Jump to content
JulyDiaz

Episode 139 - Simply Irresistible

Recommended Posts

 

OUCH.

 

I'm mid 30s myself, wasn't being a bitch. Just saying, even if SMG didn't look that old (didn't see the film) she would have to be at least that for her mum to have opened the restaurant 70 years ago,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ok last night I used my psychic powers and Quentin Tarantino showed up in my room and told me what Simply Irresistible is about, It's not about some girl who finds a magic crab, that's all misdirection. it's all about this girl who makes a pack with the devil, ie the guy in the white sult at the beginning of the movie, she sells her soul to become the greatest chef in the world. In order to do that she needs to harvest the souls of the living using food products in her restaurant, hence the title Simply Irresistible.

 

here is his review on top gun.

Share this post


Link to post

June made the point that Amanda wears that gold tank top twice in the movie, but it is actually just poor editing. She put her hair in braids at the end of the first day. The sequence later when she appears in the gold tank top again, her hair is still in braids and she is baking those pastries that she takes to him at the store. Looks like the editors just spliced the footage in later.

 

Another odd editing choice came in the beginning. When Gene aka Dan Akroyd pops up at the other side of the market and Amanda says something like, were you here before, he makes a comment about the other chef being nasty or rude. Anyway, I think there was a scene that set up the chef character more but was later cut out.

 

Very shitty editing in this movie.

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed during the levitating scene, the crabs moves his claws up like a conductor and Amanda and Tom rose up to the ceiling. The when they wanted to come down, the crab lowered his claws and eventually lets them both come down. I also thought I saw the crab's claws move when she was stirring the flowers into that sauce she made that produced all the fog. Are we to believe that the crab is controlling Amanda's movements through magic and that is why she can suddenly cook well?

Share this post


Link to post

Have you guys noticed that the DVD cover for this movie has a photo of SMG that is aggressively not FROM the movie (I recognize it as a Buffy promo shot). Like they aren't even trying to promote the actual content (probably smart).

 

349Simply_Irresistible.jpg

 

 

Buffy image:

 

6a6c1ab6a6a4ffab56ecd910d725d822.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't had the chance to finish listening just yet but this really reminded me of Perfume: the Story of a Murderer, people suddenly getting super horny when they eat the food, I thought it would also end in an orgy

That movie introduced me to the "Anti-hero or Antagonist that was physically attractive and thus made me question my morality" phenomena

 

This phenomena is best illustrated by Loki in the MCU, in my opinion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That movie introduced me to the "Anti-hero or Antagonist that was physically attractive and thus made me question my morality" phenomena

 

This phenomena is best illustrated by Loki in the MCU, in my opinion

I remember getting a drink with my girlfriends after we'd just seen The Avengers, and were discussing who was the hottest dude. (It depends on your facial hair preference, really.) We all agreed Mark Ruffalo was handsome in a kind of disheveled, sensitive way, and that we were probably drawn to him because he's damaged/troubled. One of my friends was like "It's Loki, how is this even a contest?" and it really made me think how, much of the time, I don't even consider someone attractive if their morality doesn't vibe with mine. It's crazy how much this influences perception of beauty, although bad boy/evil is a turn on for many -- still, I'd never fuck a Republican, no matter how hot they are.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

That movie introduced me to the "Anti-hero or Antagonist that was physically attractive and thus made me question my morality" phenomena

 

This phenomena is best illustrated by Loki in the MCU, in my opinion

Does no one else think his hair looks greasy and gross? I love the character, but I just don't get it.

 

Now, when he cleans up like in High-Rise or that awful Guillermo Del Toro movie, I totally see it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Back in the early 2000's, Comcast had some great movie synopses (http://wtfcomcast.tumblr.com/). I remember the one for Simply Irresistible began "A magically unfunny romantic comedy..." So true. Just wish I'd snapped a photo of the screen for posterity. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Back in the early 2000's, Comcast had some great movie synopses (http://wtfcomcast.tumblr.com/). I remember the one for Simply Irresistible began "A magically unfunny romantic comedy..." So true. Just wish I'd snapped a photo of the screen for posterity. :)

 

When the Batman animated series was on, the Teletext TV guide's synopsis of the show just said "Batman: The Animated Series - Terrorist Fun"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I noticed. They said the restaurant was opened by her mother 70 years ago. SMG looks to be what, let's be cruel, mid 30's. Even if her mother had her late, again say 35, that would make her mother somewhere between 65 and 70 at the time of the film. Are they saying her mother open and ran a restaurant from infancy? Or was it SMG's grandparents place and her mum took it over? If so why to have her say 'this place's been in my family for three generations' I would certainly add to the magic/cooking in the blood theme. Or is her mum a witch and was much older than 70 a la Bewitched and therefore that was what gave her magic?

 

Didn't they say that the restaurant had been around for 70 years, not that her mother had opened it 70 years ago?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Remember when you could hear Tom say, "We'll never get a taxi here" and then they immediately got one that was about to drive off?

 

The cab driver was Not-Dan Akroyd. He magically appeared in the cab to take Tom and Amanda Peet to Amanda's restaurant.

Share this post


Link to post

On the podcast they say that not-Dan Akroyd never reappears again during the movie after the scene at the market. Maybe they mentioned that he was the cabbie that drove Tom and Amanda Peet to Amanda's restaurant, but they totally missed the last scene of the movie, where the two of them are dancing and the screen zooms into a circle, and before it disappears the circle is only showing the conductor of the band, who turns to the camera - it is Not-Dan Akroyd.

 

This goes back to a previous post about scenes where the magic crab moves his claws as if he is "conducting" Amanda and Tom, like in the scene where they levitate. Not-Dan Akroyd/the magic crab is a musical conductor, conducting the musical instruments of Amanda's and Tom's lives, in order to bring them together into a magical symphony of love.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

What happened to the plot point of Amanda's restaurant going under? It is established early in the movie that she and her aunt are going to lose the restaurant because the rent has been increased to $3000 (?). First, do they ever check with anyone to see if the landlord is legally allowed to do this?

 

But assuming it's above-board, is the restaurant saved? Business does improve, but is the increase in customers enough to pay that high a rent? No one ever says if the restaurant is still going to be sold or not. I expected the film to have Tom buy the restaurant for Amanda, or maybe combine it with the one in the store.

 

And then Amanda agrees to be the chef at Tom's restaurant. Is this a one-time thing or does Dylan Baker assume he's hiring Amanda as the new permanent chef? Why would he hire someone he thinks is a great chef just for one night, and then try to find a new chef (or get the French chef back)? Amanda leaves a sign at her restaurant that says it's closed for one night only, so she thinks this is just a one-time thing. What happens when the opening night crowd tell everyone about this great restaurant with the magical food, and when they show up it's some other chef cooking? Assuming Amanda goes back to her own restaurant, isn't Tom's restaurant now doomed to failure?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On the podcast there seemed to be some confusion about why Tom was acting so weird towards Amanda after he found out that she was a "witch". I thought the film clearly stated that Tom wasn't sure if he was attracted to Amanda because he actually liked her, or because she had used her magic to make him like her. As shown early in the film with his Powerpoint presentation, he is a man who wants to be in control of everything, especially relationships. But now he has feelings for a woman and he doesn't know if those feelings are true or only created by her. Would he feel this strongly about her if she hadn't used magic on him?

 

This is similar to Teen Witch where Louise wants to use her magic on Brad to make him love her, but then she's not sure if he would love her because of her magic, or if he really felt that way. Except in this film, we see this problem from the other person's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

What was the deal with the chef who told SMG her place was closing at the beginning, Charlie, I think? First time I saw him I thought, "Is that SPF, the Boondocks Saint himself?" But then I realized "Nah, he's just some better than average looking dude they're playing off as someone who's been carrying a torch for her for sometime. Some bland romantic foil to SPF." Mostly cause people kept reminding SMG that Charlie was back in town. AND AGAIN, like so many other things, he disappears and is never brought up again.

 

Was there, like, a SCREAM 3 type murder spree that took place on set, eliminating key supporting players mid-production, forcing drastic and insane decisions in regards to editing, composition, tone, dialogue, and all around story construction?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just a couple of criticisms on a couple of characters I previously defended.

 

When Amanda Peet gets the truth whammy caste on her and she flips her shit, she accuses Tom of being "too controlling." Now, I'm not trying to say he's not controlling--it is definitely part of the entire douchebag package he's bringing to the table--but she's the one who got into his office uploaded her schedule onto his. I mean, there are plenty of things to hate him for, but accusing him of being "too controlling" might be an arrow she wants to keep in her quiver.

 

Then, after this scene, there's a moment when SMG and sous-chef Nolan are cleaning up the broken plates that Peet had hurled recklessly through the dining room, and Nolan says to her something to the effect of, "I found this piece of shrapnel between two customers." Dude, you only have THREE diners, and they your regulars! Are you telling me that out of your three loyal customers, presumably the only people keeping your two-bit, shit show of a restaurant open for business, you never bothered to learn their names?

 

Damn! I guess the customer service at Southern Cross is just as bad as the cooking. Close that place down!

Share this post


Link to post

The cab driver was Not-Dan Akroyd. He magically appeared in the cab to take Tom and Amanda Peet to Amanda's restaurant.

Not my point. The cab was already there and the dialogue was horrendous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

As a chef should SMG have been a little more leary about buying a bushel basket of live crabs that are not packed in water or a water tight container of some sort? A little negotiating on the price maybe?

 

Did anyone else wonder what the point of having a Rube-Goldberg type Martini machine was?

 

Oh, and did anyone else notice a young Gabriel Macht (Harvey Specter from Suits) at the market?

 

So many questions after watching this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just a couple of criticisms on a couple of characters I previously defended.

