This film, which transports us to 19th century France, is so beautiful in so many ways. It seeps in and touches you with the delicacy of a fine wine. The pace of it let's you digest each moment and allows you to linger in a wonderful world of passion, desire, spiritedness as well as death and anguish. Which is why I loved the film so much...the duality of it. It's not like your typical Hollywood movie in which one thing or another is forced onto you. The film takes you on a journey where you can think about, and more importantly feel the duality of life...the duality of your own life and spirit. It awakens an understanding within yourself through the characters and the script. The acting is superb...Vera Farmiga is at her best and Keisha Castle-Hughes has become a fierce woman with such raw vibrancy I was wishing for more of her. The script takes the kind of turns and risks you can only hope for when watching a film. Filled with such feeling and thought it's a tale that lingers on long after leaving the theater....isn't that what art is all about.

This review definitely contains spoilers.

After waiting what seems like forever for this movie, I was finally able to see it the other night. In the interest of full disclosure, let me start by saying that the novel by Elizabeth Knox is one of my favorite books of all time. When I heard a film was being made, I was skeptical. That this complicated, strange and beautiful book could be made into a film with any semblance of coherence, let alone quality, seemed impossible. Keeping this in mind, I watched the film with a very careful, very critical eye, and fully expected to hate it.

I didn't. But I can't say I liked it much either.

The casting is almost perfect. Jeremy Renier, Gaspard Ulliel and Vera Farmiga are dead-on as far as appearance and mannerisms, and all do a wonderful job with the parts they play. Keisha Castle-Hughes is a question mark; she's a good actress who does well in the beginning, but when her character begins to age, her gravitas vanishes, and this took me right out of a lot of scenes. It's hard not to roll your eyes when the woman playing the aging mother of several children looks at least ten years younger than her eldest daughter. But this casting error seems minor when laid next to the film's more obvious fault: the angel.

Xas is a problem because his role in both the story and Sobran's life is diminished. While it's made clear he's important to Sobran and Sobran to him (through telling, not showing, which is always annoying) the *point* of their relationship is never explored. I'm honestly not sure if Niki Caro intended for them to be seen as lovers or not, and that's an issue, not because (as one reviewer suggests) no fan of the book could be satisfied without a sex scene, but because it muddles the whole angel plot and turns a fascinating character into set dressing. It's impossible to tell whether Xas is manipulating events or if his sole purpose is to make wine and spout metaphors, in which case, why is he bothering? The consequences of his immortality and the removal of his wings are not so much as touched on in the film, and this lack of exposition makes it very hard to care about him. If you're going to have an angel in a story like this one, about humans and humanity, there needs to be a good reason, otherwise it just doesn't fit. I'm frankly baffled as to why the director would choose to remove so many fantasy elements (not to mention a murder mystery subplot) from the story. Replace thirty-minutes of artsy shots of vines and bees with some actual *plot* and this would have been a much more interesting film.

That said, the cinematography (save for some inexcusably ridiculous shots of the angel in flight) is wonderful and the score is lovely throughout. Some of the softer scenes, early conversations between Xas and Sobran, and later between Sobran and Aurora, are directly lifted from the book and entirely too beautiful, the best moments in the film - and that's kind of my whole issue. With source material that good, you don't have to make huge changes to suit your "vision" (showcasing Castle-Hughes is a blatant priority, and a straight-washing of what is, at its core, a gay love story, and that's problematic whether you choose to regard it as such or not) or ego (clearly the director wanted to tell her own tale, not Knox's, and simply used the novel as a springboard).

The Vintner's Luck's incurable flaw is its pointlessness; ironic, considering there is a scene in which Sobran laments a lifetime of love and effort resulting in nothing. That almost perfectly describes the film itself.

I was thrilled to hear Niki Caro was going to make this movie, no one else would have been able to portray the 'basic' elements of the novel better than she could and very well did. From start to finish the movie consisted of a real feeling of love and life. More so that she exactly put just that into making this film. The importance of simple things which when given love, sweat and time grow into something special, which if you haven't read the novel is the basic idea.

There is a heavy pagan love of the earth atmosphere in the movie ensuring an uplifting feeling. Leading me onto the visuals which where spot on, the sweeping French vineyards and valleys where just as I imagined them.

The casting was perfect, Sobran who is played by Jeremie Renier provided us with a inspiring and moving look at the trials and tribulations experienced by a 19th century wine maker. I would hate to give this remarkable film any negativity but it does bare mentioning that Xas is completely neglected. Played by the fantastic Gaspard Ulliel much that could have been anticipated was actually not used at all. In fact almost all of the characters fascinating background such as his knowledge of there whereabouts of haven and hell, his relationship with another human, other than Sobran, and the reason why he is a fallen angel is not remotely even mentioned in the movie. The angel seams to be of no importance sadly and could in fact have been withdraw all together. Niki Caro sort of justified this in the Q&A "the movie is about life". It seams to me that she didn't want to add the philosophical characteristic's which was very sad to me, Xas is a captivating individual. Aurora De Valday (Vera Farmiga) was compelling but sadly Celeste (Keisha Castle-Hughes) fell flat in the second half.

Many fans of the novel might be disappointed due to the amount of fundamental moments in the development of the characters which is simply dropped out all together. However I do strongly think that this is as great an adaptation as anyone could have hoped for. Also if its anything to go by I was at the gala presentation, after which it received a huge round of applause.