BOTTLE SHOCK

Don't you love it when it when really interesting and memorable stories are made bland and predictable? Sadly, Bottle Shock (2008) accomplishes this in its telling of the story of the Judgment of Paris or the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976. Now, I'm a food/wine/beer junky, so for those of you who don't know the story of the Judgment of Paris, it's a truly fascinating tale. Steven Spurrier, a British wine connoisseur, organized a wine tasting in Paris, France in 1976 in which he asked French wine snobs - I mean, critics - to blindly taste several French and American wines and declare both a best white and red wine. At this time, not only were French wines thought to be untouchable, but American wines were thought to be sub-table wine quality. Therefore you can imagine how earth-shattering it was to the wine world when a panel of French judges declared both an American white and red winners of the tasting. Eventually this would lead to the acceptance of American wines in Europe, as well as a domino effect of wineries opening in South Africa, Australia, and South America. Not only was wine not big in America 35 years ago, but you certainly couldn't go in to your local liquor store and purchase a bottle of Yellowtail. Ok, so now that I've got you hyped up for the amazing story of the film, prepare to be disappointed by what feels like a made for TV film. In typical fashion none of the actors are huge film stars, but you recognize them from something, like Bill Pullman (Independence Day), Chris Pine (Star Trek), Alan Rickman, Freddy Rodriguez, Eliza Dushku and Danny DeVito even has a small cameo. One of the best ways to sum up my feelings about the film is that it has cookie cutter characters and tells the story in cookie cutter format, yet several times the film weirdly veers away from its mold only to jump back into it without explanation. The best example in the film is when the main character's girl interest falls for his best friend instead of for him. Based on how predictable the film had been so far, I was wide-eyed and eager to see what was going to happen next since this turn of events was so unexpected. What happens? The girl falls for the main character 20 minutes later without any mention or conclusion of her affairs with her previous lover. Oh, and the main character and his friend still get along fine. There are several more instances like this throughout the film where plot lines aren't fully explained, and the viewer is left wondering if the filmmaker actually watched a finished cut of his film before declaring it complete. Besides these complaints, the film works its magic to dumb down this particularly interesting story to what should have been a made for TV movie instead of an actual theatrical release. I give this film a 5/10, for the fact that the film has a great quote by Galileo in it.

"Wine is sunlight held together by water."

5/10

BOTTLE SHOCK TRAILER

BOTTLE ROCKET

Having seen everything Wes Anderson had to throw at me I decided to venture back to his feature film debut. At first glance it may appear like a normal Anderson romp: Luke and/or Owen Wilson CHECK, Quirky and/or dysfunctional characters CHECK, Overhead camera angles, wide shots and slow motion conclusions ALL CHECK. While this may sound like the formula we have become pleasantly used to and content with seeing from Anderson, Bottle Rocket is how to say it, well Anderson's first film. The story seems weak and I really just didn't get into these quirky characters like I normal due. And the laughs really never seemed to come. Then again I probably would have given a similar review to Life Aquatic (2004) after seeing it the first time and now deeply regret everything thing there were faults with that movie. So while I give Bottle Rocket a 5/10, I do so tentatively remembering how his films have surprised me upon a second journey.

5/10

DIE HARD 2

So I know I've seen Die Hard (1988) and who hasn't seen Die Hard: With a Vengenance (1995), that must play every single weekend on at least one channel, but somehow I have missed out on seeing Die Hard 2. After watching it, now I know why. Don't get me wrong, while I maybe a stuck up movie snob I like to think that I still know there is a place for mindless actions films which is why I love Die Hard and Die Hard: With a Vengenance, but there is clearly something lacking in this installment in series. Perhaps its that the cliche characters are even more cliche then normal, the characters stupidity (besides Bruce Willis of course) is even more present then normal or perhaps (and I hate to become the person who always references 9/11 changing everything) in a post-9/11 world its difficult to get as lost and involved in an action movie involving plans falling out of the skies as is required to truly enjoy an action movie the way you are supposed to. I give Die Hard 2 a 5/10

