source: Bottle Shock

Bottle Shock 2008 720p BRRip x264-MgB

This was totally disappointing. The apparently true story offered every opportunity to make a great movie and instead we ended up with this mess. The relationships just don't work. Father/son, boy/girl, White/Hispanic- it just doesn't matter, everyone of them comes off as written rather than realistic. There are several sentimental "odes to wine" scenes that are completely unnecessary and obnoxious. Save your money and wait for the DVD where you can fast forward through much of it and still enjoy the interesting story of how, where, and when California wine became the equal of French wine.

Sorry folks, but I had some real problems with the movie. I thought the cinematography and audio were great. However, I was not happy with the writing and directing. I didn't find Bill Pullman's character very believable. They just tried too hard to make him look like a character and in the end, I only had disbelief (not suspended). The character of Bo Barrett was meant to be a sympathetic character, but didn't come across as one to me. The love triangle in the movie just seemed old fashioned. Why must the white guy always end up with the white girl? There was good reason to fall in love with Gustavo, he made good wine and he exhibited heart. But I saw little reason for her to fall in love with Bo. At one point she tells him (and us) that Bo has heart, but I didn't see much of it. Near the end, it looks like he's trying harder, but it just seemed so contrived. Bo came across as an empty-headed, blonde for the first half of the movie and it was hard to believe that he developed passion in the end. In the end, I was also not happy about how the actual competition was portrayed. Why would any substantial French wine experts attend the first year of a competition setup by an ex-patriot Brit wine seller with no customers? If there was a good reason, it was never presented. It just didn't seem credible. This is a movie that should be remade. I like the story and I'd like to see it done right.

This is not a good movie…for many reasons: poor script, bad conception, spotty acting, incompetent technical delivery, etc. etc. We only saw this turkey because there was a mix-up (oops! on IMDb) in the theatre schedule which meant we would have to wait an additional half hour for our desired film (to remain nameless). We should have waited. There is so much wrong with this film, it is hard to know where to start. Let me turn this around then and begin with what I liked: Alan Rickman's performance, especially in his strange little talks with Dennis Farina in the former's wine shop. That's all. A few specifics in the bad film department: Most of the other acting was ho-hum or worse, including Chris Pine (too much time on screen) and his so-called romantic interest played by Rachael Taylor. To be fair to the latter, her character was a walking cliché who, instead of developing a relationship with the Freddie Rodriguez role, which might have been interesting, falls inevitably into the arms of Mr. Pine. Did I mention racism as another problem? So Rodriguez is wasted, as well as Ms. Dushku, who seems to exist primarily as an obvious and lame plot mechanism. Writing this is making me angry all over again, so for our collective health, I will end this by lighting into the cinematography, which was lazy and badly staged (my viewing mate spent the film counting technical mistakes because it was so poorly made), giving us little sense of the actual locations where the main action was taking place. The characters could have been anywhere – and wound up nowhere, just like the viewing audience who hated it as much as I did.

This movie unfortunately has not one iota to compare with Sideways in case anyone is telling you such bull... the script is slow, trite and only has one part that is fairly interesting which is the fact about the blind tasting in Paris, and the directing is so amateurish TV style that it screams Movie of the week! The father/son relationship doesn't work, the over done helicopter shots make you dizzy like its a glossy infomercial for Gallo wine, and the sunlight thru the pepsi ad commercial barn house feels like directing of a Michael Bay-wanna be, and how on earth did they pick these horrible young actors that are way 'too pretty to be anything but a TV soap star or model' Even the bartender has glossy lipstick that makes her look like a Coyote Ugly girl rather than some 70s hippie bar chick. And how many times can they cut to the father/son boxing each other.. But it all comes down to a boring script that just drags along instead of someone editing half the movie out..and moving forward past the Paris contest.. which is sad because this story could have been so much more but as they always say.. it's the script, script, script... and this one sticks with no connection to the characters it is so flat. I almost walked out if it had it not been for the brief moments of the Paris moments with Rickman/Farina.. yet the California ones were unbearable.. and im a wine lover that thought perhaps they would create some decent moments but nothing... And poor Bill Pullman did the best he could but these young actors should go back to soap operas and stay away from film and the director stick to TV directing or commercials. I gave it a 1 because i had to buy my friend a glass of wine to revive him after falling asleep halfway thru the movie after yet another car breaks down to create some suspense.. yawwwwwnnnnnn!!!! Oh and how about the girl watering down the tackle... yeah.. real nice sexist wanna be playboy soft *... truly embarrassing!

While some people might immediately try to compare this film to Sideways, that would be a big mistake. Both films might share wine as their subject matter but diverge dramatically from there. Bottle Shock tells an unknown story of Californian wine beating French wine in a surprise blind taste test (no one was more surprised than the French). Having the US as the Underdog, seeing the passion of the wine makers and seeing the French being served makes this an absolutely wonderful 2 hours. Bill Pullman was superb, Alan Rickman portrayed the quintessential snobbish Britt, Rachael Taylor was stunning and Dennis Farina was "Bacon Fat with a hint of Ripe Mellon!"

I have to disagree with the negative comments. Of the six or so films I saw, this one was the best. First off, it was beautifully shot. The scenery that was captured is going to get people to visit Napa on it's own. Alan Rickman was as great as always, and Freddy Rodriguez was amazing. Bill Pullman's character, as the owner of the winery, had a terrific arc. I understand that elements of the story were fictionalized, but I come to expect that with most "based on a true story" films. There were some great, touching scenes between the father (Pullman) and son (Chris Pine) and with Rodriguez as almost a "son he never had" type of character. Oh, and Dennis Farina nearly steals the scenes with Rickman he's so funny - I have to say nearly, because I love Rickman. In all it was thoroughly enjoyable, and I talked it up with several other movie goers on the tram ride afterward, and EVERYONE I spoke to loved it.

Perhaps the IMDb community is straying from my tastes, but I was surprised at the positive response this film has gotten here. The writing is flat, characters are flat, and this film falls flat. Like every film, characters are the most important thing, and the characters in this film are undeveloped, trite, and simple. The wine-trick in the film was recycled and contrived. The female lead/love-interest was clearly written by a shallow man who wrote nothing into her character besides prominent nipples and sexual availability to the male leads. That's all there is to say, and will someone ask IMDb to dump this "10 lines of text" minimum!?!? What is 10-lines anyway?

Unfortunately, this movie falls prey to an overwrought treatment of what many would consider to be a still esoteric, but increasingly popular, subject. With its formulaic and simplistic narrative of California's burgeoning wine culture, the characters are stereotypical; and were portrayed in a manner that we would expect from the more industrial-minded aspects of Hollywood. Despite these faults, it was pleasurable to watch Rickman portray Mr. Spurrier, whose work today within the wine world is often admirable. For those reviewers that did not see the film, such as fellow reviewer Luisinho Biker (who made a reference to a war – I am uncertain what this has to do with anything), the importance of the Judgment of Paris was more than just beneficial to American vintners. It also showed that French winemakers may have been resting on their laurels, and had not reevaluated how they had been producing wine. Many nations, including the United States, realized that winemaking could be approached using new techniques while still adhering to terroir and tradition. Of course, there is not a best wine. A better movie may show that wine is a deeply faceted staple that can be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps the up-coming Judgment of Paris will highlight the depth of oenology and those that enjoy its fruits.