The idea is nothing new. Ruthless city slicker (bond broker, of course) remembers his childhood and regains his soul in beautiful sunny Provence, where his uncle had this great vineyard.
From the very beginning I could see that the introspection, written text bits and some of the details did not fit the usual cliché and that it was probably based on a book. Apparently, Ridley Scott had the idea, gave it to a guy to write the book, then, when the book wasn't quite like what he wanted, he made the film based on the book , but with his original idea in the background. And it shows!
The movie is not terribly romantic, even if it has all the setting and opportunity. It is not a very emotional movie, even if it should have evoked feelings of nostalgia and love of nature. It's not even a nature shot film, as the beautiful scenery is mostly wasted in useless scenes and most of the movie is placed either in the city or in the house.
So where does this get us? Nowhere! Just a failure of a film with a failure of a script. Even my wife said it was bad. Bottom line: really boring and implausible.
From the very beginning I could see that the introspection, written text bits and some of the details did not fit the usual cliché and that it was probably based on a book. Apparently, Ridley Scott had the idea, gave it to a guy to write the book, then, when the book wasn't quite like what he wanted, he made the film based on the book , but with his original idea in the background. And it shows!
The movie is not terribly romantic, even if it has all the setting and opportunity. It is not a very emotional movie, even if it should have evoked feelings of nostalgia and love of nature. It's not even a nature shot film, as the beautiful scenery is mostly wasted in useless scenes and most of the movie is placed either in the city or in the house.
So where does this get us? Nowhere! Just a failure of a film with a failure of a script. Even my wife said it was bad. Bottom line: really boring and implausible.