 

When Amanda Peet gets the truth whammy caste on her and she flips her shit, she accuses Tom of being "too controlling." Now, I'm not trying to say he's not controlling--it is definitely part of the entire douchebag package he's bringing to the table--but she's the one who got into his office uploaded her schedule onto his. I mean, there are plenty of things to hate him for, but accusing him of being "too controlling" might be an arrow she wants to keep in her quiver.

 

Then, after this scene, there's a moment when SMG and sous-chef Nolan are cleaning up the broken plates that Peet had hurled recklessly through the dining room, and Nolan says to her something to the effect of, "I found this piece of shrapnel between two customers." Dude, you only have THREE diners, and they your regulars! Are you telling me that out of your three loyal customers, presumably the only people keeping your two-bit, shit show of a restaurant open for business, you never bothered to learn their names?

 

Damn! I guess the customer service at Southern Cross is just as bad as the cooking. Close that place down!

To your first point - What if she felt the need to put her schedule onto his because she felt he needed to control everything about her life already? What if from the get go we've been mislead about her because we only see her from SPF and SMG's eyes. Like I said in my earlier post... we don't know anything about her! After 3 dates she could have easily felt herself slipping into a dangerous relationship with SPF and was told through vibes that her whole life was now in his hands.

 

But I seriously highly doubt that lol.

 

To your second point - He actually says "...between two cushions." Unless my hearing is so off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
To your first point - What if she felt the need to put her schedule onto his because she felt he needed to control everything about her life already? What if from the get go we've been mislead about her because we only see her from SPF and SMG's eyes. Like I said in my earlier post... we don't know anything about her! After 3 dates she could have easily felt herself slipping into a dangerous relationship with SPF and was told through vibes that her whole life was now in his hands. But I seriously highly doubt that lol. To your second point - He actually says "...between two cushions." Unless my hearing is so off.

 

To your first point--you're right, we don't really know her; however, we do know a little bit about her. We know that she's only been on three dates or less with SPF. With that brief of a history, I certainly wouldn't upload my schedule onto another person's whom I've only gone on three dates with--would you? That seems insanely controlling. It doesn't matter how much she might like him, that's really out of bounds in my opinion. We also know, since he tells Patricia Clarkson, one of the reasons he doesn't want to be in a relationship is because he doesn't want to have to explain why he's at the office all the time. Is that controlling? Yes. However, the difference is, he wants the control to do what he wants to do with his life, while she is literally trying to insert herself into his. I know he's and asshole and that SMG, who knows even less about her than we do, shouldn't jump to conclusions about a person she doesn't know, but that doesn't make Peet's character any more likeable or less hypocritical. My point in the last post was she's kind of a piece of shit too. No--SMG shouldn't have made snap judgements regarding Peet's character, but as the audience, we do know that she is shallow, hypocritical (e.g. "No phones!" Next scene, both of them are on phones), and controlling. Just because her boyfriend is an asshat doesn't make her a decent person. If anything, it just shows that they were probably a perfect couple.

 

As for your second point...I could have sworn I heard "customers," but I will happy to withdraw the comment if I'm wrong. However, since I doubt either of us have any intention of ever watching this movie again, we may never know :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

To your first point--you're right, we don't really know her; however, we do know a little bit about her. We know that she's only been on three dates or less with SPF. With that brief of a history, I certainly wouldn't upload my schedule onto another person's whom I've only gone on three dates with--would you? That seems insanely controlling. It doesn't matter how much she might like him, that's really out of bounds with that in my opinion. We also know, since he tells Patricia Clarkson, one of the reasons he doesn't want to be in a relationship is because he doesn't want to have to explain why he's at the office all the time. Is that controlling? Yes. However, the difference is, he wants the control to do what he wants to do with his life, while she is literally trying to insert herself into his. I know he's and asshole and that SMG, who knows even less about her than we do, shouldn't jump to conclusions about a person she doesn't know, but that doesn't make Peet's character any more likeable or less hypocritical. My point in the last post was she's kind of a piece of shit too. No--SMG shouldn't have made snap judgements regarding Peet's character, but as the audience, we do know that she is shallow, hypocritical (e.g. "No phones!" Next scene, both of them are on phones), and controlling. Just because her boyfriend is an asshat doesn't make her a decent person. If anything, it just shows that they were probably a perfect couple.

Lol mostly I was just wanted to make fun of the ridiculousness of the way the story presented her, and then I delved back into how horrible it was at presenting a female character that's even slightly different than SMG.

 

But you're right, they made her to be way hypocritical and therefore just as controlling as this dude could be.

 

I'm still on the train that SMG should stay away from him because magical lust =/= love and we do not know this dude.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That movie introduced me to the "Anti-hero or Antagonist that was physically attractive and thus made me question my morality" phenomena

 

This phenomena is best illustrated by Loki in the MCU, in my opinion

 

Nah, I stick to David Bowie in Labyrinth and THOSE leggings. Thirty years old today btw :wub:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×