Simplement irrésistible

Honestly, I think this is an awful movie... but I can't help but love it! It has a cheesy plot, unrealistic characters, a bit of magic that adds to the unbelievability and about everything else that a bad movie has. And yet, this is one of my favorite movies to watch when I'm in the mood to watch something light and fun. I'm almost embarrassed to say I love it! I don't know what it is about this movie that makes it so enjoyable to me. The basic plot... Sarah Michelle Gellar is a rather unsuccessful chef who wants to become better and save her family's restaurant. After buying a crab at a local market her luck begins to change. Suddenly she is able to cook amazing food that is sort of hypnotic and magical. She's offered a job as head chef at a posh new restaurant by a gorgeous guy who (wouldn't you know it) she ends up falling in love with. Give it a try. Maybe you'll love it too. I think it's the whole food idea that gets me....

This is a charming film, very well acted and with great production values. But, like the screwball comedies of the thirties, and the musicals of Fred Astaire, it isn't for everyone. Of course, a romantic comedy which is based on the magical ability of a crab to inspire Gellar to feats of culinary greatness is a premise which might be hard for some to swallow. But I think its worth the effort, and it's no dafter than many successful comedy of earlier days. For those who follow such things there are three great references to the films of Fred Astaire. First is when Flannery is choosing the floor design for his new restaurant. The wavy black and white design is straight out of Yolanda and the Thief (1946 MGM) where, in a number called Coffee Time, Fred Astaire and Lucille Bremer dance on a huge floor of exactly this design. As if to hammer it home Flannery's boss reacts by saying " it looks like something out of an MGM musical". Reference number two is to The Belle of New York (1952 MGM) where Fred Astaire and Vera-Ellen kiss and float up to the ceiling. This is directly quoted in a kitchen scene where, under the influence of the crab, Gellar and Flannery kiss and float to the ceiling. These references are interesting because both films have fantasy/magical themes and both are somewhat looked down on in Astaire's oeuvre. The third reference is to Shall We Dance (1937 RKO)where in the Gershwin number of the same name Fred Astaire is confronted with a long line of Ginger Rodgers masked look-alikes. In Simply Irresistable Gellar appears reflected in a long line of mirrors with Flannery temporarily confused as to where she is, with both of them standing in a set that seems right out of Van Nest Polglase's Art Deco creations for RKO. Here the reference seems to be to the magician's art of illusion. Anyhow, after all that, you should have a feel for whether this film is for you.

While a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters might never write a play like Shakespeare, any ten of them could have cranked out the lines for this one. It is at best a romantic comedy for the Barbie and Ken doll set, with a script so trite and corny as to be unintentionally amusing. Gellar is suitably appealing in her role as Amanda, a likeable and intelligent young woman, but it is "she" who becomes bewitched by a character with no more depth than a paper cutout, having to his credit only lots of money and conventional good looks. Then the plot revolves around her obsession with catching him, when it is painfully obvious that he isn't worth running after.

The title implies that it is "she" who is irresistible, except that she is always chasing after him. In other words, if she is so irresistible, why would she need "magic" to catch such a dolt? Her character is a hundred times more interesting than his, bothering to be concerned about others and such, while he is too in love with "himself" to care about anyone else. The deepest thought he can contemplate is the perfect paper plane! If there is a prince to this farce of a fairy tale, it might come closer to her buddy the cook, who is at least a fairly good friend. But this is a shallow and embarrassing story, tediously boring, with no better message but that money and glamour are more worth having than imagination and character.

This film represents nothing truly exceptional. It has no exceptional acting, messages, faces (maybe Sarah M Gellar, but looks aren't everything), or lines. I didn't spend $7.50 on it to see it in the theater, nor will spend $3.00 at the rental store to see this. But why is it that when I see it on TV (I got cable) 9 out of 10 times I stop to watch it? Maybe because this movie speaks to the little romantic in all of us. We know or will learn that relationships don't make Emeril dishes appear at will or having odd gases spew from deserts but it's still a cute flick with two of the romance and a happy ending.

Is this movie a masterpiece? No. But it is charming for what it is, and it's a regular rewatch for me. I'm a sucker for magical realism, movies about food, and 90s nostalgia, so this checks a lot of boxes for me. The supporting characters alone are worth watching for, especially Patricia Clarkson!

It's a light, feel-good 90s rom com with magical food. Don't expect anything too deep, and try to ignore Sean Patrick Flanery's utterly mediocre and boring character (who hates the idea of food that is both delicious AND magical? Come on). He is really the only thing I hate about this movie and he doesn't deserve SMG's character at all, but I honestly love it otherwise. Imo it's worth watching!