Good concept, poorly executed.

Don't Believe the Hype

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This movie is based on the ultimate conceit, that we know about the central character and recognise that he is brilliant and famous. I had never heard of Nigel Slater before I watched this movie, although the people I watched this with had, and indicated that he is a famous "food writer", whatever that is. OK, we all have to do something, but in my book, "food writing" does not rank in my top 1000 meaningful professions that have made the world a better place. A film about the early life of Napoleon or Alexander the Great I can understand, but about a food writer? Give me a break. My hosts told me that Nigel Slater abhors the "celebrity chef" phenomenon, as well he should, but I find it hard to reconcile this statement with someone who has written his autobiography in his relative youth and who not only endorses but appears in a cameo in, a movie about himself.OK, on to the film itself. It is basically a tale of nothing at all, the story of all our lives. Which one of us hasn't had issues growing up? Who hasn't been a surly teenager? Who hasn't had differences of opinion with their parents? Why we should feel sorry for poor Nigel is hard to imagine and given that he is portrayed as an unpleasant child who morphs into an unpleasant teenager why should we care? The film ends with the young Nigel being taken under the wing of an established chef, who nudge, nudge, wink, wink, for those in the know, happens to be played in a cameo role by the famous Nigel himself. Well isn't that just cute. It ends on a note of "and the rest is history", but certainly in my case it isn't because I had no idea who he was and after enduring this conceit-fest had not the least desire to find out.A complete waste of a few thousand feet of film and a few million dollars.

its taste is basic propriety for memory. not for the fact because it seems be about food, family, fights, a success story or adaptation of real facts but for its magic. the cast, the music, the story - all is seductive. and really smart. far to be a case, it is a common story with nuances of fairy-tale. it is easy to present it. but the essential remains out of words. it is nice, bright, a little cruel and optimist. not motivational but good kick to be yourself at any age. its humor, the Helena Bonham Carter as ideal spice, Ken Stott , special performance of Oscar Kennedy are points of a interesting and touching, lovely and wise movie about life and fundamental options.

Great cast (everyone), acted well (everyone), well written, filmed well. But the story itself is just not appealing. Apparently a story based on a shallow little prick that due to his lactose intolerance throws up on his teacher; due to his selfishness made his fathers life miserable and despite the movie's insistence that he has some talent or respect for food he tears down the only character in the movie that shares this love. There is a nice scene where a young man creates a masterpiece of a salad and but we are left to believe this culinary performance is somehow better (or executed more naturally) than Mrs. Potter's years of consistent good cooking; yet when the lead character tells the chef at the Savoy why he should be hired, he says it is because he can make a great Meringue Pie (the recipe he lifted from Mrs. Potter.) The very idea that the chef the story was written about actually plays the chef at the end of the movie that gives him a job, is so laughably bad cinema as to sort of make me angry I watched the entire thing expecting at least something more than a bore. Instead the prick is rewarded, the real life chef winks and the viewer gets absolutely nothing. That's all folks.This movie would do well to have a twist in it similar to "It's a Wonderful Life" but instead after this main character jumps off the bridge...he's gone from the movie...and the father and HIS love live happily ever after in Pottersville.

Good performance by H.B.C and Ken Stott and quite good for the 1960s portrayal but sadly it just shown Nigel Slater as a very self centred person and a spoilt brat.The kind of person no one likes.Why would you want to be seen like that unless you actually were. Do not really see the point of the film.What had the stepmother done to deserve such treatment? Why was Nigel such a brat? What happens to the stepmother? Maybe more relevant facts should have been accounted for. His school days and education were barely touched as were his teenage years.The film ends with a job at the Savoy and the viewer is left to decide what then happens.I just do not see what Nigel Slater was hoping to get across.