Un'ottima annata - A Good Year

Watched this film on Amazon Prime. Not the usual type of movie for Russell Crowe, but definitely one of his better ones. It helps when the movie is directed by Ridley Scott, based on a noel by Peter Mayle and has a supporting cast of Albert Finney, Tom Hollander and the drop dead gorgeous and under-rated actress Marion Cotillard. The essence of the plot is a man deciding what he wants from life, and the enjoyment of the movie is watching him reach that decision. Contains occasional swearing (to be honest I'm a Londoner, so I never notice it) and has no nudity, so I'd call this a family movie. Two thumbs up from me.

A demographically mixed audience seemed to enjoy this film very much. The photography was beautiful, the acting excellent, and the supporting players added an extra "punch" to the story line. Tho not an exact replica of the book it is based more on a story line running thru Crowe's and Marion's characters. The emphasis being on Crowe's character finding out what is truly meaningful in his very hectic super-charged rather non ethical life. He rediscovers what he is missing i.e. love, trust, and friendships.

A "Great" date movie. The local scenery should definitely be seen on the "big" screen and not on a DVD! Tho not "Oscar" caliber" it is why most film goers go to the movies; pure entertainment and escapism. Ridley and Crowe have achieved that goal. A "Great" date movie and worth the price of admission

Who wouldn't want an uncle that left them a vineyard in Provence? Why would anyone have to think twice about a life of sipping wine and Marion Cotillard, who looked her real beautiful self, and not the character she portrayed in La Vie en rose? But, Russell Crowe was making this choice and provided an enjoyable romantic comedy about a successful trader that inherits a château in France. Crowe provided just the right touch in this film. The comedy was subtle and not overdone had they cast someone like Hugh Grant for the lead. The magic with Cotillard could not have been done with anyone else either.

I had heard some criticism of this film and was wary, but I was mildly surprised at just how enjoyable it was. Of course, Albert Finney added to that enjoyment, and the enchanting Archie Panjabi as Gemmy, but none so much as Cotillard.

I thought the movie was very good... Much better than I expected from the previews.

It's not going to be a Best-Picture Oscar winning movie (I think that should go to "The Departed") but it is not intended to be...

If you need explosions, sex and violence every 10 seconds to keep your attention then no this film is not for you. If you just want a relaxing, well-acted, non-American crappy plot popcorn movie then go check it out.

Well worth the $11 for the ticket which is getting pretty hard to say nowadays...

This is definitely the first time I have gone to see an Russell Crowe and/or Ridley Scott film at the cinema, fully bracing myself to be disappointed and...

I am very pleased to be able to say that I enjoyed it thoroughly. It has a very warming glow to it - beautifully played; gorgeously shot. Anyone who isn't just a little bit seduced by Provence after seeing it needs their head (or more likely their heart) examining. The lessons may well have been taught in a hundred films before, but that doesn't make them any less relevant or resonant for the commercial era in which many of us now live...

So, why the terrible reviews? I really don't know. The comedy was not overplayed in the way implied by the critics at all. To be blunt, it was not really necessary, as the warmth and effectiveness of the film and story lies in the romantic drama. The comedy is fine, but doesn't really add anything to the film. However, it does give it a very upbeat, cheerful and likable feel and maybe that is reason enough.

Max's character and Russell Crowe's performance? It's in the quieter moments where Crowe really excels and shows just why someone would want to cast him, as opposed to say Hugh Grant, in a film like this. His reactions to memories and the things that other characters do and say are just so much deeper and more real than Grant is capable of: which is why Grant always comes off as the same character in these films (a variation on the Grant formula) and Max comes off as real.

It almost seems as though the critics have a film with this plot pegged into a box: because they can only see (and can only expect to see) a Hugh Grant characterisation, they cannot accept anything other than a Hugh Grant characterisation. Whereas the actual reason that Crowe doesn't come off as Hugh Grant is because he isn't channelling that kind of characterisation at all. This is a very different kind of film.

Also, the critics seem to be completely off the mark in assessing the character, when they say that he starts off a bastard and ends a bastard too. Actually, this is far more about unearthing other qualities - not completely rejecting those 'bastard' qualities that he begins the film with, but refining and diluting them, as he becomes more and more adjusted to his past. He doesn't change, he opens his heart and mind to qualities that he has been ignoring within himself. You can see that other Max from the moment he opens the letter telling him Henry is dead - but he tries to resist the feelings that are clearly there, in large part because he doesn't want to face the fact that he has let his Uncle down - and all of the guilt that is allied with that.

The film is not the best film I have ever seen. The questions it asks are fairly fundamental, but they aren't startling or especially thought provoking.

But the film is highly enjoyable, from start to finish; and it's warm, something that is pretty rare in films these days.

So, to end, clearly I am not in tune with the critics - but then, increasingly that seems to be the case nowadays. I just think that I see completely different films to them...