We’ve now come to Ridley Scott’s latest film in his esteemed filmography with a crime thriller – All The Money In The World. A true story of the infamous Getty kidnapping that occured in early 70s Rome, concerning the grandson of the wealthiest man in the world – the oil tycoon John Paul Getty. The story goes that members of the crime syndicate, The Ndrangheta, kidnapped John Paul Getty’s grandson and held him for ransom, for one billion dollars from the tycoon himself. His mother Gail Harris (played by Michelle Williams) tries everything she can to save him but has to deal with corrupt officials and a wealthy man who doesn’t want to give any money away for fear of his other grandchildren’s safety. Working with a negotiator (played by Mark Wahlberg) under the stern advice of John Getty (played by Christopher Plummer) they have to use their wits and strength against the forces that be, and secure the safe return of John Paul Getty III before it’s too late.

Although it never serves to relentlessly hammer in the message too much, the message is clear that greed and avarice bring out the worst in people and power and wealth can be one’s ultimate downfall. Even when Getty’s son, his wife and grandson (played by Charlie Plummer, no relation) come to visit him in Rome, where a job offer is given to Getty II, who soon becomes a drug addled mess now fighting with his ex-wife Gail for custody of the children, tells you what kind of portrait the film wants to present and what effect it can have. The fact that Getty doesn’t even want to give money to save his own grandson’s life, serves as a cautionary tale on what sole financial gain, in the worst sense, could do. Christopher Plummer plays the part of tycoon Getty (initially to be played by Kevin Spacey, before allegations against him arose and he was replaced with Plummer) who commands attention and a dark sensibility about him that is really something to be admired and afraid of; I can watch him talk about only money and still be invested but at the same time, very uncomfortable.

Michelle Williams dares to take center stage and does so brilliantly, along with a surprisingly subtle and dignified performance from Mark Wahlberg in which he manages to find the suitable tone for his character in the film. Charlie Plummer and a sympathetic terrorist Cinquanta (played by Romain Duris) also back the leads with good performances as well and it’s with great respect to Ridley Scott who keeps the action and intrigue going while finding time to flesh out his characters all at once. This is a thriller in the conventional sense and while it could have simply been a typical story that only follows genre conventions, by having characters who you ultimately find or don’t find sympathetic yet still injecting a sense of intrigue and investment in them, rises above those conventions and make it overall engaging and entertaining.

This film may not be the best offering from Ridley Scott, nor is it his most profound, but neither is it bad or a complete failure. It is a good, solid, well acted and well thought out crime thriller that has a point to make about the negative connotations of greed and yet not get bogged down in either, making it fast paced and ultimately worth checking out.

3/5

So while Prometheus didn’t exactly wow everyone upon release, though some admired the film for its ambition, we now have a sequel to Prometheus that has been highly anticipated since its release in 2012. Expectations were raised; Will we learn much more about the formation of the Xenomorph and cinema’s most terrifying creature? What has happened to our two surviving characters from Prometheus? With a whole new roster of characters, does this film ultimately succeed? The story takes place eleven years after the events of Prometheus and a whole crew is once again in hibernation before the waking android Walter (played by Michael Fassbender) discovers a surge that damages the ship and in the process destroys a handful of crew members and human embryos, including the ship’s captain (played fleetingly by James Franco). Billy Crudup, playing the newel appointed ship’s leader, nervously tries to take control and suggests to intercept a signal that will divert from their destination but may seem interesting. Daniels (played by Katherine Waterston) is unsure of this but they proceed anyway. They rockingly arrive on the planet, filled with waterfalls and wheat growing but sense something isn’t right. Soon enough crewmembers get sick, the beastly aliens begin to attack and and old returning face, David (played once again by Michael Fassbender in dual characterisation) with unknown motivations and again a game of survival ensues.

The film pretty much sets itself out in a similar way to the other entries; crew awakens and faces problems, intercepting something they don’t know but are curious, they arrive on a strange world, characters may or may not get used for alien implantation. Also from what I can gather, Ridley is attempting to answer the critics of Prometheus, go back to a more formulaic approach and use more of the Xenomorphs in it, but by doing so the film just becomes entirely bog standard. A majority of the characters you don’t much care for and are written pretty badly. One character even has to break away from the group for personal need, ‘oh gee, I wonder if this character will make it?’ and it goes on like that for some time. Katherine Waterston is actually pretty good and while comparisons to Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley are inevitable, I think she tries her best to create her own powerful heroine but the script sells her short.

