Skip to main content

So the house is falling apart and the vineyard makes undrinkable wine. Excellent.

A Good Year
(2006)

(SPOILERS) I oughtn’t really to like A Good Year. And, kind of, I don’t. But I kind of do too. Despite entirely floundering on a number of levels that should entirely incapacitate it on the starting line, it’s probably the most likeable, personable movie Ridley Scott has made in the past two decades. Which doesn’t make it very good, but it’s very evident he actually had something invested in what he was making for a change.


Top of the list of things that don’t work – since he’s in almost every scene – is Russell Crowe playing, effectively, Hugh Grant. If Hugh Grant had ever played a yuppie in the big city needing to discover his softer side via a sojourn in the French countryside. Crowe’s got the caricature of a toff accent down sufficiently, but he just isn’t the chinless cad type, and he isn’t a master of light comedy either, no matter how many times he brushes his hands through his floppy fringe in an approximation Oor Hughie. 


He’s a particular strain in the early stages of the picture, strutting the brokerage floor calling his staff "lab rats" or attempting casual pratfalls; it’s a horridly affected performance at the outset. However, transition him into a romance with Marion Cotillard, and he finds his footing. Which means the second part of the film – and typically of Ridley, it’s a two-hour fifteen-minute movie that should be at least an hour shorter – is a much more amenable, approachable experience.


The other big problem, which again sort of drops away when the romance becomes the focus, is that there’s a reason Scott hadn’t done a comedy before (Thelma & Louise doesn’t count); he’s got zero comic timing. Sure, he can handle a laugh when it derives from a dramatic situation (Thelma & Louise can hold its hand up here), but one only has to look at his execution of comic hijinks, such as Max Skinner (Crowe) racing round and round a village fountain in a smart car like he’s auditioning for Benny Hill, to realise he’s utterly clueless. Tellingly, Ridders hasn’t returned to the genre since, although it might have something to do with A Good Year bombing (it barely made back its budget).


It was that rarity for Scott: a project he initiated, having lived in Provence for fifteen years at that point (so it must now be a quarter of a century, if he’s still in residence) and wanting to make a movie there (the entire thing was filmed eight minutes of his house, so goes the boast). He went to Peter Mayle, whose A Year in Provence had met with considerable success, spawning a TV series starring John Thaw; Mayle ended up turning the idea into a novel rather than a screenplay, one that diverged from what Scott wanted. So Scott harnessed Marc Klein to refashion the essentials. 


There are rocky elements from the off, notably the intrusive flashbacks to Albert Finney’s Uncle Henry and an endlessly precocious Freddie Highmore as the young Max; Max spent many of his summers with Henry, who has recently expired and left his property to him. It’s nice to see Finney in a Scott movie again (the last was his first, The Duellists), and he’s on effortlessly iconic form as the kind of figure who would stay with you throughout your life, no matter how distant you become, but the device itself never feels less than bodge (at one stage in the writing, Henry was planned as a ghost speaking to the present-day Max). There’s also an annoyingly affirmative retrieved memory device, linking Max’s childhood to his present; Scott evidently thought it was such a great idea, he used it again for Robin Hood. And yet, the longer you stay with the director’s detour from his accustomed genre, the more his evident love of the countryside (gorgeously photographed by Phillipe Le Sourd) rubs off on you, as it does Max. 


It helps that the supporting cast are note perfect. On the Gallic side, there’s Didier Bourdon as the estate’s idiosyncratic winemaker and Isabelle Candelier as his frisky wife (there’s only five years between Crowe and Bourdon, although there’s evidently supposed to be many more). Cotillard is perfect as the irresistible, uncatchable Fanny, and Abbie Cornish very appealing as Max’s illegitimate sibling Christie, who importunely shows up to put a potential spanner in Max’s plans for a quick sale of the chateau and vineyard. 


Best of all is Tom Hollander as Max’s estate agent chum Charlie, a scene-stealing reminder of how the lead should have been performed – privileged, slightly obnoxious, but very funny – and he makes a much more engaging, relentlessly toffy toff than Crowe ("We don’t say shabby, Max. We say filled with the patina of a bygone era"; "This is a disaster. Mr froggy wine man has just knocked a million off our sale price"; "In France, is it actually illegal to shag your own cousin?": "Only if she’s ugly")


MaxI love this place. It’s intoxicating. I can’t for the life of me think why I stopped coming down here.

A Good Year also comes armed with an infectiously catchy, jaunty little score from Mark Steitenfeld (a protégée of Hans Zimmer who went on to provide the accompaniment for the next four Scott movies) that does a lovely job evoking an enticing, frivolous, luxuriant mood. It’s a foregone conclusion that Max will forsake being an asshole in the city for the good life in France, and even given the grievous miscasting, you’re rooting for him to make the right choice. This applies to the movie as a whole: even though you know Scott has made better, that it’s something of a mess and that the stabs at broad comedy fail entirely, A Good Year still has a certain charm. How many Scott movies conjure a place you’d actually want to visit?


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …