Bottle Shock

America; home of the free, over-sized fast-food and trash TV—at least, that's what most Europeans like to comfort themselves in thinking about their distant cousins. So who then would think, that in the 1970's, only two hundred years into the countries recent history, that this very same country would be the forefront of a wine movement that would change the industry as it was known at the time? Quite honestly, nobody did, except of course, those few American "hicks" who knew what they were doing regardless of their history and position within the sophisticated-snob wine culture of France. Bottle Shock then, with it's attempt at re-telling that story alongside plenty of character-play and drama, achieves in doing what it sets out to do by crafting an uplifting, re-affirming two hours balancing debatable fact with fiction. It's an unassuming experience for sure; wine tasting and competition isn't exactly the medium's foray when it comes to delivering attention grabbing excitement from your average audience. Yet when it comes to simply offering a modest, albeit compelling and engaging character story fit with tangible emotion and relativity, Bottle Shock isn't bad at all—in fact, it's really quite palatable indeed.

For all that the general history behind the true story of Bottle Shock, and all that it does for the movie's plot, there still remains a distinct impression here that such involvements are secondary to the elements that are really on show here. Following five characters as they each seek out their place in life, Randall Miller's feature here sticks to the opinion that story can define characters, but that characters define the audience. Taken on a purely ostensible level, Bottle Shock would be a tired, dry and unwelcoming approach to documenting a piece of history fit only for aficionados of the wine trade. Yet by balancing out the script and action with some wonderful character developments and relationships, Miller and his ensemble of writers manage to craft a story that excites and compels by its final act, but only because the first two invest heavily in making you feel for those involved in such a struggle. The result is a slowly paced, somewhat uneven venture, but one that does eventually pay off through its use of catharsis which utilises that empathy to full effect.

Aesthetically speaking, the movie isn't all that bad either, gracing the screen with some wonderfully tranquil photography that constantly evokes wistful, whimsical emotions fit for the existential nature of the screenplay. Alongside the cinematography also lays the somewhat majestic, but grounded score penned by Mark Adler that manages to convey the same feelings provoked by Ozier's photography, creating a formidable, cohesive whole that really brings home the themes of the feature with poignancy.

Unfortunately, the same cannot wholly be said for the performances that at times can come off as a little disjointed and lazy. As a whole, the cast do well to keep things interesting, and bring at least a little flavour to their characters, but a common thread of awkward phrasing and timing too often breaks the illusion that Miller attempts to weave. That being said, the feature at least boasts a fine introduction for many to the talent of Chris Pine who shares the lead spot here with a coming-and-going Bill Pullman. Again, it's a timid performance fitting of the feature's rather small-time nature, but it's certainly an inviting and oft compelling portrayal that works on many levels and even helps bring out the better sides of Pullman who plays his father. As a leading man here, and indeed giving the movie its finest performance next to an ever-arresting Alan Rickman, Pine offers plenty of reason to believe the young actor has a bright future ahead of him.

Despite all the good that the movie does however, there still remains a certain emptiness that resides within Bottle Shock's makeup. It's a feature that uplifts, and engages while it exists on screen, and yet fails to achieve a lasting connection that stays long after the credits have rolled by. In its place exists a fond memory perhaps, but one that probably won't be, and won't need to be revisited again any time soon. In that respect, Bottle Shock achieves a firm hold on its immediate audiences, but differs from its subject by neglecting holes within narrative that would otherwise have filled in lasting impressions upon those very same viewers. Nevertheless, although lacking in a few important areas of taste and refinement, Bottle Shock still permits an enjoyable and rewarding two hours of fine character drama that uplifts and tugs at heart strings.

• A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

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!"

It's 1976 Calistoga, California. Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman) is desperate to scrap up the money to perfect his chardonnay. His son Bo (Chris Pine) is a lot less patient. Sam Fulton (Rachael Taylor) surprises everybody as the new intern. Gustavo Brambila (Freddy Rodríguez) is the foreman trying to make his own wine, and Bo's best friend. In Paris, sommelier Steven Spurrier (Alan Rickman) has a failing wine shop. He is challenged by his next door neighbor American Maurice Cantavale (Dennis Farina) to go taste some Californian wine. He goes to find some Californian wines to challenge the french ones in a blind taste test. He has a roadside breakdown and Jim Barrett coincidentally rescues him. He is amazed at Jim's wine and the rest of the area wines.

This is a nice charming true story. Alan Rickman has a friendly snotty attitude. He's snobby without being arrogant. I think that's the key. He's actually likable. As for the romantic triangle, I like the hot girl not picking the handsome leading man but then she changes her mind. It's balanced out by an angry Bill Pullman. He provides the little bit of drama in the movie.

I recently got a chance to see Bottle Shock and I have to say I thought it was great. It's really charming and interesting in a very different way from Sideways, although because of all the beautiful Napa Valley photography, it still reminded me of it. It also has great characters and hilarious moments the way that film does. I highly recommend this film.

Based on a true story, it chronicles how California wine makers became serious contenders in the world competition of wine-- an honor previously assumed to be rewarded always to the French. It centers around a town of quirky up and coming wine makers, each with their own challenges to face. It's got a great cast, including Bill Pullman, Chris Pine, Freddie Rodriguez, Rachel Taylor, Eliza Dushku and the hilarious Alan Rickman. Rickman plays an English wine seller in France who's desperate to find the best wines to sell in his store. He travels to California to see if the rumors are true about California's wines. His performance alone is worth seeing this.

It's a charming, heartwarming movie that I think will do very well when it opens 8/8. Check it out, you wont be disappointed.

9/10

Yes, it may be a bit Hollywood-ized, but overall it's a fun film with a great cast. Alan Rickman is delightful as Stephen Spurrier (not portraying him as effete, as the real S. Spurrier complained of upon reading the screenplay), and Bill Pullman, Freddy Rodriguez, and Chris Pine all turn in great performances as well. Dennis Farina is an amusing and welcome addition if also because of his scenes with Rickman. One negative aspect is that the gorgeous and talented Rachael Taylor is not put to better use. Also, one very negative aspect is that the love plot is totally weird and seems an afterthought - the movie would have been a lot better without it.

That said, I really don't have other complaints, and I found the story interesting and basically just enjoyed the film. Sure, it may have some corny scenes, but geez.. when was the last time you watched a movie without a corny scene?? Just because you've seen the story before in, say, The Mighty Ducks, doesn't make it necessarily bad.

Also, for those who have issues with the facts of the story that have been changed, you can rent any number of documentaries on the story for free from your library - this film, might I remind you, declares itself "based" on a true story, which it is. I also highly recommend checking out George Taber's book, Judgment of Paris, which inspired this film.