Let me begin this review with points of personal privilege:
I viewed the film 3 times. The first without looking at the background information. I took notes.
I'm very much into "the willing suspension of disbelief" -- one of the reasons I love film, theatre, and literature.
I have a Ph. D. in Dramatic Theory and Criticism. While not Film Theory and Criticism, the basic criteria concerning writing and production are the same; the delivery systems are unique. I've taught both film and theatre criticism.
I've divided the criticism into three subheadings: writing, acting, and general production.
I understand that people "love" this movie and there are many aspects of experience which contribute to our individual appreciation of a film. Briefly, in the contextualization of reading/viewing and meaning we have: The personal world; The needs of persons; The motive of the particular reading/viewing; The sociology of reading/viewing; Socio-political perspective; Socio-political references; The world(s) of discourse; ideology and worldview; The world of fact. For example, the "fact" that a viewer has experienced a death of a loved one will contextualize their view of a film. If you want to discuss in-depth contact me.
Writing-
Overall, writing was extremely week. There were plot holes large enough to drive a truck and not just a Ford 350, but a loaded semi. The exposition was sketchy at best. We get the points that she is a widow and that she's living her dead husband's life. We know that she's from Connecticut and came to Bainbridge Island 13 years prior. Why? To work in her roommate's chocolate store? Was moving to one of the most expensive areas of Seattle seemed life a fun place to meet an Italian chef? The restaurant has been in operation for 10 years and Marco was brought to open the restaurant. So given this timeline, she could not have met him until he was brought over. So, say they met when he first arrived. (Reminder that he's been dead for 3 years) So now we're at 7 years. Once year to meet and date and marry and have a child. The child would have been no more than 9. This is not logical. (We'll discuss this later)
Richard's purpose except to play the antagonist is unclear. How many investors? This point seemed to be thrown in to provide a "bad guy"
The plot is pretty implausible. If the restaurant is having hard times what is the reason? This would be a good opportunity to bring in the pandemic. Remember the basic types of conflict. Action without clearly defined conflict is nothing. If the restaurant is having hard times because of Marco's death, it would be wise to remember that Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants, not chefs. If Antonio is replicating Marco's recipes, then what is the problem?
The restaurant needs saving looks like a pretty thin excuse to bring the white knight in. (love-interest for Elizabeth?)
What is with the truffle hunt? Where is the truffle pig or dog? I know that truffles can be hunted without pigs or dogs, but really truffles are big business, and the writers have the actors wandering around looking for truffles that are just there for the picking? Lame.
There are also leaps of logic especially in the fountain wish scene.
There were several times when a character said, "Can we talk somewhere alone?" Sounded like the writers couldn't think of plausible action for characters to move to another space. Also, Ben has the same "It was a long time ago" which appears to be in the same vein.
Most of the dialogue was just dumb. The "It's a wonderful World" song didn't make sense. A moving Ukulele song would have been "Over the Rainbow"
I'll stop here but you get the drift. Bad writing. Within the world of the film, (In particular HM or HMM films) events must be logical. Go back to your college literature class and Freytag's Pyramid, study up on dramatic structure.
Acting:
I'll refer to the character's names not the actors. These talented people should not be blamed for lazy writing. They all gave it the old college try, but there is only so much talent can do. Actors need action and motivation to bring a script to life. A basic actor question is, "What is my motivation?" Ben has some motivation to save the restaurant, but he's not given much with which to work. His character appears pretty aimless and bored until the end. Maybe that was a character choice. Not sure.
The chemistry between Elizabeth and Ben was pretty flat. A smidge of eye flirting scattered throughout which was cute.
As stated above, Elizabeth was living Marco's life. Grief is very personal, and every individual's path is different. I don't believe in the idea of "just snap out of it" but her journey was not believable. Her motivation for removing her wedding ring was not clear. It was a tender and touching scene though. Was her motivation her attraction to Ben? Who knows?
Ben's workaholic attitude was believable, but the motivation was not clear. Elizabeth saying that he's just doing this to eat at great restaurants around the world seems plausible, but there is something hidden there that doesn't come across.
The scenes between Ben and Nona are the best in the film. Heartfelt and real.
Some off the humor (what little there is) is lost. Thrown away.
The young actress playing Sophia was quite good. But given the timeline outlined above, she was too old. She looked more like a 14-15-year-old. Her teenage angst over friends was so very real.
Let's talk Antonio! On my first viewing, I thought he was an Italian actor. Finding out he wasn't filled my heart with joy. He overcame the inferior dialogue, presenting a fully fleshed out character.
Production:
Bainbridge Island looks nothing like the setting for this film. Understanding that this was filmed in Canada can be overlooked-- but really? Do some research.
Elizabeth and Sophia's house was unbelievable. That restaurant must have been doing really, really well.
Wardrobe-Why did the costumer decide to dress Ben like a bum? The rolled-up jeans, the very wrinkled shirts? He was supposed to be a highly successful professional restaurant fixer and those choices make no sense. The jacket at the end was more in keeping with his professional persona. OK, OK Ben's hair. I understand it was an actor choice but given the shape of his face, he does look more like Lloyd Christmas than Russell Crowe in The Gladiator or George Clooney in anything. His stylist should have taken him aside.
The food looked spectacular. Good camera work. Bothered me that deserts were on the warming shelf.
Overall, this film was "Meh" --- not cringe worthy like Roadside Romance, but not that great. A waste of good acting talent. The writer should not be hired again.
