Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Respectable attempt to approach the subject objectively
17 September 2007
Although it is structured around the sort-of plot device of the fictional "Green" family (who is meant to represent a more-or-less average American suburban energy consumer) the film otherwise is made in a fairly straightforward, reporter-led, episodic, documentary style. Each "episode" (probably meant to accommodate commercial breaks) describes a different form of "green" energy, such as solar, wind, hybrid vehicles, etc, while also targeting the most egregious producers of hydrocarbons: conventional automobiles and coal-fired electric plants.

It is a very informative film, albeit a bit dry in places, with arguments that are, for the most part, developed in breadth rather than depth. Still, there are a few surprises, such as the sequence that supports nuclear energy as a "green" source. Indeed, while all of the other forms of energy (solar, wind, ethanol, etc) are applauded and encouraged as supplementary sources that can help to improve the overall situation, the film clearly takes the position that nuclear energy is the only known source of fuel that can realistically provide the quantity of energy necessary to reverse the global problem of hydrocarbon emissions. Unfortunately, the problems associated with the disposal of nuclear waste are only mentioned as an afterthought that almost casually trivializes the difficulty of that disposal when compared with the difficulty of containing hydrocarbon pollutants.

The film seems to make an attempt at being non-partisan, though the only political leader to appear in the film is Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appears to be very supportive of the "green" technologies.

Ultimately, the film is really about the economics of "green" and how that can affect the process of communicating the message of "green" to a capitalistic America. Up until recently, "green" was considered to be synonymous with "bad business." This film characterizes many "green" technologies as being highly profitable, wise potential investment opportunities for the future. It would make Ayn Rand pleased to know that, rather than gaining support for "green" via motives of altruism, the most effective way may be by stimulating the enthusiasm and technological innovation of our capitalistic, selfish (some may say "greedy") ideals.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Mean-Spirited Comedy That is Rarely Funny
10 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Prior to seeing this film, I was unfamiliar with Mr. Bean except for the movie trailer and some word-of-mouth--which, to my retrospective surprise, has been mostly positive. All the indications I had were that Bean was a sort of modern-day Charlie Chaplin; as I like Chaplin's humor, I figured I'd give Mr. Bean a go.

While there are some good comic scenes that may have been able to work as a TV episode compressed to 30 minutes or so, there was not nearly enough material to sustain a 90 minute movie. I found that Bean was at his best when he was the bumbling fool--making stupid mistakes or unwittingly getting himself and others into trouble, and then making it worse as he tried, with equal ineptitude, to get back out of it. But there was precious little of that. In fact, most of what Bean does is motivated by conniving, selfish, and mean-spirited intentions rather than bumbling innocence. Here are a few examples:

!!!SPOILERS FOLLOW!!! --Early in the film, Bean accidentally spills his coffee on a sleeping passenger's laptop as he makes his way down the shaky aisle of a train. It is a very funny bit of slapstick. But Bean feels no shame, no hint of apology or even misgiving, his biggest care (other than getting away undetected) is whether he can manage to pour off enough of the coffee from the keyboard to recover the better part of his cup. -- While trying to cover-up the fact that he doesn't want to eat the raw oysters served him in a chic French restaurant, Bean intentionally dumps his foul and slimy payload into the handbag of a woman seated at the table next to him. --While trying to get back to his bus, Bean starts hitchhiking. A guy riding a pitifully slow motorized bike is gracious enough to pick him up. But of course the bike is so anemic it can't carry them both. As the owner of the bike decides how he might tinker with it to improve the situation, Bean maliciously and inconsiderately decides to steal the bike right out from under the nose of his Good Samaritan. !!!END OF SPOILERS!!!

So the comparison with Chaplin is not a good one. Chaplin may have found himself in situations similar to the ones described above, but he always had a childlike naiveté, and he was generally self-deprecating; while his ineptitude he may have sometimes caused others frustration, Chaplin would had have never had the deep-rooted nastiness to intentionally and maliciously take advantage of others' vulnerabilities while in pursuit of his goals.

One of the things I generally appreciate in British comedy is the mastery of understatement and deadpan humor. Bean seems to try to do this, but his is such an in-your-face presentation that it becomes exactly the opposite: after what seems like several minutes of repeated extreme close-ups of Bean's disproportionate features, they gradually become far more grotesque than funny.

I don't remember the name of the actress who played the French Actress in the film. She has a very captivating screen presence. Both she, and Wilem Dafoe (who plays an egotistical film director) give the best performances in this tedious film. Their work is much better, I thought, than anything in the rest of the film.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed