

Directed by Chris Columbus.
Cast: Robin Williams, Embeth Davidtz, Sam Neill, Wendy Crewson, Oliver Platt, 
Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Lindz Letherman, Stephen Root, Kiersten Warren, Lynne 
Thigpen, Bradley Whitford, John Michael Higgins, George D. Wallace.
1999 - 131 minutes
Rated PG (for mild profanity and sexual dialogue).

I hadn't intended to post a review of this movie, but after seeing all of the
praise in rec.arts.sf.reviews, I decided I just had to.  Fair warning, though:
this commentary is full of spoilers, and I make no attempt to hide them.

Folks, this was a _bad_ movie.  It failed on every level it tried, with the
possible exception of some eye candy.  Were I still rating movies on the
IMMLSoMFtPF (Infamous Modified Mark Leeper Scale of -5 to +5), I would give
this movie a -2.

The story is allegedly based on Asimov's novella of the same name, as I am
sure everyone knows by now.  However, it's not very much based on it.  It
starts out with some of the same names and characters, but that's about where
it ends.

One of the first divergences is how the family reacts to Andrew.  Not accepted
by half of the family, and treated as a novelty by the father, we aren't given
any reason for anyone other than "Little Miss" to care so much about Andrew.
We also aren't given any reason to feel anything when he asks to buy himself.
One of the early poignant moments in the novella, I have always felt, was when
Andrew attempted to wear clothes -- they did not fit, and yet he wore them
anyway, as he attempted to "be human" we realize later in the story.  Yet this
is not the case in the movie -- he first puts on clothes for a wedding, and
just decides to keep wearing them.  Why?  No reason is ever shown, or implied
by the actions or dialogue of the characters.

Similarly, part of Andrew's greatness in the novella is his artistic bent.
Although the movie starts out along that path, it quickly drops it, and he
becomes a clockmaker.  There is no examination into his woodcarving talent, or
why it moves people so -- in fact, in the movie, Andrew makes clocks because
that is what Sir does.

Similarly, Andrew's attempts to turn himself into a cyborg are treated
differently:  instead of Andrew being the inventor, he is an experimental
subject, maybe an artistic designer, maybe, at most, an assistant, and the
real genius is provided by a human.

And the worst offense, I thought, was the introduction of a romance, between
Sir's great-granddaughter and Andrew.

Now, I have only talked about differences between the novella and the movie;
those, by themselves, would not have caused me to dislike the movie.  No, I
disliked the movie because it _failed_.

As a comedy, most of the humour was simply not funny; in one early scene with
Andrew telling jokes, the laughter of the family seemed very strained; the
audience I was in laughed a bit, but not as much as we should have, given that
this was a Robin Williams movie.

The movie also tried to be a drama, and failed there as well.  A hugely
dramatic point in the story is when Sir dies, and Andrew is there at his side.
Yet by deviating from the novella so much, and not coming up with equivalent
material, we are not shown any real friendship between Sir and Andrew.
_Some_, yes, but not enough to touch the soul as it should have.

Next, of course, is the romance.  Which I truly wish had not been there, but
_still_ could have resulted in a touching story of what it means to be human,
and would have given Andrew a reason to be.  But that would have required more
effort and talent than the writers and directors of this movie were either
willing or able to give.  And instead of a traumatic scene when Andrew is
first denied his humanity (and, again:  _why_ does he want it so much?  By
what right is he able to present his petition to the "World Congress"
directly?), we have a scene filled with some regrets, but not much else.  And
that, of course, means that the scene where he _is_ given his humanity also
fails.

The last aspect of this movie, and its failure, bugs me the most:  as a
speculative fiction story, this movie is simply not all that speculative.
There are robots:  fine.  What is the status of them?  How have they affected
society?  The robots are now allowed to harm a human being, or, through
inaction, allow a human to be harmed -- a robot in a domestic situation is
going to be quite challenged, I should think, and yet they barely touch that.
(A _single_ line, where Andrew says he cannot say who ordered him to jump out
of a window, as it would cause family strife, was all they dared do.)  These,
and others, are themes that Asimov (and others) looked into, and, really, any
movie based on an Asimov robot story should at least _acknowledge_ these
possibilities.

And the end of the movie has two more failures.  First is that Andrew dies
before he hears the proclamation.  While this could have worked, it managed
not to, and is one of the few times in this movie where going with the cliche
would have worked better.  And the last is that a character, who is then
revealed to be a robot, violates one of the three Laws of Robotics -- and no
comment is made on this, I am guessing simply because it was forgotten.
------- End of forwarded message -------