jimenarr It's the only way to get through the whole movie. I don't understand how it gets so many good reviews. Were people drunk or just crazy? First I'll address the terrible wig. Wearing a wig instead of getting the needed hair-do is understandable if it's for a couple of minutes, but this guy used it throughout the whole movie and it was worse than Barbie's hair! A Razzy to the stylist of this movie was rooted for.Then we have the drama with the unnecessary father-son fights, the hottie having a disguised wet-tshirt standalone to allure those Hollywood producer pervs, and the intense Mexican who sadly, but not surprisingly, does not get the girl in the end. They sent the wiggy to represent them all and, predictably enough, as soon as his wine wins all is over. "Let's not tell them what red wine won" thought the writer, "we have Kirk, that's enough". I didn't know much about how California wine became important, and this movie changed nothing. I enjoyed more the Wikipedia article on this than that long, unbearable movie. Bad directing, terrible script, the make-up and styling seems to have been done by a square- minded stereotypical-based team and, worst of all, they prolonged the drama just to create a suspense that did not make up for the 110+ minutes it lasts.

MBunge This movie is based on real life events, credits 4 people for its story, 3 for its actual screenplay and I wouldn't be surprised if dozens of other folks were brought in to give this script an uncredited tweak or two. It is terribly plotted, contains one of the most arbitrary love triangles in cinema history and builds a lot of its conflict on one of its main characters becoming more and more of a bastard as the film goes along, only to turn around and expect the audience to root for that character to succeed. Yet for all that, Bottle Shock validates the shoddy way Hollywood treats screenwriters by proving an appealing cast and a confident director can salvage something watchable from even the worst writing.Inspired by a 1976 wine tasting where French wines were pitted against the unheralded product of the vines from California's Napa Valley, this movie does a nice job introducing a cast of interesting characters. There's Steven Spurrier (Alan Rickman), a British oenophile struggling for acceptance from French wine society who comes up with the idea of the blind taste test. Egged on by his American expatriate friend Maurice (Dennis Farina), Spurrier heads to the U.S. to find what he expects to be feeble competition for French vino. There he meets Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman), a driven man who's left behind a successful career to try and make it all on his own as a vintner. Jim's aimless son Bo (Chris Pine) is still clinging to the hippie lifestyle, though he relates to his father in a most un-hippie way as they beat the snot out of each other in a makeshift boxing ring. Jim's right hand man at the winery is Gustavo (Freddy Rodriguez), a Mexican-American who was raised among the vines and claims wine as his birthright. They're all joined by Sam (Rachael Taylor), an intern at Jim's winery who jumps from Gustavo's bed to Bo's like a huge wine slut.After introducing those characters, however, Bottle Shock really doesn't have much to do with them. It has the big ending with the taste test in France, but nothing to really get to that ending from the beginning. I'm not sure if the true story simply didn't have enough twists and turns, but this movie kills time by throwing everything it can into the middle of its script like somebody frantically trying to plug a leak in a row boat. The story shifts its focus from one character to another for no particular rhyme or reason, morphs from a fictional drama to a Ken Burns-style hagiography of Napa Valley and back again, spends shockingly little time with the two characters who end up being central to the movie's climax and inexplicably spends a lot of time with a subplot involving Gustavo that's never fully explained and ultimately forgotten about.Bottle Shock has all the classic signs of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Throw in Chris Pine wearing what looks like a leftover Spicoli wig from Fast Times at Ridgemont High and this film probably should have been a disaster. It isn't, though, thanks largely to the committed efforts of its cast and sure hand of its director creating a pleasant experience for the viewer. These actors make you enjoy spending time with them and director Randall Miller manages to keep the muddled story moving forward while filling the screen with gorgeous scenery and doing just enough to convey a legitimate interest in wine and wine culture to the audience.I'd bet that even the people who made Bottle Shock don't fully understand how they took such a flawed script and made something reasonably fun and entertaining out of it. It's the mystery of the collaborative process of filmmaking and it's the reason screenwriters are famously treated so poorly by actors, directors, producers and everybody else in Hollywood. Aspiring writers might do well to avoid this movie for fear of being overcome by frustration and depression, but most others will have a good time watching it.

ladyshoes Being a huge fan of Alan Rickman, I queued this movie up in Netflix as soon as I saw it. Rickman, is, of course, spot on with a subtle and wonderful performance as the British wine snob. I was also surprised to see so many other great actors in this movie such as Bill Pullman, Freddie Rodriguez and Chris Pine. The cast is great and the story is compelling. I literally found myself on the edge of my seat during some of the scenes, not normally something I would suspect from a movie of this sort.I was also impressed at how this movie told the true story of Napa Valley's emergence into the wine community as a true contender. I wasn't familiar with the history of California wines so this movie was very educational. I think this is a great movie for wine enthusiasts but even those who don't care for wine will be entertained.

jhammond59 Bottle Shock is the latest in a series of wine-related movies, kick-started by Sideways, with a dubious oenological lineage. (I had issues with that film as well.) Since I'm a movie nut, as well as a wine and screenplay writer, I had to comment on this film. There is no need for a spoiler warning unless you don't know who won the wine competition. First off, I did enjoy the movie. Any movie that has Alan Rickman cast as a wine snob will get my attention. Can any other actor sneer as fulsomely as Rickman? I doubt it, and his role as the Englishman, Steven Spurrier, couldn't have been better. Spurrier set up the blind tasting event between French Burgundy and Bordeaux wines and their California counterparts. Dennis Farina was also good as his amiable business associate. The setting of 1976 Paris was well mounted for the actual judgment at movie's end. (Even though the actual tasting was shot in Napa.) In many respects, this was a reasonable reenactment of the events surrounding the Paris tasting in 1976, which I learned from reading George Taber's book, The Judgment of Paris. When the story moved to Napa and images of dusty vineyards rolled by, it triggered memories of my own explorations there, proof they did a good job of evoking Napa in the 70's. Bill Pullman as the irascible owner of Château Montelena, Jim Barrett, hit all the right notes and played off Rickman well. The following dialog between Pullman and Rickman pretty much sums up what I mean. Jim Barrett: Why don't I like you? Steve Spurrier: Because you think I'm an ass. And I'm not really. It's just that I'm British, and you aren't. At this point, recalling Taber's book, I was expecting to meet the other major players in the Napa success story. And then . . . and then things got strange. Who was this Gustavo Brambila character? And where were Mike Grgich and Warren Winiarski? Grgich crafted the award-winning Chardonnay for Château Montelena, and Winiarski founded Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and crafted the winning Cabernet Sauvignon at the judging. Their bios in the book were part of what made it fascinating as these two men struggled from the bottom to the top of the Napa wine ladder. Gustavo (Freddy Rodriguez) is a real character, although he wasn't at Château Montelena when the Chardonnay was made. He even has his own winery, the well-regarded Gustavo Thrace Winery. (I've tasted his wine, which is quite good.) He was also the technical consultant to the film. Hmmm. Well, OK, add Gustavo, but why take out two of the four principal players in the Judgment of Paris? For that we need to check out the behind-the-scenes story, which may be as entertaining as the film. The screenwriter, Ross Schwartz, began work on the script before the Taber book came out. He planned to show the rivalry between Barrett and Grgich, but when Grgich asked to be removed from the film, Schwartz switched it to Jim and his son Bo (Chris Pine). If you don't think that was a rivalry, you should check out the boxing scenes. Schwartz decided to focus on this story, and the only mention of Winiarski or Stag's Leap Wine Cellars was in the closing remarks summarizing the winners and subsequent blind tastings, which were also won by the Californians. If Grgich had wished to be in the film, Danny Devito had been cast to play him. What a missed opportunity, Devito and Rickman discoursing on wine; that I'd have paid extra to see. While the lyrical subplot of Bo's and Gustavo's infatuation with Sam, (played by the glowing Rachel Taylor), was entertaining, it would tend to lead some viewers to the conclusion that Gustavo's red wine was a winner at the blind tasting. Particularly since Sam's passion for Gustavo's wine soon led to a different kind of passion in a shack. I can't believe the film played on the "shacked-up" metaphor. And I can't believe I just commented on it. What they got right was the passion for wine making and the sense that Napa was poised to take on the wine world. Wine purists have derided the movie for its inaccuracies, but the oenological sense of life felt right to me. Although Spurrier sent his assistant to Napa to procure the wine, the filmmaker's decision to have Rickman confront the Californians on their own turf was an excellent choice and provided some of the film's best moments. There is another picture about the very same event called Judgment of Paris, which is in development and slated for 2010. The screenplay is by Robert Mark Kamen, based on the book by George Taber. Kamen is also a wine maker, and will probably be more faithful to the book. The film is also approved by Steven Spurrier, who claimed Rickman was too old and portrayed him as an effete wine snob. Unfortunately, every comment I've read by him comes across to me in Rickman's voice. About Bottle Shock, Spurrier said "No doubt I shall have to watch it on my flight to Singapore next week, but at least it will be from the comfort of First Class, with a glass of Dom Perignon to ease the pain." See what I mean? Rickman, right? Once again more multiple movies based on the same story are generating controversy, and talk of law suits. While a more accurate take on the events of the Paris tasting would be welcomed, keeping it as entertaining as Bottle Shock could prove challenging. Particularly since Keanu Reeves is being cast as the diminutive Mike Grgich. What happened to Devito in all this? Who knows, if this movie comes out we may get the Judgment of Wine Movies.