MartinHafer "There is hardly a word that is true in the script and many, many pure inventions as far as I am concerned"....Steven SpurrierSteven Spurrier (Alan Rickman) is one of the main characters in this film and the real life Spurrier thought the film was almost complete fiction. Likewise, the character Gustavo Brambila did not even work in Napa until AFTER the famed tasting in France. I also am pretty sure the one-bottle FAA limit scene never could have happened, as I carried LOTS of wine/beer in carry-ons before the recent changes due to worries about terrorism. And then there was the law office that just happened to have a spare sword lying about...so, at least from a historical standpoint, "Bottle Shock" is not a good film. And, as a retired history teacher, I was dismayed that so many instances of artistic license occurred with the movie. "Bottle Shock" was adored by many when it came out and I got around to watching it today. I was NOT as enamored with it and apart from the historical inaccuracies, I thought the characters were pretty much ALL annoying and poorly written (especially Pullman's). I can only assume that many of the folks who adored the film did so out of a sense of nostalgia for the time period and the wines. As for me, I've been on wine tours in many regions in the world (including Napa and Sonoma) but that just wasn't enough to make the film work for me. The only things that really worked were the music and cinematography. Otherwise, I just wasn't enthralled.

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.

ajs-10 There have been one or two films about wine over the years, but very few about American wine. This independent film, I guess, looks to cash in on the critical success of the very enjoyable Sideways (2004). It is based on true events, but unfortunately it doesn't quite hit the mark, for me at least. But more of that later.This film tells the story of how, in 1976, Californian wines from the Napa valley became internationally acceptable. It all came about because a rather stuck-up wine expert, based in Paris, called Steven Spurrier decided to broaden his horizons and arrange a blind tasting of French and American wines. We then learn about the lives of those making the wine. In particular vineyard owner Jim Barrett and his son Bo, and some of the people they employ, Gustavo Brambila and Sam Fulton. Mr Spurrier goes to the Napa Valley and tastes all of the wines on offer. He makes a list of the best of them and samples are shipped to France for the tasting. And this is where history is made.You would think, from my very short synopsis that the plot would concentrate on the Steven Spurrier character, but no. The vast majority of the film is taken up with the relationships between Jim, Bo, Sam and Gustavo. Although, yes, that part of the story was interesting up to a point, the important events were kind of just thrown in here and there. This made for quite a disjointed film that I found a little difficult to watch. Having said that the cinematography was spot on, some great use of the scenery and the light. Nobody particularly stood out, for me as far as performances go, though Alan Rickman was pretty good as Steven Spurrier. Honourable mentions go to Bill Pullman as Jim Barrett, Chris Pine as Bo Barrett, Rachael Taylor as Sam Fulton and Freddy Rodríguez as Gustavo Brambila.Over all I didn't warm to the characters in this film as much as I though I would and that made it kind of disappointing for me. The cinematography was good but the plot needed to be refined a lot more. It's not a great film, but not a bad one either. I won't be watching it again in a hurry, but if you're not averse to downing a bottle or two and you love the Napa Valley then I guess it's recommended. Otherwise, maybe give it a miss.My score: 6.1/10

Metal Angel Ehrler It's a remarkable talent, wine tasting. All of your senses are involved, and so many flavors and processing methods are put to use in the complex elaboration of a 'simple' beverage, that what we actually get to drink is, more than a satisfying and flavorful wine, a work of art. That is the premise of Randall Miller's "Bottle Shock", and I can assure you that while it isn't as grand a masterpiece like Alexander Payne's "Sideways" it is a very enjoyable, certainly informative 'true account' of the California Montegna Chardonnay that shocked the world in 1976.The film begins by introducing us to life in Château Montegna, a California vineyard where its owner (Bill Pullman) is having a number of economical problems and is striving with all his heart to create a perfect and delightful Chardonnay. His son Bo (Chris Pine), whom is also his right-hand man, is also interested on the 'family business', but he's more of a laid back hippie with no idea of what he wants out of life other than partying and getting laid. The vineyards' main worker Manuel (Freddy Rodriguez), who's also an excellent wine connoisseur and a close friend of the family, is secretly trying to become a wine maker himself. When a new, insanely sexy intern (Rachael Taylor) comes to work at the vineyard, Bo and Manuel are conflicted about her. Add the monetary problems they're all going through, and you've got yourself a nice, comic melodrama.But meanwhile, in Paris, an Englishman (Alan Rickman) who sells wine and tries to 'educate' people about the artistry and careful production of wine, joins forces with L'Academie du Vin in France. Now, this Englishman is keen on discovering every kind of wine there is, and is certain that the old myth that France is the country that produces the best wine, is wrong. So he decides to set up a blind-testing competition between French and American wine to see if this is actually true. He travels to California, meets with Château Montegna's motley crew and, well, you'll see the rest.The film is amusing. I mean, we all know the result of the competition since the story is, of course, based on the famous 1976 American Chardonnay that beat every other French white wine and even has a spot at the Smithsonian. But more than just being a historical account, the film explores the lives and (often funny) encounters the characters involved in the preparation of this wine go through. It mixes a true event with a well-made story line and the result is, as I've mentioned before, a very enjoyable film.The photography is marvelous, with sweeping, grand takes of California vineyards or large, sun-bathed prairies, and there's a very good use of lighting. The performances are all very nice, especially Alan Rickman who simply nails the comedy of his character right on the spot (and you should see him speak French. Have you ever tried to speak French with an Alan Rickman accent?).Rating: 3 stars out of 4!