Sideways: a movie that cares about wine so you don't have to

Just saw this. Enjoyed it. I liked how my feelings for the characters changed 360 degrees by the end of the movie. Going in, I thought the surfer was really together and the writer was really neurotic. About halfway thorough you realize they’re both pretty fucking neurotic, just in different ways. Finish up with the writer coming off like a bit of a hero, albeit a neurotic hero. Just a really nice character arc.

I wonder why they billed this as a comedy? It’s like calling Lost in Translation a comedy. It just doesn’t strike me as a comedy.

What was up with the name? I can’t figure out why they call it sideways. Is that a wine thing?

Australia is also a great source of good Syrah (they are to blame for starting the whole “Shiraz” thing… those Aussies and their funny accents) on both ends of the spectrum. My fear is that a boom in popularity might encourage runaway pricing, like it did with Cabernet Sauvignon in California. A lot of the boutique California cabs have become every bit as untouchable as the absurdly priced premier grands crus classes from Bordeaux.

Personally, I have a thing for Spanish wines. Spain is one of the best sources in the world for high-quality, low price reds. I’d put Australia at a close second, though.

And I loved Sidways. A wonderful screenplay, wonderfully acted.

What was up with the name? I can’t figure out why they call it sideways. Is that a wine thing?

Tim, the movie is taken from a novel, where I imagine the title is addressed at some point. But the movie poster seems to offer a clue: you store wine bottles sideways.

I think this is so that the corks don’t dry out and rot. But the implication seems to be another subtle metaphor about the characters and wine that I’m happy to just let sit rather than try to analyze.

And although it’s very fashionable to say so, I admit this is easily my favorite movie from last year. I recently saw it again and it holds up beautifully. Fucking Academy not nominating Giamatti…

-Tom

Tom, my wife had mentioned the thing about corks drying out as we pondered the movie poster. Neither of us realized the movie had been adapted from a book (or if she did, she never mentioned it to me. I didn’t realize it). I like your approach of letting it be a mystery.

I think Giamatti deserved at least a nomination. My wife’s one criticisim of the movie was that we never got to see the likeable qualities in Giamatti’s character. His depressive behavior was pretty convincing, but I never got the sense he could rise above it. I am not sure that’s a critique of his acting as much as some larger directing or writing issue. Still a great movie.

I really enjoyed Church and was glad he got a nomination. His character takes a beating toward the end, but I thought he did a great job breathing life into what could have been a flat sterotype done by someone else.

My wife read the book and recommends it… Sounds like some of the events and characters are somewhat changed. Nobody sounds quite as likeable. :)

MOVIE SPOILER

For me, the finest scene with Miles was where his ex-wife tells him she’s pregnant. You see an incredible range of emotions pass across Miles’ face, and in the end, he decides to say “I’m happy for you,” rather than making some passive-aggressive snarky half-compliment, half-insult.

That’s where he rose above his own neuroses. I found that scene much more compelling than Miles’ “pinot noir as unknowing metaphor for my life” speech to Maya that all the critics rave about.

Ah, good point Sidd. I hadn’t thought of that scene when my wife offered her comments. I’ll pass that along because I think you’re right on the mark. I was giving his character points for yanking his fancy bottle out of the closet to cheer himself up. Here he deserves credit for more than just learning to nurture himself. Thanks!

And, yes, I think you’re right about the metaphor. Personally I didn’t think the character was knowingly revealing anything special about himself when he said it. I haven’t read many reviews, and am somewhat surprised that it is being held up as some sort of watershed moment for the character (if it is and I understand your point). It just seemed like competent screen writing, a sort of sly wink to the audience.

I’m with Sidd in that I thought that scene was a little too cute to really pull off. If they had done it about half as much, I would have been happier I think. IOW, I thought it was a good idea–character feels about wine the way he wishes people would feel about him. But the speech itself is too long and too pefectly about Miles himself rather than about pinot noir, and it comes off (as Tim says) like they’re winking at the audience. Miles’ scene at the wedding is definitely the best part of the whole movie IMO.

