Somm

I didn't really expect to like a movie about wine geeks, but this movie really pulled me into the process that the four lead characters were going through to become members of the very elite master sommelier group. Less than 200 people worldwide have this certification. Jason, Dustin, Brian and Dlynn all had very different approaches to exam, with different strengths and weaknesses. I found all the lead characters extremely likable and you could not help but root for all of them to pass the exam. I thought the cinematography was good. I particularly liked the use of the wine glass as a segue between scenes. The movie did drag a little in some of the exam preparation scenes.

This documentary film is about several guys who are pursuing their certification as Master Sommoliers. While this sounds terrifically boring, it really isn't for many reasons. First, it's an incredibly difficult thing to actually achieve and very few folks on this planet are this knowledgeable, tenacious and talented to earn this. Second, the film makers manage to spin this all in an interesting way that makes you actually care about these oenophiles and their seemingly insane quest to be the best of the best. By the end of the film, my daughter and I actually found ourselves pulling for some of the participants and rooting for them...and in one case, rooting against them. All in all, an exciting film about what might sound like a very dull topic.

This is really one of the worst documentaries I have seen in a while. It has the feel of a 30-minute reality TV show about four guys who have to take a test, but stretched out to two hours.

Generally speaking, a documentary should do one of two things (or both): (1) expand a person's knowledge of a subject; and/or (2) create a bond between the viewer and the subject so as to convey some sort of overriding message.

This film does none of that. It's four guys studying a lot, and then interviews with their wives and S/O's.

The film does not even begin to educate viewers about wine, wine provenance, or wine tasting. Despite devoting what seems like endless periods of time showing the four guys studying up on wine geography, for example, the film does not provide the viewer a brief explanation of the major areas in world where wine grapes are grown.

Similarly, we are exposed to dozens of shots of tasting sessions where the somm's use all kinds of technical jargon to describe wine -- and not once does the film attempt to convey to the watcher what any of it means.

Being a bit of a wine enthusiast, I picked up some of the meaning. But as a documentary? This thing is terrible. It's four guys who work in the wine industry and love wine who study for a big test. If they fail the test? They take it again next year.

By the end of the film, the viewer does not care about the guys, the test, or anything else. When I studied for the bar exam, I did not video record myself doing so because it lacked any sort of entertainment value. One wonders why the same restraint was not exhibited by the filmmakers here.

Greetings again from the darkness. Alexander Payne's 2004 hit Sideways made wine tasting and discussion a fun thing to do with friends, and U.S. wine tours exploded. In the movie, Miles (Paul Giamatti) is quite knowledgeable and opinionated on wine. However, comparing Miles to the real life characters in the Somm documentary is like comparing the boys of The Sandlot to major leaguers ... it's not even close!

Filmmaker Jason Wise follows four guys as they prepare for the nearly impossible to pass Master Sommelier exam. The certification has been around for 40 plus years, and less than 200 applicants have actually passed. We get to know the four who are studying so diligently by watching them interact and even talk to the camera. The competitive nature is on full display through the trash-talking and emotions that are evident through each disagreement. Mostly we witness the enormous stress that comes from working so hard for a single shot ... the best comparison I can make is that of an Olympic athlete preparing for their single event.

We also meet Fred Dame, the Godfather of U.S. Master Sommelier. He trains through intimidation and seems to carry the burden of exclusivity in every interaction. Yeah, he's kind of jerk. As are the four vying for the certification. It seems one must be self-absorbed and borderline ego-maniacal to build the knowledge and fine tune the palate necessary to have a shot.

The exam is broken into 3 parts: Blind wine tasting, Theory, and Service. The wine tasting segments are most fun to watch as we quickly learn there is a skill, a science and some luck involved. Through a sniff and a sip, they must be able to identify the type of wine, the subtle flavors, the age of the wine, the country of origin, the specific region, and even the level of winery. The theory section involves knowing wine history from all over the globe. This is accomplished through endless hours of reading and flash card drills. The Service portion gets the short straw here, but we do get a taste of the outlandish nature of a game whose point seems to be humiliating the participant.

To add another touch of legend, we do get some insight from Bo Barrett, the legendary California wine maker profiled in the movie Bottle Shock. Mostly though, we learn that this most prestigious designation can only be obtained through an elitist Obsessive-Compulsive approach that kills all sense of acceptable societal manner. For most of us, enjoying a glass of wine with friends is reward enough ... for you others, best of luck learning the 3000 grape varietals in Italy alone.

Double-blind tastings have as much relevance to real, hands- on restaurant work as the Zodiac does to Astronomy.

What you have, rather, is a trade-show paper- chase that's been cooked up by the pretentiously self-qualified to scam money from the slightly less agile.

Suffice it to mention, moreover, that the 'masters' title has absolutely nothing to do with certification from an accredited college or university.

Real masters, from academia, are given by juries of PhD's to acknowledge mastery over a subject of which they, as individuals, have made a contribution to knowledge. Therefore, I challenge any judge of said 'court' to present qualifications that would demonstrate any contribution on their part. to the knowledge of wine.

'Proper' cigar service, perhaps, expressed as their own opinion of propriety? 'Proper' chilling of whites--ostensibly with far greater reference to Oscar Wilde than Van der Walls? Or how about yet another uselessly digressive, non-chemical explanation of 'tannins'?

Lastly, of course, the use of 'Court' speaks volumes about their collective idiocy. How do they support their right to hold court, or to judge, as it were? Where, pray tell, is there a public textbook that's made available for scrutiny much as, say, physics, chemistry, history, or whatever that's taught over at Dustbunny U?

Without reference to said text that's available for all to see, this self-entitled 'court' ranks nothing higher than podunk inquisitional circa AD1200--or rather a Humpty-Dumpty manifesto that states that things mean exactly what I say they mean at the time that I say it".

So much for restaurant 'professionalism': next, perhaps, chiropractics?

Bill Harris