Michael Fassbender plays their android Walter and replays David from Prometheus in a dual performance. It’s fun to watch them debate about the existence of human kind and their own purpose for being, and Fassbender recaptures that creepy, angelic quality about David that made him memorable and therefore is the film’s most valuable asset. Even when the film has to go back to characters that are there to die, I think my overall problem with Covenant and to some extent with Prometheus, is that going back to try and explain the origins of the Xenomorphs themselves, takes out the scare factor. Alien worked because they were going up against a creature they don’t know of, where it came from or what it was truly capable of, all while trapped on a near tight ship. Here explaining the monster really ironically helps us to lose further interest than gain any at all.

The CGI work is particularly dodgy and awkward on the aliens themselves, how is it that a film from 1979 was made more convincing than any computer work from recent memory? The film is really in conflict, it can’t decide if it wants to overall appeal to audiences wanting more substance or to an audience craving more meat and potato fare. I was overall disappointed by the film and I think it may be time to put the nail in the coffin of the Alien franchise for good and that Scott should try and pursue projects that really stand on higher ground, like The Martian or American Gangster. Katherine Waterston and Michael Fassbender are the highlights of the film and I would say take the scenes of the duo Fassbender and just watch those scenes for some enjoyment but the film is a step back.

Prometheus at least had an ambitious vision and dared to try and take on the franchise from a different story arc, even when it didn’t overall succeed and I can admire it for that, but this, as stated in my Prometheus review, is like going back entirely to square one.

2/5

Ridley Scott this time has adapted Andy Weir’s best-selling novel of the same name, which detailed a stranded astronaut’s story to survive on Mars with the resources he has and botany skills to boot. Scripted by Drew Goddard of The Cabin in the Woods fame and starring Matt Damon in the central role of Mark Watney. All of this has come together to form one of Ridley Scott’s best films for some time; certainly at this point in time, his best film since American Gangster. The story goes that a space crew is stationed on Mars, there to explore the Acidalia Planitia plain as part of their expedition. A storm rages which prompts them to leave, but not before Mark Watney (played by Matt Damon) is struck by a piece of a satellite antenna and is presumed dead by the crew. NASA gets wind of this and has a memorial service in his name, believing him to dead. Sure enough, Watney survives but is in risk of losing air. Having managed to make it to to the base, he comes to the realization that he is alone, with little food and contact with no-one. Therefore using a space log to update his activities, he plans to use his special botany skills and ingenuity to survive and make contact in the hope that he can somehow escape and reunite with his crew and Earth itself.

The film works on a number of levels. The cast themselves are part of an ensemble and all shine together in this film. From Matt Damon as our lead, a worn down but cocky and confident individual, who you all root for to make it back home in the long run, to Jessica Chastain as the ship’s commander Melissa Lewis, the authoritative and leading figure to her crew and all out disco music fan, to Chiwetel Ejiofor as NASA’s director of space missions who carries the burden on earth to bring Watney back safely, to Jeff Daniels director of NASA who is cautious and decisive to a fault, just to name a few. The film manages to be surprisingly funny even during the more sombre and dark moments and by no means is this film a comedy (as the Golden Globes believed it was…) nor is it out of place or sporadic, which is a credit to Drew Goddard’s script who possesses a successful track record of subtly blending drama and comedy together to great effect.

I think it is also credit to Ridley Scott, who doesn’t downplay or fight against the right tone for the film, but more flows with it – sometimes a script and Scott’s vision in the past would conflict disastrously – but here it’s lighting in a bottle. The steps Watney takes to survive, whether growing potatoes in a confined space of dirt and faeces by using leftover rocket fuel to produce hydrogen, or dismantling equipment and ship parts to make movement viable by direction of NASA scientists, is fascinating to watch, not just because you know what’s at stake but the level of humourous insight render any steps into dreariness, making it an awesome but reflective thrill ride of a film. Just watching the film blending all those successful elements together marks it as a successful rendition of the novel itself and offers surprises along the way.

