Subject:
|
Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:45:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
Because of your description of this movie, I have made plans to go see
it. Your "scathing" review has interested me in something I would have
skipped, so thanks Dave!. It sounds typical of movies, to leave much of the
story out, so should I read it first? I think I did 12 years ago. Maybe
thats why Larry could sense the characterization that didn't actually occur
in the film. On that note, I often enjoy sucky movies when I have already
read (and enjoyed) the book they are based on.
Have fun!
John (I'm immortal til proven otherwise) DiRienzo
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America
by a power structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant
to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
Dave Schuler wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > c /Azimov/Asimov/ (getting the master's name right takes you up a notch on • my
> > "credence-o-meter" when discussing his work :-) )
>
> Aagh! I've been revealed as a fraud! Actually, I was trying to maximize • the
> Scrabble value of his name, and Z is worth more than S! Anyway, "the
> master?" Hmm... I can't quite get behind you on that one, I'm afraid, but • I
> do enjoy his stuff.
>
> > I confess to a bit of shock at your perception. What a radically different
> > perception than mine! As I said, I found it to be one of the best movies • I've
> > seen in a long time. I had a great deal of "sense of what Robin Williams'
> > character really has at stake" all the way through it. But then, perhaps • our
> > aesthetic and emotive thresholds are different. I also did say that I • expected
> > 80% of the viewers not to get it. Perhaps you're in that bracket.
>
> Maybe you're just an old softie! 8^)
> My initial post was a little off-the-cuff, but I'll try to elaborate • here.
> As far as unevenness, I loved the film up until the father's death, after
> which the pace sort of fell apart on me. That is, the first 20(?) years of
> Andrew's life took the first half of the film, while the last 180 years • took
> the second half. As a result, some of the more interesting potential • character
> developments were missed, while others simply vanished.
> What happened to the mother, for instance? The film established tension
> between Andrew and her and seemed (during the "laughter" scenes) to imply a
> forthcoming resolution, which never occurred. The older daughter likewise
> disappeared after making a stereotypical older-rebellious-daughter • appearance
> on the motorcycle and at the wedding, returning only for Sam's deathbed
> without any mention made of if, how, when, or why a reconciliation took
> place. Obviously, Andrew doesn't need to have witnessed her • transformation,
> but to throw her back into the family without a word said about it simply • begs
> the question of how it happened, especially when all indications suggested • she
> was accelerating away from the family.
> From there, I'm afraid, the film just worsened for me. Rhetorically, and • in
> terms of narrative, I thought Andrew's quest for others like him was
> interesting, even if only as a device to demonstrate his uniqueness and for
> getting him to Platt's character. Thereafter, though, I was less • convinced.
> Each further step in his evolution, it seemed, was as easily executed as
> conceived. "I want skin," Andrew decides, and so he gets it. "I want
> organs," he decides, and so he gets them. "I want a nervous system," he
> decides, "I want functional genitalia," and so on. Never did it seem to me
> that there was any difficulty in achieving these fundamentally • transformative
> goals, even with the weakly-implied groundbreaking research required for • each
> new step. Worse, I had no sense that Andrew was passing points of no • return,
> or that he was risking anything in making the transformation. It's one of
> those nothing-ventured-nothing-gained deals, where his gain is cheapened by
> the fact that he (seemingly) risked nothing.
> What happened to the dog? As Andrew's only friend for a presumably
> considerable length of time, I was surprised that it only appeared for • about
> 10 seconds and than vanished (like so much else in the film) without a • trace.
> Especially considering that Wolfie implied a direct link to Lil' Miss v1.0,
> it's strange that it wouldn't serve a more important role, or at least
> something more than an afterthought. I would rather Andrew had held onto • the
> stuffed animal than a flesh-and-blood dog whose only function was to • provide a
> single one-liner. The stuffed dog, moreover, could have been a more subtle
> and interesting indicator of time's passage than whiz-bang CGI shots of San
> Francisco and its nifty hovercars.
> I flatly didn't believe the romance between Andrew and Lil' Miss v2.0, • much
> less the implied several decades they spent together. Did nothing • noteworthy
> happen during this time, so that nothing had to be represented except a • single
> chess game and a wistful gazing out the window while discussing their • aging?
> What's the deal with the offhand mention of a "DNA elixir?" That's • probably
> the most stupendous invention Andrew had come up with thus far in the film,
> but it occupied _no_ screen time, or at any rate far less time than clever,
> attention-grabbing surgical scenes.
> Several critics, who I grant are no particular authority, offered • somewhat
> scathing reviews:
> http://www.cnn.com/1999/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/21/review.bicentennialman/index.h • tml
> http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/movies/movie155.htm
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> srv/entertainment/movies/reviews/bicentennialmanhowe.htm (sorry--too long)
> http://www.eonline.com/Facts/Movies/Reviews/0,1052,73747,00.html
>
> And, finally, this quick review from David Ansen in Newsweek:
>
> One could describe this movie as the story of a woman (Embeth Davidtz) who
> falls in love with a household appliance (Robin Williams). But that would • make
> it sound funny. While there are a few good jokes scattered about, this is,
> alas, yet another of Williams's earnest attempts to make us all Better, • More
> Sensitive People. Cast as an android with unusually human proclivities (he
> listens wistfully to opera), the actor has made the first touchy-feely • robot
> movie. The tone of director Chris Columbus's moist, disjointed film is • hushed
> and reverent, as we follow Andrew the android's 200-year quest to achieve • full
> humanity. Many homilies follow. Eventually our hero sheds his metallic mug,
> starts looking a lot like Robin Williams with a good tan, and has sex with • the
> great-granddaughter of the woman who first owned him. Kids will be bored, • the
> rest of us baffled.
>
> Again, critics have no sovereign wisdom on these matters, but I have yet • to
> read a favorable review of this film.
>
> > How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
>
> Twenty-eight, for good or ill. How old are you?
>
> All in fun,
> Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
