Tonight my wife and I saw "Bottle Shock".

Fun movie if you like wine. I don't want to give much of this away but
wanted to comment.

Its nothing like the movie Sideways. This is a drama, a few light funny
moments but a fact based movie centered around the 1973 Chateau Montlena and
Cal wine industry.

Also Steve Spurrier(wine not football) putting together a wine tasting in
Paris to include Cal wines.

We enjoyed. Ratings were not high locally but its a good movie.

I saw it with my girlfriend and really liked it too. I'm glad to see
its getting good reviews (Ebert really likes it, Rolling Stone, etc.).

Alan Rickman is great in it and all of the actors did a really good
job I thought. I also really liked the music in it. I'm seeing if I
can chase down the soundtrack. Those sweeping shots of the fields are
gorgeous. Yeah, nothing like SIDEWAY-- but still really funny
nonetheless. A good counterpart to Sideways actually to go on my
shelf.

Glad you liked it. I read an article about how they are releasing it
and it's rolling out to more theaters this weekend if you havent seen
you can find info at the website (bottleshockthemovie.com).

On Aug 18, 2:12�am, wrote:
> I saw it with my girlfriend and really liked it too. I'm glad to see
> its getting good reviews (Ebert really likes it, Rolling Stone, etc.).
>
> Alan Rickman is great in it and all of the actors did a really good
> job I thought. I also really liked the music in it. I'm seeing if I
> can chase down the soundtrack. Those sweeping shots of the fields are
> gorgeous. Yeah, nothing like SIDEWAY-- but still really funny
> nonetheless. A good counterpart to Sideways actually to go on my
> shelf.
>
> Glad you liked it. I read an article about how they are releasing it
> and it's rolling out to more theaters this weekend if you havent seen
> you can find info at the website (bottleshockthemovie.com).

Dear Mr DVD:

I wasn't going to respond to your post. But when Bi!! posted the link
to Asimov's NYT blog (NYT on Cabernet), I read next entry down, and
saw the Bottle Shock (BS for short, how appropriate!) stealth
marketers had tried their obnoxious campaign there too. I'm sure you
are just a fan, who felt the need to post the movie's website in their
first ever post. But you should be aware there are scumbag publicists
on the loose!

This is the email I sent to the contact listed on the website Aug 7th,
after yet another stealth spam:

"Just so you know, like most wine geeks I probably would be considered
part of one of your target audiences. But I personally will refrain
from spending my money, and discourage others from doing so, due to
this clumsy stealth marketing:
http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17071&p=144722&hilit=michael+b erger#p144722"


Besides WLDG, similar attempts were deleted on Squires/eBob and other
boards.

Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real and (2)
posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
of these forums.

My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
marketers lack of ethics.

"DaleW" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 2:12?am, wrote:
snip

From Dale W.
"Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real and (2)
posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
of these forums.

My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
marketers lack of ethics."

As usual Dale you jumped to conclusions that were in error. This poster
responded to my post. Personally I don't care if he was or was not a "sock
puppet" or not. He did not state he was or was not one...he posted to ad to
my post.

You continue to be a rude dickhead and I wanted to make sure that was stated
here. You may not like sock puppets but you should wear a condom on your
head and be a condom puppet cause you behave like a dickhead. nuf said on
that you borish ass.

On Aug 19, 9:26�pm, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> "DaleW" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 18, 2:12?am, wrote:
> snip
>
> From Dale W.
> "Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real �and (2)
> posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
> sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
> of these forums.
>
> My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
> sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
> marketers lack of ethics."
>
> As usual Dale you jumped to conclusions that were in error. �This poster
> responded to my post. �Personally I don't care if he was or was not a "sock
> puppet" or not. �He did not state he was or was not one...he posted to ad to
> my post.
>
> You continue to be a rude dickhead and I wanted to make sure that was stated
> here. �You may not like sock puppets but you should wear a condom on your
> head and be a condom puppet cause you behave like a dickhead. �nuf said on
> that you borish ass.

FWIW, Steve Spurrier was less than enamoured with the movie and at one
time threatened legal action due to the factual innacuracy of the
movie. It's my understanding (based on a recent interview with the
producer in WS) that the movie is loosely based on fact and is more of
a dramatic recreation of events than the actual story of the Paris
Tasting of 1976.
http://www.decanter.com/news/132516.html

Bi, I would tend to agree. There were some cute/funny scenes and my guess
is its very loose on fact. It was entertaining however.


