Reel Opinions


Sunday, November 12, 2006

A Good Year

There are certain genres that some directors are known for. One genre that filmmaker Ridley Scott (Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator) is not known for is romantic comedy. If you need any proof of why this is, or why he should never set foot near a romantic comedy again, go see A Good Year. Or better yet, don't see it. While I have no problem with a director exploring film genres outside of his known field, here Ridley Scott seems lost in an aimless screenplay that instead of actually being clever or funny relies on simply being cute. Cuteness can only take a film so far, and since that is all A Good Year has to offer, it quickly collapses underneath its overlong two hour running time.

The film tells the story of Max Skinner (Russell Crowe), a cut-throat workaholic stock trader in London. Max is the kind of guy who cares little about anything except himself and making money. When he receives a letter that his Uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away and left Max his wine vineyard in France, he is forced to take his first vacation from his job in years in order to travel to the vineyard where he spent a good part of his childhood with his Uncle. When he arrives, Max plans to instantly turn around and sell the land he has inherited, but as he explores the area, he remembers the great times he used to enjoy on the property as a child, which we witness in numerous flashbacks. And when Max meets up with a lovely young waitress at a local restaurant named Fanny Chenal (Marion Contillard), it becomes harder to think of leaving and returning home to London. Another problem arises, as to whether Max should legally take ownership of the vineyard, when an American woman named Christie Roberts (Abbie Cornish) shows up at the door, claiming to be the illegitimate daughter of Uncle Henry.

I have no doubt that there is material in A Good Year that could make a charming movie, but this film handles it all wrong. For one, there is very little if any plot to speak of. There is no tension created between characters, nothing that can get us involved with the plot, and no real reason given as to why we should care about who gets the vineyard, or if Max will return to his old life as a bitter jerk who only cares about money. The characters are hopelessly shallow and about as deep as a puddle. The movie tries to show us the relationship between Uncle Henry and young Max Skinner (played as a boy by Freddie Highmore from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) through the use of various flashbacks placed throughout the film. However, these flashbacks are so brief and offer such little information on the characters themselves, we're left wondering why the screenplay by Marc Klein (Serendipity) even bothered to include them. We never get a true sense as to why the two characters were so close in the past, or why Henry would leave Max everything. The relationship between Max and lovely French woman Fanny Chenal is equally underdeveloped, which is odd, since she's supposed to be one of the driving forces behind Max's dilemma of whether he should return to London or stay in France. Like most couples in romantic comedies, they start off hating each other. The first time they meet, he almost runs her over with his car and doesn't even realize it, since he was so wrapped up in his cell phone conversation. She gets back at him by almost drowning him in the pool the next time they meet. After these two senseless acts of near-murder, Max decides to help her out at her restaurant job for reasons that are left somewhat unexplained by the script. Yes, I understand he wants to apologize to her for almost killing her and not realizing it, but they seem to forgive each other for their acts way too quickly, and there seems to be no reason for them to fall in love with each other except for the fact that the audience expects it. Judging by how their relationship started with both of them almost killing each other, I don't think I'd want to see what would happen should the couple decide to separate.

Aside from the main characters who drive the story, the rest of the cast are a collection of overly cute eccentrics who exist simply for cheap gags. There's the seemingly-grumpy vineyard worker with a heart of gold, there's a crazy old man who falls asleep while doing his chores around the vineyard, there's even a cute little dog who naturally gets to take a leak on Max's shoe in one scene. There seems to be no limit to what Ridley Scott will go for a laugh. Whether it be dated slapstick gags (Max is standing on a diving board over an empty pool, and the board naturally breaks), or awkward scenes where the film is sped up in order to inspire laughter from the audience (Max is driving around France lost, and the film speeds up briefly while he is driving around in circles, making it look like an outtake from The Benny Hill Show), A Good Year is willing to go to great lengths in order to be a crowd pleaser. The only problem is that the film is very seldom if ever funny. The sarcastic one liners from Max fall flat each and every time, and the overly cute side characters seem to be trying too hard. In the end, all the film has to rely on is its beautifully shot landscape shots of the French countryside. The fact that I watched Marie Antoinette (another hopelessly shallow film that only had its beautifully shot French scenery to its credit) the same day as A Good Year made me think I had just spent the entire day at the theater watching video brochures for France. Actually, I think both films would have been more entertaining if they were just two hours of the scenery instead of trying to get me involved with plots that neither movies obviously cared about.

Much like filmmaker Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe is not exactly known for his comedic work. And much like Scott, Crowe doesn't seem to have the knack for it. He comes across as being too cold and cynical, like he knows how ludicrous the movie is. Even when his character is supposed to have a change of heart during the later half of the story, he still seems like he hasn't changed all that much. Crowe is simply forced to spend most of his screen time mugging for the camera, and letting the cute and "wacky" side characters get all the laughs. His relationship with female lead Marion Contillard is strained and forced, as they have no real chemistry together. Then again, with how underwritten their characters' relationship is, it would take a miracle for any acting couple to breathe life into it. As the secondary female lead, Abbie Cornish probably comes across as the strongest performance in the film. She at least seems to be giving a somewhat heartfelt performance, rather than just simply being cute or trying too hard to be funny. Even so, her character is too underdeveloped to make much of a lasting impression, and there is simply no genuine tension between her character and Max, when there obviously should be. Everyone else in the cast is not even worth noting or commenting on, as they either appear too sporadically in the story to matter, or they simply fail to create any sort of spark in their performance.


A Good Year tries to force us to like unlikeable or uninteresting people. That obviously will not work. In a romantic comedy, we have to grow to like the characters, or want to see the main characters come together in the end. When you try to force these feelings upon your audience, you wind up with a hopelessly miscalculated final product. And that's exactly what this movie is. The pieces are there for a passable or even a great date movie, but the film is too emotionally frigid and tries too hard to get the reaction that it wants. As for Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I'm all for filmmakers and actors stretching past their known fields into other genres. All I ask is that they actually read the script first before they sign on.

See the movie times in your area or buy the DVD at Amazon.com!

0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger