Late, I know, but who's seen "Bottle Shock"?

[Robin Garr]

We finally got around to watching the more fictionalized version of the Judgment of Paris (released in 2008) via Netflix the other night, and I was honestly kind of disappointed. It seemed to me that the writers, faced with making a wine geek story palatable to the general public, turned it into a soap opera, and didn't do all that great a job of it.

I'm sure we had a discussion of the movie when it came out, but frankly I don't recall it. Has anyone seen Bottle Shock lately, and do you think my analysis holds up?

[David M. Bueker]

I thought it was a fun movie, nothing more, nothing less. I was not too woried about the "facts."

Pretty much what David said. Not to be taken seriously.

[James Roscoe]

I love Alan Rickman. When he is on the screen the movie is good. when he is off the screen the movie tends to slo down, although Freddie Prinze, Jr. does a fairly decent job. It is a poorly written screenplay IMHO. The scenery is "can't miss". I watched on the flight over to Europe the first time which romanticized it somewhat for me. I was a little more disappointed when I revisited it later.

I love Alan Rickman. When he is on the screen the movie is good. when he is off the screen the movie tends to slo down, although Freddie Prinze, Jr. does a fairly decent job. It is a poorly written screenplay IMHO. The scenery is "can't miss". I watched on the flight over to Europe the first time which romanticized it somewhat for me. I was a little more disappointed when I revisited it later.

And I will point out, yet again and rather gleefully (even though I'm not a resident anymore, I still love the place), that this epic movie about Napa and Paris...was filmed in SONOMA. Hence the beautiful scenery, which everyone seems to think is the best thing about the flick.

Yes, even lovely Paris was actually shot in the Plaza at Sonoma. Sonomans are proud of that---but they're more proud that they shot the Napa shots, not in Napa, oh no, but in Sonoma. (Kunde Vineyards in the Sonoma Valley figures prominently.)

I have not seen the film, but from what I've read I'd be very disappointed with it. Their characterization of Bo Barrett can't have been appreciated (nor, from what I know, is it very accurate) and Alan Rickman's (an actor I have utmost respect for) portrayal of Steven Spurrier also sounds quite false. Of course, Hollywood has never been known for its adherence to factual accounts, but I honestly couldn't think of a reason to go see the film.

Mark Lipton

[James Roscoe]

I love Alan Rickman. When he is on the screen the movie is good. when he is off the screen the movie tends to slo down, although Freddie Prinze, Jr. does a fairly decent job. It is a poorly written screenplay IMHO. The scenery is "can't miss". I watched on the flight over to Europe the first time which romanticized it somewhat for me. I was a little more disappointed when I revisited it later.

And I will point out, yet again and rather gleefully (even though I'm not a resident anymore, I still love the place), that this epic movie about Napa and Paris...was filmed in SONOMA. Hence the beautiful scenery, which everyone seems to think is the best thing about the flick.

Yes, even lovely Paris was actually shot in the Plaza at Sonoma. Sonomans are proud of that---but they're more proud that they shot the Napa shots, not in Napa, oh no, but in Sonoma. (Kunde Vineyards in the Sonoma Valley figures prominently.)

Is the old drunk guy in the bar Lou Kessler or does he only stay in Napa?

[Robin Garr]

I thought it was a fun movie, nothing more, nothing less. I was not too woried about the "facts."

Naw, $%^* the facts. I was more put off by the soap opera screenplay. What James said. WAIT! I'm agreeing with James?

For entertainment I much prefer "Sideways". For me "Bottle Shock" is about on par with "A Good Year".

Wasn't there supposed to be second "Judgement in Paris" movie that was going to be closer to the book? In June of '06 Decanter had a brief piece about the second movie and quoted Spurrier as saying 'I have spoken with the production company this week. I insisted that an English actor should play me and they suggested Hugh Grant or Jude Law. But they'd be no good. They are far too old. I was only 34 when I did the tasting.'

Mike

I thought "Bottle Shock" was terrible. I'm not concerned with the factual element, but as a movie it missed well wide and considering Pullman and Rickman were in it, it should have been much better. I think the screenplay was was weak and some of the dialog was cringe worthy. The sad thing is it should have made a really good tale for the screen. The juxtaposition of the country wine makers of CA playing off of the urbane Paris wine establishment. The art direction was off too. I know it's hard doing period pieces but this looked like someone trying to make a period piece.

Did I mention I didn't think this was a very good movie?

[James Roscoe]

I thought "Bottle Shock" was terrible. I'm not concerned with the factual element, but as a movie it missed well wide and considering Pullman and Rickman were in it, it should have been much better. I think the screenplay was was weak and some of the dialog was cringe worthy. The sad thing is it should have made a really good tale for the screen. The juxtaposition of the country wine makers of CA playing off of the urbane Paris wine establishment. The art direction was off too. I know it's hard doing period pieces but this looked like someone trying to make a period piece.

Did I mention I didn't think this was a very good movie?

But Rickman made even that Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie fun. Rickman is a GREAT actor.

I thought "Bottle Shock" was terrible. I'm not concerned with the factual element, but as a movie it missed well wide and considering Pullman and Rickman were in it, it should have been much better. I think the screenplay was was weak and some of the dialog was cringe worthy. The sad thing is it should have made a really good tale for the screen. The juxtaposition of the country wine makers of CA playing off of the urbane Paris wine establishment. The art direction was off too. I know it's hard doing period pieces but this looked like someone trying to make a period piece.

Did I mention I didn't think this was a very good movie?

But Rickman made even that Kevin Costner Robin Hood movie fun. Rickman is a GREAT actor.

I don't know whether he is a 'great' actor but I have always enjoyed his part in a film from the supporting role in January Man with Kevin Kline, as the Sherrif of Nottingham in Robin Hood with Kevin Costner, as Professor Snape in Harry Potter and most bizarrely as Steven Spurrier in Bottle Shock. Of course he played the latter as written [and for the laughs] since his portrayal is nothing like the real Steven Spurrier.
A poor film from an overall 'art' or 'documentary' viewpoint but it had its funny moments particularly when Rickman was 'playing' with his quirky charismatic voice.

I love Alan Rickman. When he is on the screen the movie is good. when he is off the screen the movie tends to slo down, although Freddie Prinze, Jr. does a fairly decent job. It is a poorly written screenplay IMHO. The scenery is "can't miss". I watched on the flight over to Europe the first time which romanticized it somewhat for me. I was a little more disappointed when I revisited it later.

And I will point out, yet again and rather gleefully (even though I'm not a resident anymore, I still love the place), that this epic movie about Napa and Paris...was filmed in SONOMA. Hence the beautiful scenery, which everyone seems to think is the best thing about the flick.

Yes, even lovely Paris was actually shot in the Plaza at Sonoma. Sonomans are proud of that---but they're more proud that they shot the Napa shots, not in Napa, oh no, but in Sonoma. (Kunde Vineyards in the Sonoma Valley figures prominently.)

We did everthing we could to disown ourselves from anything in that terrible flick called Bottle Shock. Hoke didn't tell you we wouldn't allow the film crews in our valley after our local literature jury read the script to Bottle Shock. By the way the film is pretty much seen as pure BS by old time residents of the valley. We welcome people to identify Bottle Shock with Sonoma. When Hoke left Sonoma they lost the best thing they had going for them.

I watched the film with a fellow wine nerd friend who, like me, had read Judgement of Paris. We both thought it was a joke. Not interesting on a factual level and also very poor as entertainment. There is only one scene that is actually worth seeing, and only because it's so stupid. After learning of the Paris triumph Barret pours everyone in the office some of the wine and the secretary woman tastes it and says "Jim, this is some Chardonnay!" (pronounced shadonay) We both cracked up!!! That one 3 second scene is worth a good laugh if you can find the movie in the bargain bin for a dollar.

I'm with David - a reasonably fun movie, with just enough wine-geeky-ness to keep us satisfied, but not to be taken too seriously. And Alan Rickman is perfect as always.

For entertainment I much prefer "Sideways". For me "Bottle Shock" is about on par with "A Good Year".

Wasn't there supposed to be second "Judgement in Paris" movie that was going to be closer to the book? In June of '06 Decanter had a brief piece about the second movie and quoted Spurrier as saying 'I have spoken with the production company this week. I insisted that an English actor should play me and they suggested Hugh Grant or Jude Law. But they'd be no good. They are far too old. I was only 34 when I did the tasting.'

Mike

Sideways was an awful movie. I had to force myself to watch it to the end.

I liked "Sideways" enough to see it twice--once on an airline and once in a movie theater.

I thought the movie was a lot more about Jim and Bo Barrett and Montelena and very little about the judgment of Paris. As such it was an ok story, by Hollywood standards. I have seen worse movies and I don't take wine that seriously that I got offended by the sketchy details. I did get offended by some of the melodramatic overacting, but again, that's just Hollywood trying to sell tickets. I also thought it was much better than "Year of the Comet" and slightly worse than "A Good Year"

FWIW, I also really disliked Sideways.

Sideways was an awful movie. I had to force myself to watch it to the end.

Sideways IMO wasn't a movie about wine. Wine was merely part of the backdrop for a story of two egregiously dysfunctional, middle aged men engaging in an orgy of self-destruction. It was more watchable than "In the Realm of the Senses" and "9 1/2 Weeks," but only barely, and far less interesting than "Under the Volcano" and "Leaving Las Vegas" (if one goes in for that genre, of course).

Mark Lipton

Sideways was an awful movie. I had to force myself to watch it to the end.

Sideways IMO wasn't a movie about wine. Wine was merely part of the backdrop for a story of two egregiously dysfunctional, middle aged men engaging in an orgy of self-destruction. It was more watchable than "In the Realm of the Senses" and "9 1/2 Weeks," but only barely, and far less interesting than "Under the Volcano" and "Leaving Las Vegas" (if one goes in for that genre, of course).

Mark Lipton

Yep, your'e right. Sideways wasn't a movie about wine, but merely a backdrop---albeit a good backdrop, trading on a trendiness a lot of people could get into and identify with.

You can watch pretty much the same movie, by the same director, made just before Sideways, called About Schmidt, with Jack Nicholson. It takes place largely in an RV...but it isn't about RVs either. It's about a man adrift within himself and within society (but this time an older man and not a middle-aged man)...but the stories and characters are pretty much the same.

About Schmidt is more elegiac than Sideways. I think that's in part because of Nicholso, and because Nicholson is playing a newly-retired (i.e., kicked out the door by his company) company man, whose wife then immediately dies, and he sort of goes on a Kerouac/Least Heat Moon journey throught he heartland of America---only, of course, to find out he has no center himself, so he can't find a center anywhere.

I'm kinder to Sideways than you are, though Mike. I thought it was pretty well done overall. Of course, I saw it in the Sebastiani Theatre on the Sonoma Plaza, surrounded by other denizens of the North Coast Wine Country, and we were all laughing our asses off at the antics around wine tasting rooms and California in general. (And after all. it was about Southern California, which Northern Californians universally love to snicker at. )

[David M. Bueker]

For entertainment I much prefer "Sideways".

I hated every minute of Sideways.

Having already read the book, I was well aware that Bottle Shock was basically fiction. I knew the settings were bogus. However, looked at strictly as an evening's entertainment, we enjoyed it. Nothing profound but a diverting and unoffensive 90 or so minutes.

Sideways was a different story. I agree it had very little to do with wine. And there was a great deal offensive about it. There were some good lines and the acting was good, but it was not enjoyable overall.

Perhaps I am superficial but other than rare exceptions, I view movies as simple entertainment. I don't watch movies to be educated or enlightened, I watch them to be entertained for a short time. If I want a profound experience or an education, I'd rather read a book.

Glenn

[David M. Bueker]

Perhaps I am superficial but other than rare exceptions, I view movies as simple entertainment. I don't watch movies to be educated or enlightened, I watch them to be entertained for a short time. If I want a profound experience or an education, I'd rather read a book.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! I completely agree. I don't go to the movies, overpay for popcorn, soda and Junior Mints, and want to see "serious filmaking." I want to have fun, escaping the brutal summer heat in a cool theater.

For entertainment I much prefer "Sideways".

I hated every minute of Sideways.

Hoke had it right about Sideways it's not about wine. Why would I pay to go to the movies to be completely bored? I can make popcorn and watch television at home if I'm into masochism.