We love going to the movies. Over the past 30+ years we’ve been to literally hundreds of shows, consumed what seems to have been tons of popcorn, slurped down gallons of sodas and opened a whole bunch of candy packages. We’ve seen some of the best that Hollywood has to offer and some of the worst. We’ve seen Academy Award winners and losers and some that should have been. As we sat at dinner last night, we ran through (with Daughter #1 calling out the information) all of the Best Pictures in Oscar’s history starting way back in 1929 with Wings. One thing is certain, having the most nominations is NO guarantee of victory; in fact, as we talked through some of the movies that had multiple nominations going into the Best Picture category – very few made the clean sweep. The other interesting thing that we learned was the number of times Steven Spielberg’s films were nominated but never won from Star Wars in 1977 until winning with Schindler’s List in 1993. It clearly illustrates the bias in voting; when a director of the story-telling ability of Spielberg has to wait 16 years from his inaugural hit movie to his winning movie. The topic was much publicized leading up to those awards in 1993; up to that point it really was a case of, “And the Award doesn’t go to…”
As we sit and watch the Oscar’s tonight, we’ve be watching to see if ‘bias creep’ comes back; since ARGO is a film largely based on the entertainment industry’s ability to help a historical situation or will Spielberg dominate once again with his amazing bio-pic of ‘Lincoln‘? Duh . . . of course, Hollywood ALWAYS sides with HOLLYWOOD!!! Congrats to Director Ben Affleck (we REALLY liked ARGO), but please don’t confuse him with “Best Director”, Ang Lee . . . HUH? Seriously? What do those folks smoke, drink or consume? How – how do you give a best directing for a film that had virtually NO live action? It was almost ALL special effects? Directing? And Spielberg never got an Academy Award for Star Wars because it was almost ALL special effects . . . What’s up with that???
Sorry we get off of our soap box to talk about wine . . .and the good news or the bad news depending on your viewpoint is that the 2oo5 Serendipity Syrah is LOUSY! No, we’re being nice. It’s rough . . . like, “how am I going to finish this glass”, rough! We’re not sure why it’s priced (before being on sale) at almost $12 bottle. Not much to report here . . . way too much green pepper and ‘unharvested’ fruit. The nose was harsh and the taste was even more harsh . . . it’s like, why even bother to bottle this stuff. Ordinarily, we could come away with something positive about a wine in this situation, but when we have to call it names and pour it down the drain – – we are dealing with a dog . . . a loser . . . and an award “recipient” that won’t be around at the end of the telecast – in other words, “a box office flop”.
There are so many EXCELLENT wines to choose from on the “menu” of local wine and liquor stores. It’s amazing to us to see the lack of quality in locally produced and other areas-produced wines. Even though this wine was a 2005 Syrah, it didn’t fill the bill in terms of smell, taste, finish or any other wine loving categories. It didn’t do anything but just SIT there.
We hope that you’ll enjoy your favorite wine responsibly, and remember to recycle whenever possible.