Um Bom Ano

Food tastes better there. The women are naturally beautiful. Walks are more romantic. Wine is more complex... but life is less so. France can turn good memories into grand ones. It replaces currency with passion. It replaces accumulation with appreciation.

I believe the above statement to be very true. France is among the loveliest countries that I've ever been privileged to visit. If they had ESPN, I'd consider moving there. So when I heard that Ridley Scott was directing Russell Crowe and Marion Cotillard in a film about a money-hungry British stock-broker who is lured into giving it all up for an inherited French vineyard, I thought it would be right up my alley.

To be honest, the film is so far up my alley that I felt my dreams were being violated. I cannot imagine a life more pleasurable than one spent living in a château, overlooking my own vineyard, waking up every morning to the glorious sensation of Marion Cotillard's morning breath. I'm practically orgasmic at that idea.

"A Good Year" is a crystal glass filled to the brim with 1982 Château Margaux... but unfortunately diluted by some city tap water.

As mentioned before, I loved the premise. The cast is equal to the task. The cinematography is only enhanced by the country's natural canvas. The music is eclectic and joyful, ranging from old standards to a traditional up-tempo score to the modern energy of tracks like Alizee's "Moi Lolita" -- which was, oddly, not chosen to play upon the arrival of a certain character. Nevertheless...

Everything about this film is a deliciously prepared meal... on a paper plate. The plate, in this case, is a flimsy script that brushes over too many details, cannot maintain its tone for more than a scene or two, reaches for grandeur without ever attaining it, and presumes its audience is naive and unworldly.

There are just too many scenes in this film that demanded more time and effort. Characters fall in love too easily. Massive decisions are taken too lightly. The tone shifts uncomfortably from romantic to slapstick to tragic to wistful to sarcastic. It all just felt a little forced. Screenwriter, Marc Klein, seems to be trying too hard. And Ridley Scott seems rushed, as though the studio demanded a running time under two hours.

It is a shame really, because the film has greatness in it... but they uncorked the bottle before it had time to mature.

Russell Crowe is relentlessly reliable on screen. He rarely, if ever, gives even a mediocre performance. It is no wonder that he is so highly regarded. I just thought that his character, Max Skinner (too obvious), was written so two-dimensionally as to handcuff his immense talent. I also thought his English accent was a little too "mate, blimey, b*llocks, b*gger, tally ho" -- If you know what I mean.

Marion Cotillard is typically brilliant as Fanny Chenal, the glorious vision of a waitress from the nearby town. She gives the film, and Max, some heart and soul. She is a fiery French lass with shampoo-commercial hair and skin that makes silk seem like sandpaper. I can't get enough of this actress. She is the visual equivalent of Pringles... once you pop, you can't stop.

Relative newcomer, Abbie Cornish, is also very impressive here. Again, her character, like all the others, is somewhat underwritten. She deserved much more screen time. However, this critic is 100% sure that she will have tons of screen time in many major films over the next decade or so. She is a future star, with talent and beauty in equal measures.

"A Good Year" may remind many of the similar Diane Lane adventure from the female perspective, "Under the Tuscan Sun". The main difference, aside from the sex of the protagonist, is that "Tuscan" decided from the get-go that it was going to be a lighthearted romantic comedy. I think that the screenplay for "A Good Year" got a little confused along the way. Sometimes it aims higher... and that is when it works the best. Other times it aims lower... and that is when it dwindles into lame slapstick comedy. If it had maintained a lofty romantic tone, it may have been one of the best films of the year. As it stands, it is a merely a nice film with a pleasant message.

© Written by TC Candler IndependentCritics.com

A Good Year is much like Peter Mayle's other books – shortish, picturesque, sometimes mouthwatering, generally light and definitely charming.

To that end, this film does the book excellent justice and even manages to make the cinematic transition without losing or adding much in the process. (Max has however become a blend of Wall Street's Gordon Gecco and Capt. Aubrey – a cold power hungry cut-throat exterior with a bit of a romantic hedonist hiding a Depardieu-like charming buffoon locked inside.) Sir Ridley Scott makes it clear that the real star here is the Provencal countryside in all of its golden sun soaked glory. Russell is the fulcrum that moves us from one beautiful scene to the next, lightly shuffling and dancing in over-sized pajamas with a suit jacket and a tie for a belt.

And oddly, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

As obvious as the story line is (both in the book and the film) it remains absolutely charming and Crowe's performance is an essential part of what makes it work, hammy or no. He looks great and his trust in Scott as a director allows him to simply have fun here – a nice break from all of the heavy (and often heavy handed) Oscar bait bio-pics he's pigeonholed himself into recently.

The rest of the cast is picture perfect. I've been waiting to see when Freddie Highmore would play a young Russell and he's lovely here, big eyed and gracefully gawky as young Max. He holds his own against Albert Finney's lovingly blustery Uncle Henry. Marion Cotillard is gorgeous as Fanny and also sturdy enough to hold her own against both Max and Crowe himself. Abbie Cornish is pretty and sweet and her American accent is damn near perfect. Isabelle Candelier is a colorful counterpoint to Max's stuffy British ways, but it is Didier Bourdon who nearly walks away with the picture. His is a character we haven't seen done a million times before and whose eyes hint at a story equal in richness to the Château itself. Archie Panjabi is Max's assistant, a character created for the film. As the all knowing and mischievously wicked Gemma she appears ready to run away with this picture. (And as always watch for a cameo by Ridley Scott's longtime partner Gianina Facio – I won't spoil your fun by telling you where she appears.) Again, there is nothing new or groundbreaking here. It will be compared to Under the Tuscan Sun and a long history of countless other films of this nature – an attractive woman or handsome bastard gets in touch with who they really are, gets back to basics and becomes who they were always meant to be.

Forgive me for taking this path, but the wine/film comparisons are inevitable with this one.

Like most of the films made today the fresh elements in this film come from the particular vision of the film maker, the chemistry of the cast and the way all of it can come together in a charming and palatable fashion. In other words, the blending of the key ingredient's.

It all comes down to being a matter of chemistry, craftsmanship and preference. Chemistry causes the grape to ferment and become wine. Craftmanship and experience make that wine something worth drinking. Chemistry amongst the elements of a film – story, cast and setting makes these pieces form a cohesive whole. Craftsmanship and experience make it a palatable film.

And the rest is simply a matter of taste.

Though it lacks the crisp originality of a sauvignon blanc, the hipness of a pinot grigio or the bold edginess of a Cabernet, but the elements here come together to make a film that plays pleasantly over the tongue like a decent rose – easy to sip and enjoy and given the chance could well leave you with the warm glow of a late summer afternoon.

But enough with the wine clichés! You could easily take advantage of the value of a matinée or opt to wait for DVD, though neither will do the scenery justice. This sweetly charming film will hold up equally well as a date movie, a mid week escape or something that you can take Mom to.

Worth a look.

-Roo's Reviews

I enjoyed this movie, it had class and character with some lovely ladies. Also I enjoyed the London footage with the contrast against France. Crowe, I think did very well and I was surprised at the end because I didn't now it was a Ridley Scott movie. It would now be interesting to read the book to see how closely it is represented. All things seemed to fit, and it was evident in last encounter with Crowe and his French girl from the scene of when he was a boy at the pool. Great romantic portrayal of an English French relationship. The movie also maintained a good level of humour encased with good vocabulary. I had heard this was a good movie and am glad to able to cement that in words.

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.

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...