I viewed the film 3 times. The first without looking at the background information. I took notes.
I'm very much into "the willing suspension of disbelief" -- one of the reasons I love film, theatre, and literature.
I have a Ph. D. in Dramatic Theory and Criticism. While not Film Theory and Criticism, the basic criteria concerning writing and production are the same; the delivery systems are unique. I've taught both film and theatre criticism.
I've divided the criticism into three subheadings: writing, acting, and general production.
I understand that people "love" this movie and there are many aspects of experience which contribute to our individual appreciation of a film. Briefly, in the contextualization of reading/viewing and meaning we have: The personal world; The needs of persons; The motive of the particular reading/viewing; The sociology of reading/viewing; Socio-political perspective; Socio-political references; The world(s) of discourse; ideology and worldview; The world of fact. For example, the "fact" that a viewer has experienced a death of a loved one will contextualize their view of a film. If you want to discuss in-depth contact me.
Writing-
Overall, writing was extremely week. There were plot holes large enough to drive a truck and not just a Ford 350, but a loaded semi. The exposition was sketchy at best. We get the points that she is a widow and that she's living her dead husband's life. We know that she's from Connecticut and came to Bainbridge Island 13 years prior. Why? To work in her roommate's chocolate store? Was moving to one of the most expensive areas of Seattle seemed life a fun place to meet an Italian chef? The restaurant has been in operation for 10 years and Marco was brought to open the restaurant. So given this timeline, she could not have met him until he was brought over. So, say they met when he first arrived. (Reminder that he's been dead for 3 years) So now we're at 7 years. Once year to meet and date and marry and have a child. The child would have been no more than 9. This is not logical. (We'll discuss this later)
Richard's purpose except to play the antagonist is unclear. How many investors? This point seemed to be thrown in to provide a "bad guy"
The plot is pretty implausible. If the restaurant is having hard times what is the reason? This would be a good opportunity to bring in the pandemic. Remember the basic types of conflict. Action without clearly defined conflict is nothing. If the restaurant is having hard times because of Marco's death, it would be wise to remember that Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants, not chefs. If Antonio is replicating Marco's recipes, then what is the problem?
The restaurant needs saving looks like a pretty thin excuse to bring the white knight in. (love-interest for Elizabeth?)
What is with the truffle hunt? Where is the truffle pig or dog? I know that truffles can be hunted without pigs or dogs, but really truffles are big business, and the writers have the actors wandering around looking for truffles that are just there for the picking? Lame.
There are also leaps of logic especially in the fountain wish scene.
There were several times when a character said, "Can we talk somewhere alone?" Sounded like the writers couldn't think of plausible action for characters to move to another space. Also, Ben has the same "It was a long time ago" which appears to be in the same vein.
Most of the dialogue was just dumb. The "It's a wonderful World" song didn't make sense. A moving Ukulele song would have been "Over the Rainbow"
I'll stop here but you get the drift. Bad writing. Within the world of the film, (In particular HM or HMM films) events must be logical. Go back to your college literature class and Freytag's Pyramid, study up on dramatic structure.
Acting:
I'll refer to the character's names not the actors. These talented people should not be blamed for lazy writing. They all gave it the old college try, but there is only so much talent can do. Actors need action and motivation to bring a script to life. A basic actor question is, "What is my motivation?" Ben has some motivation to save the restaurant, but he's not given much with which to work. His character appears pretty aimless and bored until the end. Maybe that was a character choice. Not sure.
The chemistry between Elizabeth and Ben was pretty flat. A smidge of eye flirting scattered throughout which was cute.
As stated above, Elizabeth was living Marco's life. Grief is very personal, and every individual's path is different. I don't believe in the idea of "just snap out of it" but her journey was not believable. Her motivation for removing her wedding ring was not clear. It was a tender and touching scene though. Was her motivation her attraction to Ben? Who knows?
Ben's workaholic attitude was believable, but the motivation was not clear. Elizabeth saying that he's just doing this to eat at great restaurants around the world seems plausible, but there is something hidden there that doesn't come across.
The scenes between Ben and Nona are the best in the film. Heartfelt and real.
Some off the humor (what little there is) is lost. Thrown away.
The young actress playing Sophia was quite good. But given the timeline outlined above, she was too old. She looked more like a 14-15-year-old. Her teenage angst over friends was so very real.
Let's talk Antonio! On my first viewing, I thought he was an Italian actor. Finding out he wasn't filled my heart with joy. He overcame the inferior dialogue, presenting a fully fleshed out character.
Production:
Bainbridge Island looks nothing like the setting for this film. Understanding that this was filmed in Canada can be overlooked-- but really? Do some research.
Elizabeth and Sophia's house was unbelievable. That restaurant must have been doing really, really well.
Wardrobe-Why did the costumer decide to dress Ben like a bum? The rolled-up jeans, the very wrinkled shirts? He was supposed to be a highly successful professional restaurant fixer and those choices make no sense. The jacket at the end was more in keeping with his professional persona. OK, OK Ben's hair. I understand it was an actor choice but given the shape of his face, he does look more like Lloyd Christmas than Russell Crowe in The Gladiator or George Clooney in anything. His stylist should have taken him aside.
The food looked spectacular. Good camera work. Bothered me that deserts were on the warming shelf.
Overall, this film was "Meh" --- not cringe worthy like Roadside Romance, but not that great. A waste of good acting talent. The writer should not be hired again.
Tell Your Friends