5/10

SUNSHINE

This movie is difficult to review because of how much I loved the first 90 minutes of the movie and how quickly it went downhill. The movie reunites the team behind 28 Days Later (2002) Danny Boyle (Director), Alex Garland (Writer) & Cillian Murphy (Actor) and follows a team of astronauts whose duty is to drop an atomic payload into the sun to "restart" it. If it wasn't for the talent involved in this movie, I would have easily written off the movie based on its plot which dreadfully lacks originality. The movie starts off slow (in a good way), in which we meet the diverse cast and are given time to appreciate the beauty of space as we have been unable to do since the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Solaris (1972). From there shit starts going crazy and before you know it some man who resembles Nemesis from the Resident Evil series is cutting down the cast of the Icarus II (what astronaut would want there ship flying towards the sun with a name like this) like in a typical horror movie. While I've seen some logic in people's arguments behind the existence of this Nemesis-like character (some which I agree with), I still believe the characters inclusion in the movie diminishes my appreciation, rather then adding anything to the movie which contains some beautiful moments. I give this movie a 5/10, because I just recalled how bad the last five minute of the film were.

5/10

PEEPING TOM

This is a very British take on Psycho and fittingly came out rigth aroudn the same time. The film tracks a filmaker who can always be found with his camera, and can always be found killing young, attractive girls. I really don't have much to say about the film. I think it was a good film, but I think its one of those things that has had a difficult time surviving the test of time, unlike Psycho which I still believe is horrifying and wonderful. This on the other hand was amusing and well done, but just is missing something I feel. Don't get me wrong the movie does have some very disturbing moments and is a good film. I give this film a 5/10, for being what at one time was probably a great film and now is just a good film.

5/10

WAR PHOTOGRAPHER

After discovery that their was a documentary film about James Nagthwey, my favorite photographer of all time, I knew that I had to immidetly watch that film and expected that I would goble up the film quickly and be wanting more. I mean wouldn't you expect that, considering that I know next to nothing about the photographer besides his pictures and am obsessed w/ him enough to buy his $100 book called Inferno. Sadly the film didn't meet my expectations, which I believe I set fairly low considering I was willing to kill for any info about him. The focus of the documentary at times seemed very unclear, which again confused me since what else would the film be about then James Naghtwey. At times people were interviewed whose relation to James was unclear and spoke about topics which seemed unrelated to the movies focus. Other shots ran on far too long, as if the director knew the movie was running short and decided to gain another 5 minutes by adding silenceand shots of people "deep in thought". Nonetheless there were several moments that were very rewarding as the film had footage from a small camera that was attached to Nacthwey's own camera, this enabled the viewer to see what he was seeing and how quickly he had to take the pictures he was talking and change the shutter and focus. Other powerful moments allowed you to see him taking and developing several of his most famous shots. Other moments in this film though held it back from being the insightful documentary I thought it would be. Everything stayed too much on the surface, and rarely delved into the important issuues like how Nacthwey deals with the horrors he sees everyday and is what he doing really making a diffference. I give this film a 6/10 for people who are a fan of Nacthwey's work, but a 5/10 for those who aren't familiar with his work.

5/10

BOBBY

Emilo Estevez writes, directs and acts in Bobby along side an all-star cast that is too lengthy to fit in this 1,000 character space. Anyone who goes into watching the film expecting to see a film about Bobby Kennedy, like my mom, will be suprised. This is a movie about a fixed moment in time. While this is at times very interesting since the movie isn't trying to capture people's outlook on life on a vague period of time like "the 60's", at the same point things run thin at points and there are too many characters involved who are all very shallow, unconnected, difficult to keep track of and difficult to determine their signicance. While the end of the end of the movie does help to connect the characters more it is too little too late. One is also left at the end wondering how much is actually true and how much is part of Estevez imagination. I give this movie a 5/10, for its weird drug scenes.

5/10