Rowan Atkinson
Mr. Bean
Similar Movies
Family
Adventure
Comedy
Childlike Englishman, Mr. Bean, is an incompetent watchman at the Royal National Gallery. After the museum's board of directors' attempt to have him fired is blocked by the chairman, who has taken a liking to Bean, they send him to Los Angeles to act as their ambassador for the unveiling of a historic painting to humiliate him. Fooled, Mr. Bean must now successfully unveil the painting or risk his and a hapless Los Angeles curator's termination.
Top Billed Cast
| Release Date | 1997-07-03 |
|---|---|
| Runtime | 1h 29m |
| Directors | Mel Smith, Francis Kenny, Trey Batchelor, Michael Zimbrich, Todd Y. Murata, John Greaves |
| Producers | Eric Fellner, Tim Bevan, Peter Bennett-Jones, Rebecca O'Brien, Rowan Atkinson, Richard Curtis |
| Writers | Robin Driscoll, Richard Curtis, Emma Freud |
Serious harmonization problems.
After the enormous success of Mr. Bean, it was reasonably predictable that, sooner or later, we would see Rowan Atkinson performing his usual antics in a film production. However, despite the actor's efforts, the truth is that it would never be the same, nor could it be, and sometimes the jokes are so forced that they simply lose their effectiveness.
In this film, Bean found work at the National Gallery in London. A job that is apparently safe, if we consider that the character gets into trouble even with the simplest tasks: he is a watchman and sits in a chair while visitors and tourists walk around. The problem is that, in the case of Bean, we know that things are going to get complicated almost by magic: and the gallery directors are very happy when the curators of a Californian museum acquire a remarkable painting by an American author and an expert to talk about her at a presentation ceremony: Bean is the one the directors most want to see behind her back, so they don't even hesitate. From here, disaster is waiting to happen.
Let's be honest: the film is funny and works reasonably well. It's a good quality comedy, and it was also successful at the box office (although that's not synonymous with quality, because it's also true that there are many much worse films, like “Ted”, which also sold well). We can't point out defects that it doesn't have at all. For me, the biggest defect of this film is the audience, which created very high expectations at the expense of the gigantic success of the fourteen episode miniseries that Atkinson created in the 90s. Anyone waiting to have the same experience with This film will always be disappointing. Things aren't the same, they don't work the same way and everything is a little more exaggerated and forced. However, it would be difficult for an American production to make a feature-length film with Bean any other way.
The film takes great care and attention with the sets, cinematography, costumes and effects used, but it is still within the “standard” of light films that the USA released at this time. It's nothing truly exceptional. Throughout the film, situations occur that attempt to recreate Atkinson's style of humor, as he does his best to avoid talking, but still has to do so occasionally. We can say that the actor made a huge effort, but that he also encountered problems adapting his recipe to the North American cinematic style. It's like trying to dress a child in an adult man's costume: it will look bizarre, disharmonious and ugly, but he's dressed.
In between, we also have to positively highlight the work of Peter MacNicoll, and of course, being a historian and an art lover, I have to congratulate the use of the occasion to make known to the general public a magnificent painting that really exists: Arrangement in Gray and Black nº 1. It was painted by James Whistler and can be seen at the Orsay Museum in Paris.
— Filipe Manuel Neto