4 stars (entered here because there needs to be an entry body and I don’t remember specific tasting stuff)

I saw this movie again recently, and it was not as entertaining as I remembered. Most of the acting was rather mediocre (except for Depp, who fortunately is in practically all the scenes), and I found the music in particular to be either really bad or very inappropriate. The book that the movie is based on is better (although not awesomely great literature itself).

Regardless, it was entertaining enough.

I like maybe 5% of all the sauvignon blancs that I try, and this one was one of the few that I enjoyed. Pale gold, crisp, and more fruity than grassy (as I find most sauvignon blancs). Quite tasty, really, it surprised me as I find most wines of this varietal disgusting. And it comes with a screw top. I always like that.

It was fine when cold. Dryish, but not Alsace dry. More floral than fruity. I do not think I have had this varietal before. It had a funky taste when it warmed up a little (though still cool) that I cannot describe; I think it can only be from the varietal itself and not the winemaking process. Funky in an is-this-good?-I-don’t-think-so way. Still, it was cheap.

“leaps from the glass with a touch of mint over aromnas of blackberries, chocolate, and vanilla”—ok, I agree with the chocolate and vanilla, but it did not leap

“berry flavors, peppered with spice and vibrant acids”

“palate is tremendously long and well structured”—it was longish, i agree

“with toasted oak, soft fruit, and velvety tannins”

Anyways, like most of the [ yellow tail ] (what is with the square brackets anyway?) offerings, quite nice for $7.

I don’t remember what this originally tasted like. I imagine it was not all that bad, even though I did not finish it when opened and stuffed it in the fridge. I imagine it was cheap. I did make a good wine sauce out of it for pasta for lunch today.

Dry, a bit watery, and otherwise not really notable… the kind of wine you hope you didn’t pay more than $3 for, and I don’t think I did. However, it was good for what it was: an inexpensive quaffable white.

This movie is basically a ghost story on a submarine during WWII.

Good points: technically well made, good acting, mostly interesting to watch.

Main Bad Point: it is really not scary at all. Maybe if I had seen it in a theater instead of my living room, it would have been better. As it was, there were exciting and tense parts, but nothing I would call scary.

The DVD reveals some cool scenes that were cut because it made the film more action oriented than scary, but, IMO they should have put them back in because the scariness wasn’t really there. In some ways it did seem like a war movie with a lot of people freakin out instead of a horror movie.

Another Bad Point: I thought the story was a little lame, which may had contributed to its lack of scariness. The fact that it was all psychological (the above freakin out) rather than supernatural was kinda interesting, but not really done well. I also thought one major character was not written well (the only woman in the story).

Perhaps it is just too hard to make a really scary story on a submarine. After all, they are pretty cramped (though the one in the movie seemed too roomy to me), so action seems more appropriate.

I am always intrigued by the possibility of getting a good pinot noir for under $10. In fact, I had found one a while ago from NYS, but, alas it was discontinued after a few years. Due to my rather regular wine drinking habits, I tend drink a lot of inexpensive (read: really cheap) wine, but pinots tend to not get down to the 3-5 dollar level; this one was around $7.

Unfortunately, it is not all that good. I suppose I could get into tasting notes, but that is all one needs to know. Not that it is undrinkable (I did drink it after all), but there are far better choices to spent $7 on, say, the ubiquitous Yellow Tail or Rosemont Estates. Cheap pinots are just hard to find.

I’d drink it colder, too. It got nasty when it warmed up a little.

So, yeah, the movie was pretty bad. It was very late 70s/early 80s to me, and not in a very good way. On the other hand, I did finish watching it, so it must have had some redeeming features.

I hear it is one of Uwe Boll’s best efforts. I dunno if I will run out and see any other of his movies.