Youtube has this film online divided into 13 sections. Part 1:
part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7 (no sound), part 8, part 9, part 10, part 11, part 12, part 13
Moria calls it "appalling sentimental tripe". The New York Times says it "achieves the pop grandiloquence of a ''Star Trek'' installment," but they don't mean that in a good way. Frank Wu says, "Read the story instead" and
This year baseball's Dodgers and Orioles both proved that you could spend $75 million, collect a team of talented players with great track records, and still wind up as stinking losers. The Bicentennial Man proves the same about movies.
Roger Ebert says it seems "very long and very slow" and says,
"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. Strange, how definitely the film goes wrong.
Stultifyingly dull and a disgusting waste of valuable film dollars, this is the kind of studio cack that should be acknowledged for the shameful mess that it is and consigned to the rubbish bin.
Do not, repeat, do not see this film.
SciFi.com likes it. Hmmm... There's one in every crowd, but they're in good company with AirLockAlpha.