Bottle Shock
With the aid of British sommelier Steven Spurrier, American vintner Jim Barrett makes a splash at the 1976 Judgment of Paris blind taste test.”Bottle shock” describes what can happen to wine as it travels from place to place. Set in 1976, Randall Miller’s widescreen docudrama concerns the real-life showdown between California’s wineries and their French counterparts. Napa Valley’s Jim Barrett (Lost Highway’s Bill Pullman) has been plugging away for years with minimal success. A former attorney,
Rating: 
(out of 119 reviews)
List Price: $ 14.98
Price: $ 6.63
American Outlaws
At the end of the Civil War, Frank and Jesse James ride home to Missouri to be on their ranch with their mother. As a railroad moves through buying upIf you’re looking for a showcase for emerging Hollywood talent, American Outlaws is just the ticket. Its handsome young stars, playing Jesse and Frank James and gang, crack wise as if they were in a contemporary high school locker room. Combining authentic costumes and sets with stunt work befitting a Jackie Chan comedy, accompanied by an “Old West
Rating: 
(out of 124 reviews)
List Price: $ 14.98
Price: $ 4.33
Philip Trubey said
September 6 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Review by Philip Trubey for Bottle Shock
Rating:
Before a (then) little known Paris wine tasting in 1976, most people had no idea that California was producing world class wines. That changed when a British ex-pat in Paris organized a wine tasting of the best French versus the best Californians – against all expectations, California won both best red and white and nothing in the wine world has been the same since.
This drama/light comedy follows the true story of the travails of the winning white (Chardonnay) winery leading up to the competition. There is lots to enjoy here including a struggling small business story, an evolving father-son relationship, the comeuppance of an arrogant industry, and of course, a love triangle. The movie is well cast (and very well acted) with Bill Pullman as the business owner father and Alan Rickman as the snobby Brit amazed to find that good wines can be found this side of the Atlantic.
In the final analysis, this is a feel good movie, suitable for the whole family with the proviso that kids under 10 might get bored in places.
E. stark said
September 6 2010 @ 10:13 pm
Review by E. stark for Bottle Shock
Rating:
I saw this movie when it first came out, and then put on a tasting party based on the wines they drank in the movie. People had a great time watching the movie while drinking some of the same wines from the famous tasting (newer vintages). It is true that a lot of artistic licence has been taken, so if you care about the real facts, read The Judgement of Paris (excellent book). However, there are some hilarious lines, Alan Rickman is fabulous, and the scene of the tasting itself is a must for anyone that cares about wine. Personally, I would fast forward through the love-triangle scenes (“Jules and Jim” this film is not). Any wine lover who doesn’t see it because of the negative comments about it not perfectly following the facts will be missing out on a very enjoyable film.
Julie A. Moskal said
September 6 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Review by Julie A. Moskal for Bottle Shock
Rating:
I saw this movie on a trans-Pacific airline trip and it is fabulous! If you survived the seventies and love wine, this is for you. Of if you’re just an Alan Rickman fan, you’ll like it, too! Really a fun, fun movie and makes me want to spend a year’s salary to buy a bottle of 1971 California Chardonnay!
Alyssa A. Lappen said
September 6 2010 @ 10:42 pm
Review by Alyssa A. Lappen for Bottle Shock
Rating:
I’d never heard of this film, which was offered on a recent flight overseas. Given the other movies offered, however, it looked appetizing enough, and I’m glad we tried it out.
Here, we meet again Alan Rickman (best-known for his role in the Harry Potter film series, as the snarling and sinister Snape). This time, however, he’s Steven Spurrier, an amusing British dirty blond, the middle-aged proprietor of a failing Paris wine-tasting “academy,” ahem, business. His exceedingly poor French pronunciation earns him a snub from even the sommelier at classiest City of Light annual vintners’ event: He is nearly rejected at the door, and upon indignantly showing his ticket, is seated at the last table in the rear, by the swinging dining room door.
We also get another surprise performance from Dennis Farina, most famous for his hardened cop character in Law and Order. Here, as Maurice, Farina plays a gauche New York transplant to Paris, an acquaintance of Spurrier who proposes that the latter stir up business by hosting a wine tasting to pit French wines against the best that California has to offer. The thinking is that California will naturally lose, big time.
But everyone in France, at least, is astonished by the outcome. Along the way, viewers also witness fine character acting by California winery owner Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman) and his post-Woodstock generation son, Bo (Chris Pine).
A thoroughly enjoyable romp through a 1976 true-life story—or a story at least based on true life. American ingenuity wins, again.
