Mondovino
|
List Price: Our Price: $4.89 You Save: $5.09 (51%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.48 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Mondovino
Movie Review: You don't have to drink
Summary: 3 Stars
I really admire the effort put into the gathering of information for this film. The scope is amazing.
I was surprised by all of the people who agreed to participate. I sometimes felt slightly betrayed for them.
Most seemed to speak candidly and the editing, context and even camera angles were fairly unfavorable to many of them.
I wonder now, how they feel about their portrayals.
If you can ignore the obvious conclusions you are supposed to reach, this is a good watch. I believe, that just like wine, you don't have to drink, it's a choice.
Movie Review: Good documentary with a terrible soundtrack
Summary: 3 Stars
For such a commercially successful documentary , Mondovino had some of the worst music I have ever heard. The fact that the bad music left such a lasting impression attests to how awful it was. The film contained a few eye-roll worthy cliches, like oaky American wines are "destroying the world" and how "all corporations are evil." Aside from the bad soundtrack and occasional passe cliches, the documentary was very interesting and lived up to a lot of its hype.Movie Review: Incompatability With Some DVD Players
Summary: 3 Stars
Dvd played fine on my newer Samsung that has both European and North American DVD compatability. Did not play at all on my older Samsung DVD or my neighbor's new Sony Blue Ray player. I tried it in my HP desktop computer using HP DVD software and I got a message that my dvd drive was set for North American region and I should select to change to the seting to the European region. I did that and it played fine.Movie Review: Mondovino
Summary: 3 Stars
It's kinda slow moving and a little hard to watch, the camera moves all around and you have to read sub-titles. But overall enjoyable.Movie Review: Sour grapes?
Summary: 2 Stars
This documentary seems to be aimed at confusing and provoking the viewer into a certain emotional reaction. But, in my opinion, only someone who is a newbie to the world of fine wine would fall for these techniques and I doubt that many people of casual interest in wine would be drawn to watch this documentary. I've been a wine collector for the past twenty years and I am as concerned about these issues as the film maker, but I don't think anyone is served by such a confused and simplistic approach. For example, I too believe that Robert Parker's influence in the business of fine wine collecting is of great concern. However, the film maker hammers a few issues over and over again while failing to delve into many others, some of which would tend to mitigate in Parker's favor. Why not give the man a fair trial?
For example, Parker does seem to like wines of great concentration that have been aged in French oak barrels and anyone following his reviews needs to be aware of this. However, Parker has also exerted great influence over wine makers to stop fining and filtering their wines. He's pushed for organic and biodynamic vineyard practices and for low yields based on more rigorous grape selection at harvest, which also tends to lower profits. He rewards single-vineyard estate bottling and has championed lesser known varietals like the type that go into Chateauneuf Du Pape. One of his favorite wines from that region, based on his reviews, is made by Domaine Pegau, which fits into his paradigm of low yields and non-filtering, but this wine maker tends to age his wine in traditional old wooden foudres, not small French oak barrels. This all runs counter to the main theme of the film because these things tend to help reveal a wine's varietal and regional character as well as its terroir.
Further, you can watch the entire documentary without finding out that Parker does not write for a magazine and does not run any advertising in his newsletter. Further, before Parker began reviewing wine, the wines of Bordeaux were being sold based on the prestige of the brand names and ancient classifications that no longer had any relevance. Parker took on this out-dated and elitist system by reviewing the wines of Bordeaux with no concern for reputation or classification and the result was often that a wine of lower classification and significantly lower price achieved a score that was higher than the big-dollar, big-named wines coasting on age old reputation and out-dated classification.
What about the hundreds of family owned vineyards and artisanal wine makers who tend small parcels resulting in limited production that do not hire Rolland and who achieve high scores from critics like Parker?
If you don't know any of these things -- and you are not told any of this in the documentary -- of course all of those who praise Parker sound crazy and Parker sounds like a nut when he boasts of being inspired by Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, or having been shaped by his reaction to Watergate.
As to the internationalization of wine styles, the film maker neglects to mention that Parker himself does not review wine all around the world. He has other writers reviewing wines. For example, for all of the focus on Italian wine in the documentary, you'd think the film maker would have mentioned that Parker himself hardly ever posts reviews of Italian wine in his newsletter. For years, Italian wine was reviewed by Daniel Thomases and in the past ten years or so, Italian wines have been reviewed by Antonio Galloni. Both of these writers have railed against the use of too much French oak in classic Italian wines like Brunello Di Montalcino.
The film maker also does a hatchet job on Robert Mondavi. He neglects to delve into how Mondavi built his company and he also neglects to mention that Parker has very seldom given a Robert Mondavi wine a score above 95 points, which is the rarified territory where trophy wine collectors become interested. A lot of hay is made about Mondavi buying interest in Ornellaia and the wine subsequently becoming a big seller. It was a popular and favorably reviewed wine before Mondavi bought into it -- that's why he bought it. Then, if you've been paying attention, you've been told by Mondavi's admirers that he is a tireless and talented spokesman for his wines. Doesn't it follow that he saw a great wine and knew that he could increase the value of his investment by using his talent for public relations to bring a fine wine to the attention of an even wider audience? Is that a crime? The film maker seems to indicate that it is, but his aim is scattershot. He seems to want us to resent anyone who has been successful in the wine business, no matter how they have achieved their success.
The film maker also brings us into the world of what is essentially bulk wine making. Firms that churn out hundreds of thousands of cases of mediocre wine. Basically, supermarket wine -- the kind you would see on the bottom shelves of your supermarket's wine aisle. Yes, these wines are completely unremarkable, have no regional character, are often sold under different labels even though it is the same wine, but this is all beside the point. These wines never achieve high scores from critics. If you're paying attention, which is difficult in this documentary, you might notice that the film maker does not make this clear -- he seems to want you to lump all of these issues together.
So, what about the other target, Michel Rolland, the wine consultant to the stars? The documentary makes quite a bit of the fact that Rolland consults on a lot of wines. Something like 100+. This is also cause for genuine concern. However, with regard to Ornellaia, which took up a good portion of the documentary, the film maker seems to intentionally confuse the chronology of events. He leads us to believe that Ornellaia, in Ludovico Antinori's hands was a local style wine and that Mondavi purchased it, brought in Michel Rolland and changed the wine. The fact is that Ludovico Antinori hired Michel Rolland, Rolland was a consultant on Ornellaia from the beginning, long before Mondavi's involvement, and there was no change in the style of wine after Mondavi's purchase. It was simply change in ownership.
Also, there are literally thousands and thousands of wines out there and it is still pretty easy to avoid drinking the wines on which Rolland has consulted if you do not like his influence. The film maker doesn't even delve into the many aspects of Rolland's influence so the viewer remains largely ignorant of the relevant issues. This would demand a more balanced, informative approach, trusting educated viewers to make up their own mind. Finally, there are plenty of wines out there on which Rolland does not consult and which are highly prized by serious wine drinkers, collectors and writers, including Robert Parker. What role does consumer demand play in all of this? Why not include some of this information to balance the documentary? Kudos to the film maker for bringing up some important issues, but the absence of all of this info and the fractured, incomplete, and confusing style of this documentary makes it valuable only to those looking for easy scapegoats and simplistic answers to serious issues, certainly not to those looking for an education.