Food of Love (2002)

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Absolutely Fantastic

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.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

With these words, moued by that wise witch of a piano teacher, Geraldine McEwan, the plot of the film is set.Not having read David Leavitt's "Page-Turner" which may contain different keys to the main character, I am hampered by seeing Bishop's Paul Porterfield through the eyes of Ventura Pons.He's a sacrificial lamb. An initiate to the rites of love. A vessel to be filled.He's an object.As it is, his character shows a reluctance in every stage, from the sexual to the professional. Is he really gay? Is he really interested in piano? Is he really that much in love with Paul Rhys' character? The central theme of the film should've been love, and instead it turns out to be something a little more tawdry -- the pursuit of the freshest of meat by all concerned, a virginal character played with wide-eyed neutrality by Bishop.There are films which show a sensitivity to tackling the necessities of homosexual themes (Will Smith in _Six Degrees of Separation_ comes to mind). I'm not sure if Ventura was aiming this as his introduction to a wider, mostly American audience (hence the accent changes of the British cast), and thus had to rein something in to get that "R" rating, but his gay scenes were laughable. One bare bottom scene after the other.They were like a bad note in a piano recital, which the audience forgives because they anticipate the whole sweep of the work.Added to the shrill performance of Juliet Stevenson (playing, what I imagine, is her idea of a provincial American housewife -- cartoonish and unidimensional, with accent to boot), the film only flows when Rhys is present on screen.He and Paul should've hogged the camera time, not Paul and his mother.This is a failure of directing, as much as script-writing.Ventura Pons suffers that typical Spanish director's affectation of indulging himself in films, to the detriment of the storytelling.He wants to show off his beloved Barcelona, which he does. He wants to show off the maturing of a gay boy, which he does. He wants to show the absence of love in other characters' lives, which he does in the dog and divorce themes. He even wants to show how insipid Americans are said to be abroad, and he does that too.None of it work. As one example, Barcelona is not a secondary character, as so often happens in Allenesque fashion in some films. _Food of Love_ could've taken place with equal effectiveness in Granada, or indeed, San Francisco in its entirety.At every turn this film is tentative. I want to imagine it's a misreading of cultures, which sometimes works (Visconti and his German mania) but in this case, it truly doesn't.I could barely believe such accomplished actors as Stevenson, and Corduner were giving such stilted, even amateurish performances. Only McEwan salvaged a little dignity in her scenes, which wasn't difficult since she was the only truly honest person in the piece. (I also read that she never believed she was good with accents, but that Food of Love and Pure changed her mind. Sorry to say, but her accent was like a tortured Balkan gypsy somehow landed in Glasgow)I wanted to like this film, as I am passionate about piano. I was willing to be seduced, like a young Bishop.I couldn't help but to think at the end that Pons had been too much of a vampire with his audience, that need for artists to use others to further their talent, even to the point of leaving you dry at the end.Should people require a rating, I give it 2 1/2 stars out of 10.

While there are a few cringe-worthy moments in this movie adaption of the novel ''the page turner'' this does not mar an otherwise good movie about an American teenager coming to terms with his homosexuality. Ganted,towards the end there are some soap opera style moments and Juliet's portrayal of the mother does tend to overact on occasion,however there are some very powerful if subtle emotional elements to ''food of love''. In particular when Paul reluctantly offers himself with little resistance to Richard's sleazy lover/manager's desire for oral excitement;the camera pans around to a picture of Richard and then back to Paul for a close-up of the deeply sad longing expression. The character of Richard who Paul is besotted by is interesting as he doesn't portray the gay stereotype as it works well against the more pretty-boy stereotype look of Paul.Although Richard's shallowness does come through towards the end as we find out that despite his ''normal'' outward intellectual manner he is just as sleazy as his partner/manager,a character I could have done with much less of. On the whole the editing is above average,the love scenes between Richard and Paul were enough to titillate for those viewers who seek such content in such films,and there were enough of them to compliment the storyline.One of these scenes was another example of the subtle yet powerful emotional elements in the film,as the viewer is lead to believe from the beginning that Paul is still a virgin when he meets Richard(having a mother such as he did in the movie would be almost enough to put you off women forever!),and the crushing of the ice cube during the love-making told us that this was no longer the case. I would definitely suggest at least hiring a copy of ''food of love'' and then decide if you want to own to watch again and again,chances are you will want to.

You may consider what follows a "spoiler". Too much information may "ruin" it for you so may not want to read on.This is a movie about discovery and confusion and anger and love. A young man comes of age and recognizes his potential but in an odd way. And older men seem to find confusion and angst and yet wield their weight as mature people of position. The entire drama takes place against the backdrop of a gorgeous city in Europe and then a wonderful American city and also Orange County, California (filmed in a European suburb, actually).Some folks have panned this movie but I can't figure out why. The Ðirector is not American, he is definitely European and he's interpreting an American writer's work. But he does so beautifully. The characters take on depth and there is humor, drama, some irony and a bit of pessimism. I also found the definite sense of futility that is part of the European character of where the movie is being filmed.This movie's actors do a marvelous job and the thought that they need "direction" or lack it is an insult. In particular Juliette Stevensen needs no director's hand - she is a classically trained actress and it does show.If you're looking for an epic or a "Bond" flick or something of that nature that is not this film. If you want a film that makes you think and smile a bit and wonder and if you love beautiful scenery and gorgeous people this is a flick for you to enjoy for a bit.

Here is the most apt example I've seen lately in which everything is just a bit off the mark. Although I'm not familiar with Leavitt's novel, I have read other pieces of his work and find it equally uneven. For example, his central theme here of music being the "food of love" (one of Shakepeare's most quoted lines) just never reaches a level of complete fulfillment within the context of this often pretentious and sappy melodrama. Although the original title ("The Page Turner") implies a subtle judgment that the main character is doomed to eternal mediocrity, and opening scenes of the film confirm that hint, "Paul" is nevertheless forced upon the audience as a worthy protagonist whose professional and personal fate is vitally important. That kind of maybe-he-is and maybe-he-isn't paradigm is plain confusing, and it shows. Plot weaknesses are also apparent throughout. Similarly, the very high production values of the movie are constantly being undercut by laughable presumptions that an American audience could ever accept British actors straining to sound correct in their roles within an obviously European setting being palmed off (sorry) as California. Or am I being too picky? Geraldine McEwan as a Czech (?) piano teacher sounds exactly like Robin Williams playing Mrs. Doubtfire. And Juliet Stevenson comes across as a sort of über-California caricature. Moreover, the background scenes of New York are clearly scissors-and-paste.Be that as it may, I give this one a 7 out of 10 for showing Barcelona as not only a fascinating place, but also as an excellent locale for making a movie.