Bottle Shock

In 1976 the world of wine had mainly just one country on the map: France.

Quietly Californians had been making pretty good wine that no one, especially the French noticed. Until a British gentleman and oenophile, Steven Spurrier (Alan Rickman) made a competition that changed the world of wine forever.

Entertaining, inspiring, shot on location in the Napa Valley and France, this is a delightful movie, with solid acting, beautiful cinematography and all around sparkling goodness.

Although the script has one flaw, it is for the most part very solid and the acting and directing are top notch. Bill Pullman (wine maker), Alan Rickman, and Dennis Farina (delightful American in Paris) deliver solid performances. Relatively new actors Chris Pine (son of wine maker), Rachael Taylor (love interest) and especially Freddy Rodriguez (Mexican wine maker) round up this outstanding cast.

Randall Miller, the director. has to be commended not only for creating an endearing and lovingly original movie, but doing so in a small budget, and even more taking his creation himself to several cities, after no distributor stepped out, even though the movie had rave reviews in Sundance 2008.

The movie has opened in several theaters in North America, Toronto has been fortunate enough to get it, and I hope a major studio changes it's mind and takes this one world wide, but not to worry the director is finding eager movie theaters anyway.

Enjoyable from beginning to end, a true story that deserved a movie, got one! Go watch it.

Joseph Hurtado from Toronto

Bottle Shock was a fun little ride. Certainly not without faults, but the predictable payoff was fun and the film wrapped up in a nice way. It's not quite the laugh-out-loud comedy the previews have tried to build it up to be, but this little film has heart, and though alone that can't carry it to greatness, it does make for an enjoyable evening at the movies.

The performances are mostly quite good. Chris Pine as Bo Barrett does a wonderful job as our unambitious young hero. The part has been written stereotypically for a NorCal 70's stoner, but Pine manages to find the subtle and human aspects within that stereotype. He's exciting to watch throughout. As impressive as Pine is, Freddy Rodriguez as his quietly more ambitious buddy, Gustavo Brambila, overshadows him a bit. Rodriguez's passion, his quick changes of pace and tone, and his unexpected energy make Brambila the best part of the film. He plays beautifully, moment-to-moment, and though you're never sure where he'll take you, you're always ready to go. Rachael Taylor as Sam rounds out our three young leads. Taylor does a very nice job. She's sexy and fun, not overly impressive, but she keeps up with the boys and seems to have a good time doing it. Jim Pullman as Jim Barrett is a bit disappointing. He doesn't do a poor job, per say, but he doesn't do anymore than is required of him. Jim Barrett is a pigheaded and tight-wound man, with a passion for growing wine. Pullman's performance gives us this, but nothing else. You don't see any other aspects of the man. It was very two-dimensional and left me wanting. Alan Rickman does a wonderful job as Steven Spurrier, an arrogant and uptight wine snob. All the little quirks of Spurrier come out in Rickman's performance. He's a poser, a bit of a loser, and has a sadness beneath the surface that makes him very human, and engaging to watch. Also worth noting is the fabulous performance of Bradley Whitford as Professor Saunders. It's a small supporting role, one scene, but a key scene in the script, and Whitford plays it off beautifully. Possibly the best scene in the film, and he strolls on and steals it. Disappointing supporting performances come from both Denise Farina as Maurice and Eliza Dushku as Joe. Both actors play the same thing they always seem to play, and in neither case does it entirely seem to fit the role. He's abrasive, she's a tough girl, and they're both repeating performances we've seen them give before.

This film's main faults lie in the structuring of it's second act. The most blame for this lies in the Film Editing by Randall Miller and Dan O'Brien which is erratic and jerky, the Original Music by Mark Adler which opens the film beautifully but begins leading the action in strange ways later on (popping in at awkward and noticeable moments, straining drama into melodrama), and the Writing by Jody Savin, Randall Miller and Ross Schwartz (story by all three plus Lannette Pabon) which seems to lose track of whose story to follow and how to follow it.

In the end, as always, most of the blame and praise falls on the Director, and though Randall Miller's work here is certainly uneven, the performances he manages to illicit bring a joy to the screen that is hard not to feel. I left the theatre pleased, musing at the films problems rather than berating them. As I have said, it's a film full of heart, and that makes up for a lot.

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.

In 1976, in the Napa Valley, the perfectionist vigneron Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman) is the owner of the Château Montelena that is full of debts and near bankruptcy. Jim is unsuccessfully racking his wine trying to reach perfection. He has a problematic relationship with his hippie son Bo (Chris Pine) and his Mexican foreman and connoisseur Gustavo Brambila (Freddy Rodriguez) is secretly producing wine with his father Mr. Garcia (Miguel Sandoval). Jim hires the free spirit intern Sam Fulton (Rachael Taylor) from UC Davis to help him in the production of wine.

Meanwhile in Paris, the wine expert Steven Spurrier (Alan Rickman) that owns a specialized store has few clients. His friend Maurice Cantavale (Dennis Farina) advises him to promote his store and he decides to organize a blind tasting competition between the French and the American wines. He travels to Napa Valley to find the best American wines to bring to the dispute. He has a troubled meeting with Jim that refuses to participate in the competition. However Bo foresees the chance of survival of his father's business and gives two bottles to Spurrier. But soon he finds that the color of all the 500 bottles of chardonnay have turned into brown. Is Jim Barrett's business doomed?

"Bottle Shock" is a delightful movie based on a true story. This little but charming movie is not available on DVD in Brazil but only on cable ("O Julgamento de Paris", meaning "The Paris Judgement"), but I bought the American DVD following the advice of a friend of mine from California. The story has a pleasant screenplay with entertaining subplots that might or might not really happen, such as the triangle of love among Sam, Gustavo and Bo, that keeps the plot never boring. The cast has good names associated to the beautiful locations that make this little movie worthwhile watching. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

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)