'Chef' is a dish of arroz con pollo served with a smile but not much style. The critic in the film would give it a low grade, for agreeability without ambition.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think 'Chef' is about somebody who's in the middle of his life, and he's kind of lost his passion and his voice, so he seeks out some refinement and redemption.
At the end of the day, it seems like there's a critic archetype for food movies, like with 'Ratatouille' or anything. You know, if you were doing a puppet show about chefs, one puppet would be the chef, one would be the critic.
It's a very naive idea to think that the chef is cooking everything, and, on top of it, is irreplaceable. That would mean that basically he is the only genius, and there are idiots all around him, which doesn't make sense.
'Chef' doesn't mean that you're the best cook, it simply means 'boss.'
The chef can be very innovative, but the decision is made by the customer.
There's a battle between what the cook thinks is high art and what the customer just wants to eat.
I believe no chef becomes what he becomes without having many people influence him.
Close interaction with farmers and scientists can expose the chef to new flavours that can be used to delight diners.
I'm not a trained chef, so I end up making stuff up. It either turns out brilliant or an absolute disaster. I just go for it.
Movies like 'Chef' are not really box-office monsters in the summertime and don't really fit into Hollywood's business model any longer. Even if 'Chef' is successful, it will be successful in the context of what it is. There's a limited upside to a film that's so small, but there's also limited exposure for the people who backed me.
No opposing quotes found.