SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

donwc1996 This film is one of my Top Ten Films of All Time, enshrined forever in the pantheon of great films. Everything about it is perfect, but most importantly, to be a great film it must be true - in other words - it must convey the "truth" of life - giving the viewer a slice of life that is true, that rings true, that is based on truth - that's what great art is about and this film is great art. I had never heard of Ventura Pons before but then I learned Food of Love is his first English film, although the version I have is dubbed in English, so I imagine the original was in Spanish. Does that mean the English speaking actors were dubbed in Spanish for the original? Enquiring minds want to know! Kevin Bishop, the young lead, is breathtakingly handsome yet he has a depth that sort of catches you by surprise because his beauty is so captivating. Juliet Stevenson, one of my favorites, is spellbinding in every scene - you cannot take your eyes off her - she is the core around which the entire story is built.

jacquelinekennedy 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.

yawnmower1 I wanted so much to like this film, and I tried very hard to do so. But it is so inept, and has so many flaws, it is hard to know where to begin.The basic story is simple enough: piano student Paul is seduced by and falls in love with his idol, fortyish concert pianist Richard; he gets dumped inexplicably and spends the rest of the film trying to make sense of it. But add these extra ingredients -- Paul's neurotic mother also falling for the pianist, Richard's lover/manager seducing Paul while the boy is being kept by yet another older man -- and you have a rather heady Freudian stew, indeed.What these noxious, self-absorbed characters have in common, keeping the handsome 18-year-old confused and depressed, is their duplicity. Nobody tells Paul the truth, rendering him unable to make a decision in his own interest. His beauty makes him desirable. His ingenuous nature makes him an easy mark.The dialogue is oddly disjointed though lifted directly from David Leavitt's well-written novel, The Page Turner. For some reason, about half of Mr. Leavitt's lines have been deleted, making those that remain a crazy-quilt of non-sequiturs. Adding to the confusion are British actors playing American refracted through the eyes and ears of a Spanish director. Then there are the Spanish actors who have learned their lines phonetically, wildly inflecting words incorrectly. Finally, a classical music consultant could have insured the proper pronunciation of composers' names, or pointed out that most of the pieces Paul plays are embarrassingly inappropriate.What the film does do well is to depict the haute-gay classical music demi-monde of New York, and the predatory older men who rule from lofty Central Park West enclaves. This exclusive oligarchy devours the seemingly unlimited supply of hopeful young artists, like Paul, who want to succeed but cannot due to inexperience and inaptitude for the game. A 'civilized' veneer covers, but never quite hides, the self-serving artistic Darwinism.Exquisite Kevin Bishop, who plays Paul so perfectly, is a real find. He has a low-key style, lovely body, and astonishing blue eyes. Barcelona is exotic, the photography is beautiful, and the original score is well done, but the DVD itself has problems. The dialogue is somewhat out of sync, is overly loud in some places (mainly due to Juliet Stevenson's histrionics), and nearly inaudible in others.

HoldenSpark stellarust, You seem to have missed the point of the movie. Its not about the young man's art (his love and study of the piano) nor is it even about his romance with his idol (the piano player he looks up to.) It is, in fact, a fable, or fairy tale, (very much like the many attributed to Grimm). This is why, I believe, you found it heavy-handed. The story is about a mother who learns her son is gay, and learns it while he is still a child (albeit he is 18 and not, technically, a child, yet as most 18 year olds, they still require wise parenting from time-to-time for a few more years yet, when appropriate) and so he needs some guidance. Yet he doesn't realize he does, and fights it for a variety of reasons, most of which are somewhat characteristic of this point in time (the beginning of the 21st century). What this fable does is demonstrate a woman with problems of her own, realizing she her son still needs guidance even if she's not sure what it should be yet. The fable is two-fold: 1) it shows how an enlightened parent should react once they become aware and become educated, and 2) shows that there are still big bad wolves in the forest just waiting to huff and puff and blow your house down. It says to parents: here is how to respond to a gay child/young adult. And it says to gay young adults: beware the wolves of the forest, but, if you notice your parent responding like the mother in this film, trust them.Its about where to place trust, which is always the core of any fable, parable, or fairy tale.Lighten up. Stories cannot be alike. A variety of food is required to fill all your needs. Man cannot live on bread alone.