And yeah, fuck the Academy.

SPOILERS BELOW:

I just figured the title was a reference to the direction that Miles’s life was going…

Anyway, thought it was a good movie, but not earth shattering. Stephanie’s character was interesting because 90% of what they present is that she’s an irresponsible, self-absorbed force of nature. She can’t take care of her own daughter because she’s too busy getting laid by guys she just met.

The funny thing is that Miles pretty much pegs are such, but decides that he’s underestimated her as a person because of one particular bottle of wine she has.

Virginia Madsen’s character was the most opaque, they really didn’t do anything other than hint at her depth. She was a wine aficonado, a contemplative person, and refined, which is different than what you’d expect from a waitress. I thought they hinted at this depth really well when Miles’s was going on about her being a horticulturist and he’s thinking “Wow, so you want to work at a vineyard?!” and she comes back with a very half-hearted “Maybe”, showing that maybe she just wasn’t a one-dimensional character interested in vinoculture (or whatever it’s called).

When Church’s character started crying, asking for help, do you guys think he was genuine or just being manipulative?

When Church’s character started crying, asking for help, do you guys think he was genuine or just being manipulative?

I took it as a great depiction of a person who unintentionally manipulates others because that’s just how he goes through life. If you asked him if he were being manipulative, he would have to tell you no (to remain in character) but I think he’s clearly good at using his looks/charisma to get what he wants. Crying is a bit of a departure for someone like that, but not that much.

When I watched it I took this as genuine, or as genuine as he gets. I think everyone has known someone like that at some point–the person who is really kind of a fuckup in many ways, and every now and then seems to have this crashing realization about what a fuckup they are and how bad it could turn out, but the next day they’re right back to being a fuckup again.

I might have liked this better if 1) Everything didn’t revolve around wine, about which I know nothing and care less, and 2) I was 10 years older and really beginning to feel that life’s opportunities were beginning to dwindle.

Well acted, but overall, boring as hell in my opinion.

I just saw this a week ago and have to say that if you’re in the age range that these guys are in (early 40’s) you perhaps appreciate their plight much more, especially Miles’ (Giamatti’s). I was freaking out when his ex-wife tells him she’s pregnant, and you see him rushing home etc.-- I thought he might do something drastic, but then you’re just really happy that he does what he does. But… styrofoam cup and fast food to go with it? Aaargh.

BTW Sandra Oh was überhot in that Stephanie role. Sometimes she’s just “meh” but others she’s “hummanahummanahummana”. I can’t explain it.

At the end all I could think of was ‘why isn’t there a Virginia Madsen out there for me?’ :wink:

OK, so I couldn’t be part of the cool crowd who saw it when it in the theatres, but I did just watch it on DVD.

The beginning was tooooo sloooow. My wife wanted to turn it off after 30 minutes. Having the Paul G character stealing from his mother at the beginning was over the top - made him too unlikeable.

I think it would have been better to just show him hitting up his mother privately for extra cash, maybe making up a hokey story. Plus, later when we find out he’s a teacher, it doesn’t ring true - teachers aren’t rich, but they’re not paid starvation wages either, there’s no reason for him to rob his own mother.

At the 60 minute mark my wife went to bed but I kept watching. Which was unfortunate for her because the 2nd half, especially the last 30 minutes, was the best (as someone else posted). I really liked the ending, too - perfectly written and acted.

Overall, the movie had 3 or 4 really memorable, funny scenes, balanced by a bunch of dry stretches. A good movie, but not a great one.

[next up, I’ll post my comments on Titanic - I hear that DeCaprio kid has promise!]

He’s a teacher who lives in one of the most expensive regions in the country, and who is a wine fanatic with expensive tastes in wine.