KTFaye said
September 6 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Review by KTFaye for Bottle Shock
Rating:
It was one of those movies where I REALLY wish it had a better director and/or writer. There was a interesting story to tell there, but the director and scriptwriters muddied it up.
There are good solid performances all around. Alan Rickman was his usual fine self as the Brit living in France who comes up with the idea of the event. He’s droll, dry, and sarcastic. Renting the film is worth it for his performance alone. Bill Pullman is very stoic and tightly wound as Jim Barrett, the winery owner who has staked everything he owns on the little winery that could and is having a financial melt-down. Chris Pine, dressed in classic mid-70′s garb and hair, is the ne’er-do-well son who finds his place in the world. Freddy Rodriquez, a favorite of mine, is very good, and a very underrated actor. Dennis Farina plays himself, but “himself” is always an interesting guy
The film is set at a time when all of the wineries didn’t have big showrooms and didn’t even charge for tastings–and wine is a whole $6 bucks a bottle! But the basic story is a good one, and although they have fictionalized much of it, the wines were made and they did win. Following that, a small article in Time magazine brought Napa and its wines to a wider consumer base.
The problem is that the screenwriters included a fictional character to support a unnecessary fictional love story. Also problematic is that the script actually makes the secondary characters more interesting than the lead characters. For example, there is a secondary storyline about the winemakers assistant, Gustavo (although oddly, the winemaker who actually created the winning wine isn’t even mentioned – what’s with that?). Gustavo is the son of a field hand who has been making his own wine on the side while working for Barrett. He dreams of making wines and knows that he has to goods to deliver. (In real life he eventually opens his own boutique winery, GustavoThrace.) But Gustavo’s story was actually more compelling than the Barrett prodigal son one, and I wish more time had been spent on it. He also forms the third side of the love triangle and the problem is that even though he’s cast as the guy who loses the girl, you can’t help but feel he really should have gotten the girl, despite Chris Pine’s considerable attractions .
But of course nobody should have gotten the girl because they didn’t need the girl to tell the story in the first place. This story could have stood on its own without all that. I suppose the argument could be made the girl was representative of the female winemakers who would come to Napa, but that’s a stretch.
So it’s this kind of thing where the story hits some bumps. This is not to say it sucks, it doesn’t. As long as you’re willing to accept that except for the outcome of the French tasting, it’s pretty much fiction, I give it a very solid B- for entertainment value and good acting.
But it could have been an A with a little more care in the direction and in the script.
N., Vanessa said
September 6 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Review by N., Vanessa for American Outlaws
)
Rating:
Yes, I have heard that “American Outlaws” isn’t always historically accurate! But you know what? Who cares? It’s a terrific movie, that takes you on a wild and hilarious ride with Jesse James and his gang. All the actors are well-cast and did a great job portraying their characters, although – in my mind – Colin Farrell (the next big thing!) and Ali Larter (Hollywood’s most underrated actress) do stand out among the others! If you are looking for a history lesson – go to the library. But if you are looking for a fun movie with lots of action, a great cast, good script, a bit of romance, and some truly unforgettable moments, then don’t miss out on “American Outlaws”!!! It’s become one of my all-time favorite movies! Plus, the DVD has really great bonus features … trailers, tv spots, photo galleries, DVD Rom features, and 4 great featurettes – check out “How to be an Outlaw” for some nice shots of the guys in cowboy camp … showing off their muscles during what would later be know as the hottest summer in Texas’ history
Hawkins said
September 7 2010 @ 12:11 am
Review by Hawkins for American Outlaws
Rating:
Wow what a great movie!!!!! This movie is jammed with cowboy action that just gets better and better! When you watch it you will be introduced to Jessie and his mom and Bob which Jessie learned how to shoot from. They’re are more characters who show up along the way. They’re constenly having problems with thier enemy putting up wanted signs and hanging farmers that are just plane innocent. They have a huge problem with them sneeking up on them every second and attacking. The one thing they don’t do is run away, even if thier in the middle of robbing a bank or store they will countinue what their doing and fight back at the same time. It kind of makes them look like the enemy when they go up to banks and try to rob them, But thier still the good guys in the movie. I think this movie deserves 5 stars! This is a great movie for all ages. Families that love western movies will defiantly enjoy this!!!!
