One of my recent "grab a bottle at random" picks was the 2005 Red Diamond Chardonnay from Washington state, $10, 13.5% abv.
Nose of toasted marshmallows, buttered popcorn, just a hint of apricot in the background. Big, buttery mouthfeel with very low acidity, dry and fruity but with an ashy balancing element. Served with an omelet and hash browns after Christmas, sort of a comfort meal around the holiday, where the wine ended up carrying the buttered toast and fruit of a "breakfast for dinner" meal.
I briefly mentioned this wine on Facebook after trying it, and it was funny to read the responses. Some thought it sounded terrible, some thought it sounded delicious. Others just found it interesting. I'll admit that this style surprised me from Washington, and while it's not my favorite Chardonnay profile I do smile when I encounter such a wine. It stands out from the crowd of "Another Boring Chardonnay".
I bring this up not to criticize any of the responses, but rather to illustrate my method of reviewing wines. It should be obvious by now that I don't use scores, stars, or anything like that. Occasionally I'll praise a wine's quality-price ratio, or I'll say something is highly recommended, but mostly I just say, "here's what it smells and tastes like, and here's how it worked with food". In this case I described the wine honestly; if you like toasty/buttery/caramel Chardonnays, then this was a positive review. If you prefer a lighter, more restrained style, then this was a negative review. Take from that what you will.