"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 9:26?pm, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> "DaleW" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 18, 2:12?am, wrote:
> snip
>
> From Dale W.
> "Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real ?and (2)
> posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
> sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
> of these forums.
>
> My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
> sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
> marketers lack of ethics."
>
> As usual Dale you jumped to conclusions that were in error. ?This poster
> responded to my post. ?Personally I don't care if he was or was not a
> "sock
> puppet" or not. ?He did not state he was or was not one...he posted to ad
> to
> my post.
>
> You continue to be a rude dickhead and I wanted to make sure that was
> stated
> here. ?You may not like sock puppets but you should wear a condom on your
> head and be a condom puppet cause you behave like a dickhead. ?nuf said on
> that you borish ass.

FWIW, Steve Spurrier was less than enamoured with the movie and at one
time threatened legal action due to the factual innacuracy of the
movie. It's my understanding (based on a recent interview with the
producer in WS) that the movie is loosely based on fact and is more of
a dramatic recreation of events than the actual story of the Paris
Tasting of 1976.
http://www.decanter.com/news/132516.html

Note that article was from July 2007. Threats of legal action meant little
as they film did release.

I also felt Rickman did a good job as Spurrier. Saturday night live on TV
portrays many a person, does not mean its factual. Spurrier should be proud
of the film, Rickman is a good actor.

"Bi!!" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 9:26?pm, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> "DaleW" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 18, 2:12?am, wrote:
> snip
>
> From Dale W.
> "Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real ?and (2)
> posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
> sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
> of these forums.
>
> My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
> sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
> marketers lack of ethics."
>
> As usual Dale you jumped to conclusions that were in error. ?This poster
> responded to my post. ?Personally I don't care if he was or was not a
> "sock
> puppet" or not. ?He did not state he was or was not one...he posted to ad
> to
> my post.
>
> You continue to be a rude dickhead and I wanted to make sure that was
> stated
> here. ?You may not like sock puppets but you should wear a condom on your
> head and be a condom puppet cause you behave like a dickhead. ?nuf said on
> that you borish ass.

FWIW, Steve Spurrier was less than enamoured with the movie and at one
time threatened legal action due to the factual innacuracy of the
movie. It's my understanding (based on a recent interview with the
producer in WS) that the movie is loosely based on fact and is more of
a dramatic recreation of events than the actual story of the Paris
Tasting of 1976.
http://www.decanter.com/news/132516.html

In article
>,
DaleW > wrote:

> On Aug 18, 2:12?am, wrote:
> > I saw it with my girlfriend and really liked it too. I'm glad to see
> > its getting good reviews (Ebert really likes it, Rolling Stone, etc.).
> >
> > Alan Rickman is great in it and all of the actors did a really good
> > job I thought. I also really liked the music in it. I'm seeing if I
> > can chase down the soundtrack. Those sweeping shots of the fields are
> > gorgeous. Yeah, nothing like SIDEWAY-- but still really funny
> > nonetheless. A good counterpart to Sideways actually to go on my
> > shelf.
> >
> > Glad you liked it. I read an article about how they are releasing it
> > and it's rolling out to more theaters this weekend if you havent seen
> > you can find info at the website (bottleshockthemovie.com).
>
> Dear Mr DVD:
>
> I wasn't going to respond to your post. But when Bi!! posted the link
> to Asimov's NYT blog (NYT on Cabernet), I read next entry down, and
> saw the Bottle Shock (BS for short, how appropriate!) stealth
> marketers had tried their obnoxious campaign there too. I'm sure you
> are just a fan, who felt the need to post the movie's website in their
> first ever post. But you should be aware there are scumbag publicists
> on the loose!
>
> This is the email I sent to the contact listed on the website Aug 7th,
> after yet another stealth spam:
>
> "Just so you know, like most wine geeks I probably would be considered
> part of one of your target audiences. But I personally will refrain
> from spending my money, and discourage others from doing so, due to
> this clumsy stealth marketing:
> http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/...17071&p=144722
> &hilit=michael+berger#p144722"
>
>
> Besides WLDG, similar attempts were deleted on Squires/eBob and other
> boards.
>
> Discussion forums are built on trust that people are (1) real and (2)
> posting out of an interest in sharing and learning information. Stupid
> sock puppets and stealth marketers undermine the integrity and spirit
> of these forums.
>
> My goal is if anyone mentions to me, is just to say "I heard it REALLY
> sucked." I figure I can do a little to counteract the producers/
> marketers lack of ethics.

But the movie really is enjoyable and well worth watching and I have
nothing to do with it but as a viewer.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:36:17 -0400, Lawrence Leichtman
> wrote:

>But the movie really is enjoyable and well worth watching and I have
>nothing to do with it but as a viewer.

I don't normally reprint stuff in newsgroups, but since the original
article (read: scathing criticism) this story is based on has already
disappeared from the St. Helen Star archives, here you go. Nothing
like a little "Man bites dog." .

