MovieChat Forums > Bottle Shock (2008) Discussion > Sweet, but with an underlying sharpness ...

Sweet, but with an underlying sharpness and an earth-toned edge

posted 15 years ago by cgd3207
2 replies | jump to latest

Some on this board have compared Bottle Shock unfavorably to Sideways; I felt exactly the opposite about the two movies. I felt zero sympathy/empathy with Miles and Jack of Sideways, who seemed so incredibly self-indulgent and selfish that it was like trying to relate to someone who enjoyed hitting himself over the head with a hammer "'cause it feels so good when I stop."

I found all the major characters of Bottle Shock -- with the exception of the H'wood Stock Beautiful Young Chick Who Is Here To Be Young 'n' Beautiful -- to have depth and motivation. I cared about Jim, who put everything into a dream that was in danger of going under, and was being swamped by his fears. I cared about Bo, who didn't want to grow up but found a reason to. I cared about Steven, who lived as a permanent outsider in a world he both loved and wanted to challenge. I cared about Gustavo, whose dream paralleled Jim's but whose circumstances didn't, who provided a beautiful foil to Bo. I was delighted by what the film had to say about paradigms and how easily they can become defining forces that fail to accommodate the human spirit.

I'd suggest that the film is just too low-key for most American audiences, who really need some serious electroshocks wired into the screen or their seats before they can say "I've been to the MOVIES!"

[–] k_street 15 years ago

This is a quite different film than Sideways, people are only comparing them because few movies come out which feature wine and the California wine country so heavily. Bottle Shock is about wine, heritage, family, pride in your hard work and your corner of the world, while Sideways is a character-driven piece about neurotic or self-sabatoging, lonely people. Wine is a pretentious, long-winded metaphor in Sideways and wine country is just a vehicle to inspire "new growth," (har har.) But in Bottle Shock, it's their world, as they say, it's in their blood and under their fingernails.

Assuming most Americans won't go see a film unless it's packed with crazy action is just as snobby as the characters in this film who assume only the French would be capable of making quality wine. Because some Americans will go see a hot mess of a blockbuster in theaters does not mean movies that are different have no chance or that all Americans want to see crap on screen. This movie wasn't highly publicized in the US (distributing company probably cheaped out); it doesn't really fit any particular genre (which makes it difficult to market) yet isn't really special enough to transcend all of them; it has some well-known and talented actors, but no one that really draws in big audiences- those reasons are why I think it wasn't a big hit in the U.S.

[–] slickrock-1 14 years ago

Well stated and insightful comments on Bottle Shock. This is one American who enjoyed the movie and appreciated the same aspects you pointed out. Like the paradigms you mentioned, it isn't that all Americans need the electroshocks or high octane actions flicks. It's as with all cultures, some are more sophisticated, discerning and complex in their tastes and others are not. Thanks for posting.