Commenting on comments on Sideways

I wrote about the movie Sideways a couple of months ago (The story of "Success" told in Sideways). I never had chance to or bothered to read comments that other people made up until now, but after I read reviews (blogs) on a couple of movies for the last couple of days, it's got me interested in how other people watch movies, in particular, how other people watch movies that I watched. So, I'm reading reviews and comments on Sideways today. I'd like to give my thoughts; I'll be commenting on comments on Sideways.

I never understood the name of the movie. Did I miss something along the line or was there something in the script that didn't make it to the screen? I figured there's be some speech about how you need to keep the cork moist and be able to see the precipitate. (Jerry, WINE CAST)

Thanks for your comment, Jerry. I thought the title referred more to the characters lives, which are a bit off the norm, but it could also relate to Maya’s view of wines getting more interesting as they decline, presumably well stored. (Tim, WINE CAST)

I remember that some critics were calling this movie losers' movie. This naming actually makes sense to a certain extent. All four characters are off; they are certainly not the most successful people. They don't have successful business. They don't have successful relationship. They are not exactly wealthy. Interesting, this actually fits to the location where the story takes place. Santa Barbara is a nice place, and many people like it there. It's a part of Southern California, and weather is nice. Santa Barbara faces Pacific, and it's surrounded by mountains. Beautiful place. But Santa Barbara has no industry, not really. A lot of rich people live there, but they made or make money elsewhere, not in Santa Barbara. While living expenses are rather high, there aren't that many high paying jobs. Consequently, most people are categorized into two types; Type 1: Wealthy, have amazing house and own pretty much everything you want to own. Type 2: Relatively poor (poor might not be the best word, but certainly not wealthy), no real job (not in the sense that people in New York have real jobs), no ambition or clear goal in life. I am being a little harsh and exaggerating a little, but I believe that this makes to a certain extent, to those who lived in Santa Barbara and elsewhere (like Boston, Chicago, San Jose and New York). Four characters in the movie kind of resemble those in Santa Barbara and its neighboring towns.

So I saw NYFF closer Sideways last night and all I can say is that I didn't like it as much as Election or About Schmidt. There's nothing bad about it, per se. It's a solid buddy movie. But it might fall into the mushy middle -- no big name actors to sell it Hollywood-style, no interesting hook to sell it indie. (Paul Giamatti, Thomas Hayden Church and the supporting femmes were great though, don't get me wrong. Just casting a cold producer's eye for a second.) (J. Ott, Making the Movie)

I agree that no actor or actress is super well-known (though that's not exactly the case after the success of Sideways). I don't agree that there is no interesting hook. There is no interesting hook in the sense that so many people are like characters in the movie. There is no interesting hook in the sense that events that take place in the movie can take place in many people's lives. However, this is an interesting movie in the sense that many can identify themselves in one of more of characters in the movie and that the movie actually has a subtle yet touchy message (The story of "Success" told in Sideways). I think this is why not only so many critics praised the movie, but also there was a great commercial success.