson, Hallie Kate Eisenberg & Kierston Warren
Directed by: Chris Columbus Writer: Nicholas Kazan,
based on short story by Isaac Asimov
Running time: 2:08 minutes Distributor: Touchstone
Pictures
Cinematography: Phil Medeux Music: James Horner
Release Date: 12/17/99
|
|