JJ

P.S. Syntax quirk: All quotation marks seem to have become little
black vertical bars.

http://www.sthelenastar.com/articles...b832989225.txt

'Bottle Shock' film producer criticizes critic
By John Lindblom
STAFF WRITER
Thursday, September 11, 2008

Brenda Lhormer, a producer of the movie “Bottle Shock,” has charged
that “harsh comments” by freelance writer John Intardonato about how
the film was made were unfair because Intardonato did not contact
either her or her co-producer husband before the article was
published. The article ran on page A1 of the Aug. 28 edition of the
St. Helena Star.

It’s general knowledge that the movie is loosely based on George M.
Taber’s book, “Judgment of Paris,” in which he chronicles how French
winemakers were stunned when chardonnay produced by Napa Valley
winemakers was judged superior to their own in a 1976 blind taste
test.

Intardonato’s three main criticisms of the film we

1. The characters in the film who developed the wine that would best
the French were “down-and-outers,” when, in fact, then-Chateau
Montelena owner Lee Paschich, Ernest Hahn and winemaker Jim Barrett
were “hardly from the sticks.”

2. It made “buffoons” of some real people, i.e. wine merchant Steven
Spurrier (played by Alan Rickman) and Taber (Louis Giambalvo) while
reducing others who were critical players in the actual event — Mike
Grgich, Patricia Gallagher who suggested the tasting, etc. — to
subordinate roles.

3. It is a Napa Valley story that was almost entirely filmed in Sonoma
County (where the Lhormers live).

But Lhormer said that “Bottle Shock”’s original scriptwriter Ross
Schwartz intended to tell the story in a dramatic — not factual — way,
and that had Intardonato spoke with her before completing his article
she would have explained that to him.

“He (Schwartz) wanted to get the importance of the heroics of the
event out to the masses — take something real and fictionalize it to
where it’s going to be more appealing to a large-scale audience,”
Lhormer asserted.

The objective for the film, Lhormer added, was to “get it out so that
it makes people happy, inspires people and has them saying, ‘I didn’t
know that happened!’”

It was Schwartz’s girlfriend, she said, who suggested that he develop
a narrative “about a great event that had a classic underdog story
built into it.” Like “Seabiscuit” in a bottle.

Before writing the “Bottle Shock” script, Schwartz met with the main
players noticeable by their absence in the film, including Grgich.

“Mike is in the movie in a nonspeaking part,” said Lhormer. “The main
reason that he’s not part of the movie’s main theme is that he said
‘I’m not interested in being part of the film.’”

Gallagher was written out, she said, in order to build up Rickman’s
entertaining characterization of Spurrier.

“Would I have done a couple of things differently? Probably. But I
wasn’t writing the script. When you have an opportunity work with
Alan, it’s hard to turn that down,” said Lhormer, who took issue with
Intardonato’s charge that Spurrier was made to look like a buffoon.

“That’s a judgment that I think is unfortunate,” she said. “People
loved to see the Spurrier character. Kind of snooty, but lovable. If
John thinks he’s (portrayed as) a buffoon, I think he’s coming from a
perspective of wanting to see him played to intense perfection and
accuracy, which we were not doing.”

The trick, said Lhormer, was to make the Spurrier character “accurate
enough so that we’re not going to get in trouble and making him more
dramatically appealing.”

“John is seeing that as buffoonery,” she continued, “We’re seeing it
as a way that charms audiences. And I don’t think audiences see it
John’s way. I haven’t heard anyone say, ‘This guy is a dork or a
jerk.’”

The decision to film “Bottle Shock” in Sonoma — rather than Napa —
County, Lhormer maintained, was “economically driven.” The project’s
budget, she said, would have been doubled or even tripled in Napa
County.

“It was important to us that we come in on budget so that we could pay
our investors back,” Lhormer stated. “Our investors were looking over
our shoulders every day to make sure we weren’t making any stupid
decisions.”

Lhormer also took exception to Intardonato’s surreptitious suggestion
that not filming “Bottle Shock” in Napa County was Sonoma County’s way
of getting even for being relegated to second banana in the wine
industry.

“I don’t understand that,” she said. “We made some choices to show off
the Napa Valley in the most beautiful way. People who watch the movie
think it’s in Napa, so Napa gets name recognition right away.”

In fairness, it’s likely that Bottle Shock audiences in Pittsburgh,
Peoria — or even Potter Valley, California — will think it was filmed
in the Napa Valley.

A quick browse through the mixed bag of media reviews of “Bottle
Shock” on the Internet tends to bear that out.

“Oh … and not to forget one of the biggest characters in the film, the
Napa Valley itself!” cooed one reviewer. The movie “ … magnificently
captures the Napa countryside,” wrote another.

Which sort of proves that Lincoln was right when he said, “You can
fool some of the people some of the time ... ”

Does it matter that Lincoln didn’t really say that?