This is certainly a film that isn’t there to make a grand, ultimate statement nor is it trying to be a deep, experience film like in the vein of 2001: a Space Odyssey or Interstellar but is just simply an entertaining enjoyable survival story that has its moments of reflection and more than enough time for you spend time with Watney on his journey to survive and also be in the company of a great cast to boot. To the power of the botanist and film director, this is definitely one of his best outings and reaffirms Ridley Scott as one of cinema’s greatest storytellers.

5/5

Exodus Gods and Kings is a biblical epic, telling the story of how Moses led his people away from slavery and the tight grip of Pharaoh Ramses, under the guidance and leadership of God. This story had been covered plenty of times within the annals of Hollywood history, the most famous case is Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 film The Ten Commandments starring Charlton Heston as Moses. This is essentially a remake of the film and follows the story pretty closely. A brief synopsis is that Moses (played here by Christian Bale) having been adopted by Pharaoh and is his general to his entire army. Ramses (played by Joel Edgerton) his half brother, grows more power mad as construction of the pyramids grows in new heights and soon Moses becomes further disillusioned from his tyrannical family when a slave (played by Ben Kingsley) informs him of his true Hebrew origins. Later on, he wanders alone into the desert and seeks solace with a local priest’s daughter, whom he later marries, has a son, and lives out nine years with them within a peaceful commune. God, grown weary of the Jews enslavement and cruel treatment, thrusted upon by Ramses, orders Moses to lead them away from slavery and start a new. Finally returning home, he warns Ramses to let his people go otherwise there are bad omens to come and the rest is pretty self-explanatory.

A story that is as huge as this, is guided by Ridley Scott in slow brushstrokes. It would be unwise to assume that the treatment would necessarily be eventful every minute or so, the film deliberately takes its time to set up the inner conflict with Moses and where his true spiritual loyalties lie. And while at times that can be quite moving, for the most part it’s not very compelling. There was just something to the 1956 epic that, while character development or subtlety was in short supply, there was a great charm and longevity to the effects, used to create not only the plague sequences but also the separation of the ocean that God conjures up to help Moses and his people and wash away those that defied him – which was a true part of that film’s legacy. This version from Scott does have the updated CGI technology to create the waves as gigantic and the plagues and omens as stunning and even creepy in parts, but when the film relies on that alone to tell its story in 2014, it just isn’t enough.

Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton are cast as Moses and Ramses respectively, and while racial insensitivity notwithstanding, they don’t make for very compelling leads. The arc of Ramses going from this loyal and positive brother to the tyrannical dictator that he would become, is not evident here, and so we are left with someone who is pretty one-dimensional. Christian Bale doesn’t fare much better, the script doesn’t have much to work with apart from either look sombre or react to miraculous things around him. Even background characters that are set up, such as Aaron Paul’s slave character Joshua, who is effectively Moses’s confidante, for the most part is simply reduced to taking a step back to Moses’s scenes of speech giving and God confiding.

The film’s biggest problem is that it certainly doesn’t distinguish itself from other versions of the story and what it does provide is essentially a visual feast of spectacle, and while I’m not exactly opposed to that, the film needed so much more to really stand out on its own and so it just comes across as pointless. To create an updated version of the story and deliver the message of the significance of the story of the Ten Commandments is an admirable one and it’s certainly a very beautiful and atmospheric piece of work but without the compelling characters and with a sluggish pace to be burdened with, the film is unfortunately redundant. I’d say see it if you are purely driven by spectacle alone but others need not apply.

2/5

This rough patch of Ridley Scott’s esteemed filmography needs to stop soon and nowhere is closer to the truth than this film. Written by author Cormac McCarthy of No Country for Old Men fame, the story and I use the term loosely, goes as follows. Michael Fassbender, simply known as the Counsellor, is a lawyer for high profile members of the Cartel and soon gets involved with cementing a drug deal that would be worth a great deal to those involved. He is set up by his friend and client, Reiner (played by Javier Bardem) and financially ambitious girlfriend Malkina (played by Cameron Diaz). Setting up the deal with business associate Westray (played by Brad Pitt) after being warned of the potential danger involved, The Counsellor is unconcerned and proceeds anyway but very soon, dangerous people are involved, deceit and murder starts to become a foot and what starts out as a potential business deal goes horribly awry and the Counsellor has to soon defend himself as well as his fiance (played by Penelope Cruz) from sudden doom.

