"Gold" vs. "The Season" - opposite takes

→ in
Tools    





What do Gaghan's The Salesman and Farhadi's Gold have in common? Not much, except that the pro reviews in terms of approval/disapproval for each should have been switched.

I was mystified why The Salesman got such high reviews. It was a plain, linear, ho-hum story which could have been made in the '50s in the U.S. There seems to be a huge pro-Muslim bias among the leftist intelligentsia which evidently does not permit rational reviews. To me the film's chief plus was the total absence of profanity and sex. They would not even use the word "prostitute". Pretty refreshing.

The acting was competent, but I didn't see any glimmer of interesting direction that would nearly cause Ashgar Farhadi to qualify as the new Hollywood darling director, outside of him being Iranian. It's surprising to find oneself awake at the end of this film, except for the anticipation of a climactic payoff, of which there was none. Perhaps Farhadi has done some interesting films. This wasn't one of them.

The opposite is true for Gold, with Matthew McConaughey, directed by Stephen Gaghan. The critics moderately panned the film, finding it to be a disappointment. So it was with some trepidation that we watched it last night. However, to my delight, Gold was pretty much a classic well done adventure/gold seeking tale with a gratifying ending.

Set in 1988, McConaughey plays a commodity/minerals speculator who is trying to find something that will take off and make him rich. He happens upon a man who wants to prospect for gold in Indonesia. The story of their trials, tribulations, twists, and ultimate payoff develops from there.

McConaughey put on 45 pounds and shaved his pate for the role, which made him believable. He tends to go over the top in his performances, but here it was more or less in the nature of the part. Although it is hard to imagine that a character who continually drinks so heavily could function at his portrayed level, but yet it seemed fairly authentic.

Edgar Ramirez did a nice job as the partner, and the rest of the cast was very good, including cameos by Stacy keach and Craig T. Nelson.

Despite some similarities, this film is no Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but it's an enjoyable ride, and well worth a watch.

~Doc



Well, the comparison is kind of random here, isn't it? On the other hand saying that the acting is competent in The salesman is an understatement, I think. It is stellar, and it drives the entire film. For the most part the scenes are shot in single closed locations, so directing can't obviously take the lead here. The movie is kept minimalistic in that sense for a reason, reinforcing on the aspect of tension and character interaction.

Edit.- Okay, I read your whole comment better. Well excuse me while I retract from everything I said before. You don't deserve a serious answer in this thread.



Well yes, the movies themselves were random, one having nothing to do with the other. I had just seen them both, and read the reviews for each. I was struck by how each movie was the opposite of the impression each film had on me in comparison to the pro reviewers.

I agree that the acting in The Salesman was good, in an otherwise unremarkable film. I was surprised that Metascore averaged 85, with the "Hollywood Reporter" stating, ",,,a sense of contrived drama leads to some tedious sections. But all is forgiven when the final punches are delivered in a knock-out finale that leaves the viewer tense and breathless." Maybe this person is easily excited.

This was my first Farhadi film. Putting The Salesman aside, perhaps you could point me toward one you believe is very well done.

~Doc