I liked the scene where he steals from his mother, because it immediately establishes that he is not really the straight man to Jack’s immature raucous frat boy, contrary to the initial impression that the movie gives you. An adult might hit up his mother for cash, but stealing from her hidden stash is the sort of thing only a child would do, and that scene shows you that Miles is not any less immature than Jack, even though he thinks that he is. It makes him less likeable but also a bit pitiable; you get the idea that Jack lacks the smarts to act differently than he does, but Miles should know better.

The fact he steals from his mother pretty much made me like the movie much less than anyone else. It pretty much makes it a movie about revolting poeple that don’t have the saving grace of being interesting. When you make a movie about completely revolting people it’s usually better to couple it with comedy, which Sideways tried to do, but most of it fell flat in that respect. It had maybe two funny moments.

Anyway, I didn’t like Eternal Sunshine that much either, though the characters were more likable, well the male character was likable.

Well said, Ben. This is exactly how I felt about that scene. I couldn’t say it any better. For me, this is the scene that builds the dramatic tension in the first part of the movie. If it weren’t for this scene, it would just be another road picture, wtih a good guy and a bad guy. No wonder Phil_Stein thought the first half was slow.

Sideways (20th Anniversary WI Film Fest screening)

I forgot how much I loved this movie until seeing it again. (In the post movie Q&A, Payne implored the audience to watch their favorite movies again, as you often grow to like it more, as you see things you missed the first time) Seeing it in a audience was such a great way to experience this film. Comedies are so great when you are in a room full of people laughing at every little moment. Alexander Payne is one of my favorite contemporary directors, and films like Sideways, which came out right during my formative movie-going years post adolescence and early college, really had a huge impact on my likes and tastes.

One interesting observation that stood out, and was part of the post movie Q&A with Alexander Payne, was talk of the editing of the film, and how it was used throughout many scenes to heighten the drama or comedy. And that is something that I think can get lost with a lot of directors working on comedic films. You have to utilize the art form to its fullest, and movies that don’t can really suffer. I don’t want to pick on Paul Feig, because he is a delightful director and all around great person, but I feel movies like his lack some of that spark, in part due to being a bit more like a stage play or improv performance, and the art of camera movement, dissolves, wipes and all sorts of other editing techniques are absent in a way that are detrimental to the finished product.

I also enjoyed how Payne spoke of the process of creating works adapted from books, how he and his writing partner would read the source material multiple times taking lots of notes, and then just shelve the book and write the screenplay from memory. To give the film its own original “take” or to allow them to utilize the medium of film to adapt something that was created for the medium of literature.

Another interesting observation came from the host, who had mentioned watching “About Schmidt” the night prior and remarked that when Jack Nicholson’s character drives past a theater, the Marquee says “Sideways” is the movie playing. This was a little easter egg Payne had put in the film, as he knew that Sideways was the next project they were planning on working on.

The final hilarious tidbit was when someone asked what the “hardest day of filming” Sideways was. He didn’t have an answer initially, but then after a few moments, and during another question it came to him.

In the final “adventure” of the film, where Miles has to rescue Jack’s wallet from the home of the waitress he had slept with (and been caught by the angry husband), the moment when (which is beautifully shot from inside the car in one take) the naked and angry husband chases Miles to the car, and collides with the window in comedic fashion, during one of the takes, the window shattered on impact! They had to make sure everyone was ok (luckily all was good) and replace the window from the 2nd saab convertible they had for filming. They used 2 cars one for exterior shots and a modified one for shots from inside the car, and had someone handy on set swap the windows out in about 45 minutes. Watching that scene again, you can see the terror on Giamatti’s face as the guy impacts with the car window, and you have to imagine that some of that has to be real fear!

Anyway, it was a great experience, and I am very happy to have been able to see one of my favorite films in a huge audience.

I should try to watch Sideways again. I think I only made it two sessions into the movie (about 20-30 minutes in).

Here’s the movie’s thread:

I appreciated that Tom explains the name of the movie in that thread. Though from the part of the movie I’ve seen so far, I don’t know what it has to do with Wine.

You gotta keep your cork wet, even during the funk of middle age ennui.