When you have a cast like that, with Ridley Scott behind the wheel and with Cormac McCarthy penning the dialogue, it sounds like a winning combination – alas no. This is one of the most dull, pretentious, and creatively inert films that I’ve ever seen. Cormac McCarthy’s dialogue is one of the worst elements of this film, he is a talented author but here it’s like the Emperor has received new clothes and also a script that was this film, as one big gift package. Every conversation in this film is written in the most pseudo-intellectual drivel that it’s hard to take seriously but because the film relies on this spoken, exposition driven narrative, it becomes overly boring.

It doesn’t help that Ridley Scott directs the cast to speak the dialogue in mostly hushed and serious tones, that it really makes it seem difficult and forced. The film takes plenty of twists and turns and character arcs that overlap each other, which heavily remind you that films like Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic or Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Amores Perros have done this narrative much better and with far more interest behind it all. Michael Fassbender is one of our most talented actors working today and he really does try to give the dialogue some credibility but even he can’t save this film from falling apart.

Not to mention that despite some sequences that are violent and out there, there was one scene that involved Cameron Diaz and a car that really defied belief and really should have been taken out the film all together, it didn’t further the story or really add anything, it was just gratuitous. On paper or as a simple pitch, there is something there that I’m sure would have seemed like a film to knock it right out of the park but as it is, it doesn’t even reach first base. I think as well that this film with all its intellectual dialogue and criss-crossing that the film is deliberately meant to be vague and mysterious but honestly just comes across as incomprehensible nonsense.

The cast themselves are talented in general but they deserve better material than what they were given and Ridley Scott really does need to find a better platform to showcase his momentous storytelling abilities – one can only hope.

1/5

So after taking on projects that haven’t necessarily worked out for him; Ridley Scott endeavours to return to the Alien Franchise, by going back to what started the aliens in the first place with Prometheus. A prequel for sure, the story takes place in the future of 2089, a pair of archaeologists, Elizabeth Holloway (played by Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (played by Logan Marshall-Green) uncover some drawings within a cave on Earth that may expose a group of engineers that may hold the answer to the origin of man. Set up identical to the first film, they lead a team of scientists and soldiers to the planet where the engineers originated from and funded by the mysterious CEO of Weyland Corporation (played by an elderly Guy Pearce in make-up). As they arrive they discover a cave of sorts that reveals symbolic artifacts, statues and what appears to be egg shaped cocoons and it isn’t long before they find they may have discovered more than they bargained for as their lives, as well as the residents of Earth themselves, could be in critical danger.

So from first viewing, you can tell that they want you to be back into familiar territory, despite this being a different story to the entries that have come before – which have all concerned Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley. In this the filmmakers have set up things pretty identically to the first. The voyage itself, featuring the crew waking up from animated suspension, the crew taking an android with them, the set design that heavily reflect H.R. Giger’s design work on the original film and deliberately having a strong female protagonist that tries to link to the great qualities of Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley. All of which ties neatly to the franchise itself but what about what this entry brings to the table?

Well the positives are that the set design is absolutely sumptuous to look at, the work here done this time by Arthur Max clearly shows how much it wants to pay tribute to the original film’s look and still give a slick, updated but also ominous tone to the film. Michael Fassbender as the android David is sneakily brilliant, evoking something mysterious, creepy but somehow charming to evade any suspicion and is something to be applauded. This also avoids any woodeness that might perpetuate from playing a secretive robot – I’d even dare say he was more memorable than Ian Holm’s android Ash from Alien. I would also say that the cinematography aligns itself with the design itself to be beautiful to look at but also keep that visually disgusting feature about the creature metamorphosis and movement that was a huge part of creating that terrifying legacy of the original.

