Einfach unwiderstehlich

While a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters might never write a play like Shakespeare, any ten of them could have cranked out the lines for this one. It is at best a romantic comedy for the Barbie and Ken doll set, with a script so trite and corny as to be unintentionally amusing. Gellar is suitably appealing in her role as Amanda, a likeable and intelligent young woman, but it is "she" who becomes bewitched by a character with no more depth than a paper cutout, having to his credit only lots of money and conventional good looks. Then the plot revolves around her obsession with catching him, when it is painfully obvious that he isn't worth running after.

The title implies that it is "she" who is irresistible, except that she is always chasing after him. In other words, if she is so irresistible, why would she need "magic" to catch such a dolt? Her character is a hundred times more interesting than his, bothering to be concerned about others and such, while he is too in love with "himself" to care about anyone else. The deepest thought he can contemplate is the perfect paper plane! If there is a prince to this farce of a fairy tale, it might come closer to her buddy the cook, who is at least a fairly good friend. But this is a shallow and embarrassing story, tediously boring, with no better message but that money and glamour are more worth having than imagination and character.

I am appalled that some if you nit pickers are so jaded that you cannot see the charm in this amusing tale. Sure this is not a huge epic, but since when does each movie have to be a spectacular? It was a nice story, tastefully (pun intended) done. Hollywood needs more nice, clean movies like this, devoid of sex and blood. So it didn't break box office records; who cares, it still made money. That makes it a successful film. So lighten up, ye cynics.

One thing that I liked about the film, which several other commetators criticized, is that they DID NOT explain the magic. The characters were aware of it's presence but unable to explain it either. This thing just happened to her and she took advantage of it, not knowing how permanent the gift was and afraid of losing it.

One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is that Gellar's concoctions imparted the EMOTIONS she was feeling when she cooked them. Hence, when she is tearful, the diners are tearful. (Something that the pizza and beer crowd miss is that world-class cuisine can indeed be an emotional experience.)

I would have liked to see a bit more closure. What happens next? Does the gift continue? What role does the crab play? Who was that masked man..err, the guy at the beginning. He could have had some bit at the end that tidied up these loose story elements.

Above all, I want to say that this movie made me incredibly HUNGRY!

This is a charming film, very well acted and with great production values. But, like the screwball comedies of the thirties, and the musicals of Fred Astaire, it isn't for everyone. Of course, a romantic comedy which is based on the magical ability of a crab to inspire Gellar to feats of culinary greatness is a premise which might be hard for some to swallow. But I think its worth the effort, and it's no dafter than many successful comedy of earlier days. For those who follow such things there are three great references to the films of Fred Astaire. First is when Flannery is choosing the floor design for his new restaurant. The wavy black and white design is straight out of Yolanda and the Thief (1946 MGM) where, in a number called Coffee Time, Fred Astaire and Lucille Bremer dance on a huge floor of exactly this design. As if to hammer it home Flannery's boss reacts by saying " it looks like something out of an MGM musical". Reference number two is to The Belle of New York (1952 MGM) where Fred Astaire and Vera-Ellen kiss and float up to the ceiling. This is directly quoted in a kitchen scene where, under the influence of the crab, Gellar and Flannery kiss and float to the ceiling. These references are interesting because both films have fantasy/magical themes and both are somewhat looked down on in Astaire's oeuvre. The third reference is to Shall We Dance (1937 RKO)where in the Gershwin number of the same name Fred Astaire is confronted with a long line of Ginger Rodgers masked look-alikes. In Simply Irresistable Gellar appears reflected in a long line of mirrors with Flannery temporarily confused as to where she is, with both of them standing in a set that seems right out of Van Nest Polglase's Art Deco creations for RKO. Here the reference seems to be to the magician's art of illusion. Anyhow, after all that, you should have a feel for whether this film is for you.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed "Simply Irresistible."

I went because I like the leads from TV shows and I like magic realism .

I didn't mind that it rips off "Like Water for Chocolate" but I did mind how cheaply it was done with really lousy cinematography and poor lighting.

The cute script had the teens in the audience laughing out loud so it's too bad there was no directorial imagination. Bring on the fantasy scenes, please.

It also badly needed a choreographer, but it had nice music here and there.

Not the best romantic movie of the year.

(Originally written 2/13/1999)

I'm sorry but I love this movie! I know it's gotten terrible reviews but it's this was not made to be an Oscar winning film. It's a quirky little romantic comedy with touches of magic and wonder. The acting is great and with the amazing Patricia Clarkson you will find yourself giggling the whole movie. Let's face it.. this is not a box office hit. But if you want a beautiful feel good movie to calm you on a Saturday afternoon while you drink your cup of tea.. look no further. It will be put into your "guilty pleasures" bank as soon as you finish it.