Mr. JKW said
September 7 2010 @ 12:30 am
Review by Mr. JKW for American Outlaws
Rating:
American Outlaws, one of the first Westerns of the new millennium, is an adaptation of the life of legendary 1800s outlaw bank robber Jesse James and his band of men, the James-Yonger Gang.It’s the story of “tradition vs. progress.” Following the Civil War, James and friends returned home to the farm where the “big bad” railroad was trying to expand west by buying out all the farmland from the people in its path. The people of James’ town did not want to go quietly so a huge war begins between the farmers (with James and friends as their warriors) and the railroad tycoon when the railroad “goons” begin to rough up the townsfolk.Overall, though there are a few historical inaccuracies, the movie is a fun action romp (tons of humor) through the old west with cowboys, LOTS of gun battles, stage coach robberies, train robberies, saloons, horses and lovely southern belles.Highlights:- TONS of shoot outs/gun battles (on trains, banks, battlefields, etc)- Daring escapes- Hilarity with wanted postersOverall, this was a great movie to catch, harkening back to the days of the good old Westerns. The action was solid and the humor was “just right.” This was a solid way to spend an evening (or afternoon).Recommended
Sandra Robertson said
September 7 2010 @ 1:20 am
Review by Sandra Robertson for American Outlaws
Rating:
I must immediately say that this film is a whole lot of fun. The actors are young, cute, talented, and obviously having a great time. Colin Farrell and Gabriel Macht have clearly captured the spirit of the James brothers; Scott Caan has his father’s looks, charm and very good handle on the boldness and ruthlessness of Cole Younger; Will McCormack is a scene-stealing comic, and Ali Larter is–well, she’s very pretty. The show is helped out immeasurably by veterans Timothy Dalton and Kathy Bates. (Bates would have been an even more natural choice for the James boys’ mother if the part had been written closer to history, which it wasn’t.) There are some wonderful action/adventure Indiana Jones-y stunts and the pace of the film is brisk. It’s a Saturday afternoon kind of movie–fun, good-looking,and not mentally taxing.My problem was that I bought the film to give me some insight into the history of the James Gang, and if you are looking for reality, this isn’t it. It’s a combination of half-truth, made-up-out-of-whole-cloth falsehood, and so many anachronisms we lost count. Anachronisms can be charming–as “A Knight’s Tale” illustrates so well– and part of the movie’s charm is the 21st century Saved-by-the-Bell language that these kids bring to their roles as famous desperadoes. If you know anything about the James Gang, the Civil War, or the history of western expansion, parts of this movie will drive you crazy. A partial list:1. The opening scene takes place during the last days of the Civil War with Frank James taking out a Gatling Gun with his sharpshooter’s Winchester rifle, a’ la’ Sergeant York. Gatling guns were not used in the Civil War (except as a test case), and Frank’s Winchester is an 1880′s invention.2. Cole Younger was never about to be hanged by Federals and so the James boys didn’t free him from the gallows, but it IS a great scene to watch.3. Most of the climactic scenes involve Jesse’s escape from captivity. Jesse James was never captured. He was shot in the back of the head at his home by a former gang member for reward money.4. Mrs. James (her name was Zerelda Samuel) was not killed by the Pinkerton Raid. She lost an arm but lived well into old age. However, not mentioned by the movie was that her 8-year-old son Archie Samuel, the James boys’ half-brother, was killed in the raid. 5. Jim Younger wasn’t shot dead as a teenager after some bank job–he killed himself in his 50′s after he was paroled from prison. 6. Pinkerton never saw the James Boys in person, but directed the hunt for them from Chicago.7. In the film, Nathaniel Arcand brings ethnic diversity to the Gang as “Commanche Tom,” but I can’t find a record of anyone named Tom in the James Gang and no one who was obviously Native American. I think his role was just a token; if you have “cowboys” you have to have an “Indian” too.8. Ali Larter was just precious, but her loose flowing Breck-girl hair and Gap-style gauzy clothing were anachronistic. And the idea the she led a raid to free (the never-imprisoned-in-the-first-place) Jesse, guns blazing, is totally out of character for her or most women of the age. The directors DID manage to present “ladies of the evening” as something less than Hollywood-beautiful, which is probably closer to the truth, however.Enjoy this film. It is meant to be enjoyed. Just don’t take any of it seriously.
V. Hallett said
September 7 2010 @ 2:17 am
Review by V. Hallett for American Outlaws
Rating:
This movie is such an awesome movie, however you need to watch it with people who are willing to actually “listen” to it. The humor is hilarious but its sarcastic under the breath humor so if your not listening for it you won’t hear it.
I thought this movie was great. Especially for the ladies, these cowboys are mighty fine! And this movie came out before Collin Ferrel’s bad boy roles he plays in videos now.
Excellent anytime movie! 2 thumbs up!