Unfortunately the film doesn’t all together work, the film is ambitious in wanting to link in a higher power to form the aliens to come but that only shows in set design, rather than power of storytelling and for the most part we are back to square one with characters fighting to survive against a deadly force. Noomi Rapace doesn’t have the long-lasting power that Sigourney Weaver gave with Ripley and unfortunately pales in comparison but she tries her best here. The memorable camaraderie that the original crew had in Alien is lost here, with stock characters who are either there to die or serve the plot in motion. Guy Pearce in this film is very odd and under all the strange make up they give him, you wonder why they didn’t just cast an elderly actor for the role and with the film attempting to take a step back with explanation for slice and dice thrills, leaves the film with more questions than it does answers.

Overall I admired the film’s ambition and Scott exploring territory that he doesn’t find himself lost in; however there are plenty of elements there that hold the film back which feels like a missed opportunity. I’m going to be more lenient with this because of this but it should have been better.

3/5

Ridley Scott takes on here another re-telling of the Robin Hood legend: the saviour of Nottingham, to rob from the rich and give to the poor – major difference being this is an origin story, going back to what may have created the legend in the first place. Robin Hood (played by Russell Crowe) is an archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart while in the midst of a siege of Chalus Castle in 1199. Feeling disillusioned by the drive of the crusade, Robin Hood and his merry men seek to escape from their posts after their king is slain in battle but face conflict when Godfrey (played by Mark Strong) a knight who has betrayed the crown and has assassinated King Richard by orders of King Philip of France, attacks and slays a group of knights, including Sir Robert Loxley, (played by Douglas Hodge).

Robin Hood promises the dying Hoxley to return his sword to his father, which he and his men sees that as an opportunity to return home. Arriving in Nottingham to return the sword to Sir Walter Loxley (played by Max Von Sydow) Robin meets Loxley’s widow Maid Marian (played by Cate Blanchett) who is a fiesty and tough and initially hesitant and suspicious towards Robin but gradually something of a connection starts brewing between them. Meanwhile Robin returns the crown to Prince John and John is declared King on the spot and soon proceeds to create an all out tyranny in Nottingham, demanding unreasonable tax and taking all what he can. Godfrey temporarily sides with him before hatching his own plans and it’s up to Robin Hood to take leadership and form the legend to come.

The film attempt to cover a great deal of plot, trying to cover significant moments of history as well pretty much inventing the character that we are all aware of in several stories and media – resulting in a very baggy and muddled film. Going back to the central character’s origins is different from the several interpretations that have come before it, which effectively show him as the famous outlaw in action, in theory could work, but ultimately it’s a film that doesn’t take flight as it should do. First it’s a film that doesn’t know the audience it’s primarily made for; it’s rated 12 that’s suitable for young kids but is shot so dark and dreary that there isn’t much action-packed fun to be had, and with it being a 12, the action sequences feel completely toothless.

Russell Crowe, in what is to this day the latest in his collaboration with Ridley Scott, can’t decide what region he is from, Scotland, Ireland, down under, his accent is all over the map and it’s really distracting. I said before about the film being mudded with plot; there are also too many characters and side stories that the script provides, but doesn’t know how to wrangle them all together, to the point where you aren’t sure who’s aligned with who, where they are in the story or what their story is for that matter. There isn’t any space to care about the characters when the film is more interested in atmosphere and piecing together certain factoids of history like it’s a puzzle box.

If there is anything positive to be taken from the film I would say that the atmosphere in question is well shot, evoking dark and down-beat styles that do come across quite moody and there are a few side performances that stand out, like Max Von Sydow who is always a magnificent screen presence and Mark Addy as Friar Tuck, even when his character is lost to the plot, he does shine in what is effectively a small role. But as it stands it’s just not as a terrifically exciting film as it was marketed to be. It’s dull, long and has a miscast performance from Russell Crowe that doesn’t fit the bill; it’s a complete mess. Watch the film for certain atmospheric sequences but skip the rest.

2/5

Well Ridley Scott certainly was cranking them out around this point wasn’t he? There had been a significant amount of time between some of his earlier films, as opposed to around the midpoint of the noughties where he seems to have made a film per year. That can have a problematic effect with the overall quality; you can have hits like American Gangster and Matchstick Men or complete bombs like A Good Year. In the case of Body of Lies it seems to fall in between. The plot is based around American and Arab relations and communications during the Obama era, and how surveillance and technological interference can possibly have a negative impact down the line.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Roger Ferris, a field officer who is assigned to track down a terrorist named Al-Saleem, the leader of a terrorist organisation, which is linked with Al Qaeda. After a meeting with an informant in Iraq goes horribly wrong, a series of bombings strike, one in Amsterdam and Manchester. Ferris proceeds to go to Jordan to seek him out, with Ed (played by Russell Crowe) the CIA’s head man in the East division, communicating with him from an earpiece from the United States. Agreeing to partner up with Jordan’s head of the general intelligence directorate Hani Salaam (played by Mark Strong) for information about Al-Saleem, he soon becomes involved and entangled in a web of deceit and political unrest. Thrown into this is a nurse named Aisha (played by Golshifteh Farahani) who Ferris becomes dangerously involved with and which could affect not only his position, but also their lives as things get too deep in.

The film raises an issue which remains a hot debate, the use of surveillance to spy on and observe Eastern countries for the sake of security is one that rages on and the film here clearly doesn’t sugarcoat the issue, in fact it the film SO doesn’t sugarcoat the issue almost to the point of heavy-handedness. I will say that Leonardo DiCaprio is good with a role which asks him not too reveal too much as well as Russell Crowe who is effective as someone who is sly and slick as he hides behind the earpiece. However, the best performance in the whole film is Mark Strong, who not only manages to be calm, collected and effectively suave but is by far the most engaging performance of the film. I think the biggest problem for me is an engagement level; I think the film thinks that what’s happening, or perhaps not happening at all, is more interesting than it actually is.

Even seeing everything through the lens of camera surveillance and observing conversations and debates about intel, I feel like I’m not being immersed in the drama as much as I’m operating as an outsider – which maybe the point of the film – but that doesn’t make it any more interesting. There are certainly sequences of nail biting tension and suspense whenever Leonardo DiCaprio’s character deals with some extreme situations but they feel more like a sequence of events rather than a flowing narrative. There is potential here for a hugely interesting story and particularly with this being a real and problematic debate, it could have been much more. However, with Ridley Scott providing only solid and not excellent direction and William Monahan’s script that doesn’t raise enough interest into the subject matter as much as it should do, I’m ultimately left feeling cold.

The performances certainly raise themselves above the material and the cinematography by Alexander Witt giving the film an almost voyeuristic and technically efficient eye but unfortunately the film’s heavy handed approach doesn’t lend much to complete engagement and at the very least the film provides a debate to be discussed and thought out.

2 and a half/ 5

American Gangster as a cop or crime thriller, taking place from the late 60s to the early 70s and evokes the cop thrillers at the time which had cornered cinema, like Sidney Lumet’s Serpico or William Friedkin’s Oscar winning The French Connection. Those films detail the undercurrent themes between the side of the law and the side of the criminal underbelly and how reactionary either side can be when obtaining their ultimate goals of beating each other. The story of American Gangster takes place in Harlem where gangster Bumpy Johnson, passes away and leaves his protege Frank Lucas (played by Denzel Washington) to take control of Harlem once again.

Attempting to make a name for himself, he successfully sets up a system where he imports pure uncut heroin, from top producers in Vietnam, through secret military contacts and soon he becomes the celebrity and crime kingpin of Harlem City. Meanwhile maverick cop Richie Roberts (played by Russell Crowe) is facing a divorce and a potential separation from his child as well as trust issues from his partners and superiors for booking in unmarked cash that was found in the boot of a car. Dealing with the loss of his corrupt partner, Roberts is assigned to lead up a drug case that potentially leads back to Frank Lucas himself. What develops is a cat and mouse game of Roberts and crew taking down the charismatic but dangerous Frank Lucas and also uncovering a field of corruption and power that could potentially endanger them and their careers in the process.

This is probably Ridley Scott’s most entertaining film to watch for some time; from the casting, to the locations, to the thrills, to the pacing and the brilliantly written structure of both characters on either side of the fence. Denzel Washington is well cast here, ranging from suave, smug and threatening in all the same features, which brilliantly contrasts with Crowe who is frustrating and even tough to deal with as a character. We know that Frank has effectively built his empire and took care of his family so, while popular, he has to fight to keep himself at the top whilst Roberts has to fight to earn respect and become the decorated cop he wants to be by taking him down. As it is, it makes for an interesting narrative, made effective through the script of Steven Zaillian.

The film is shot in the style of those aforementioned movies, drab and dark lighting with an old-fashioned aesthetic that makes the film raw and gives the film an edge to be aligned with those classic cop thrillers. The film is roughly two and a half hours long but it does move at such a brisk pace which makes use of every minute on screen and while Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe don’t share as much screen time together, there are plenty of stand out performances in the background that are memorable like Idris Elba’s gangster rival character and Josh Brolin’s corrupt detective character that greatly make up the reigns of the plot. The film is nothing less than thrilling and tense, there are high stakes to be had here and while the film follows a predictable path, there’s a great sense of the period in time, that you become invested almost immediately.

On top of that, with a cast that are committed to the storylines on screen, especially Washington and Crowe who do battle with each without any confrontation whatsoever, this makes for a very engaging, smooth, evocative and rough around the edges thriller that creates a stark portrayal of the rise and fall of power and corruption on screen. Miles ahead of what Ridley Scott has made around that period, this is an effective thriller in the best sense of the word.

4 and a half/ 5

Now I know that Ridley Scott can do good work around stories and characters and bring out a certain longevity that reside in the world of cinema, and at this point we have come to expect great things from him as a result. However it’s amazing to me that an adaptation of a book by Peter Mayle (A Life in the Province) and is essentially a Rom-Com from Ridley Scott, starring Russell Crowe, has somehow ended up being, probably one of the worst films from Scott thus far.

The story itself centers around a posh, eccentric English cad and trader played by Russell Crowe (stay with me here!) who is self-centered, care free and generally small-minded. It soon comes to his attention that his uncle, who he shared childhood memories with at his chateau in France, has departed this world and the chateau itself is left to him. Self centred as he is, he sees a business opportunity to sell it and get a good deal from it. He arrives in Province at the Chateau and sees how run down it is, seeing how things haven’t been maintained like the pool and wine cellar underneath and while finding out there is an issue with selling it he is made to stay there longer. It isn’t long before he soon begins to feel nostalgic for the whole place, everyone and everything in the beautiful town of Province and maybe, just maybe he may not want to leave everything after all.

From even the first couple of scenes I can tell how irritating the lead protagonist is going to be and the first of many problems is this, Russell Crowe can’t do charming British comedy. His miscasting is so obvious you would have thought he had just stumbled on to the set from a late night party and they just stuck a camera on him. He is clearly trying to emulate actors like Hugh Grant or Colin Firth with over-the-top British smugness but it just comes across as laughably inert, creating an unlikeable central protagonist who you really wish would just sell the house so that the film would be over with. Ridley as well doesn’t escape blame either, there are scenes where he is trying to stage situation comedy but because comedy isn’t Scott’s forte you are only left befuddled as a result.

The film becomes tiresome and predictable, with no comedic timing whatsoever as we have to watch Crowe stumble his way through Provence and with a borderline offensive posh english accent to top. Would any good actor carry out the role with some any dignity? I’d say no because a bad script is a bad script and Scott is clearly out of his depth and comfort zone attempting to make a Rom-Com that lacks either of those two elements. I am glad that this film provided a holiday for those involved, but having to watch them on holiday is far less interesting than it might have seen on paper.

This film provides a love interest in the form of Marion Cotillard who initially hates Crowe’s character because of an incident involving his car but you know as it goes on that she will start to fall for his charms and see something in him that she may have misjudged at initial glance. This film doesn’t work at all, it’s not as romantic as it should be because there is no chemistry between the two, the comedy isn’t there because Scott and Crowe aren’t natural comedy makers and there simply isn’t anything you haven’t already seen before – aside from Russell Crowe badly doing a posh British type which defies belief when seeing it and hopefully not again. Maybe there is a chance that Ridley Scott could make a great Rom-Com in the near future – but for now let’s go back to basics eh?

1 and a half/ 5