Review: No Reservations
Filed under: Comedy, Romance, New Releases, Warner Brothers, Theatrical Reviews

I don't like movies in which a strong, confident woman learns (often through humiliation) that her life simply isn't going to be fulfilling until she finds herself a man and maybe a child or two. I don't care if it's Bette Davis in Now, Voyager or Diane Keaton in Baby Boom, it's insulting to single women, and I was a single woman for long enough that I still feel insulted. This was the bias I carried into No Reservations, in which Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a top-notch chef and single woman whose life is obviously missing something, and I don't mean a kitchen blowtorch, either.
Zeta-Jones stars as Kate -- and when a single female character shares the name of the title character in The Taming of the Shrew, alarm bells start ringing in my head. Kate is an untiring perfectionist in the kitchen of the bistro where she works to create lovely and delicious cuisine, and you notice that the men in her domain are relegated to the jobs of servers and line cooks. She has a lovely apartment, she dresses beautifully, but she has to see a therapist for "anger issues" because she insults the diners when they don't like her cooking. Oh, and she's not interested in a relationship with her neighbor or anyone else for that matter.
After a tragic family accident, Kate is faced with the possibility of raising her niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin), who is still suffering from grief and shock. When Kate takes time off from the restaurant, her boss (Patricia Clarkson) hires a man to help out, an Italian cook named Nick (Aaron Eckhart). Kate resents the intrusion, but Nick turns out to be an opera-singing, life-loving guy who also gets along well with kids ... I don't need to draw you a picture.
The movie floats along for awhile with no artificial plot elements. A long stretch in the middle was shaping up to be purely character driven, with a focus on Kate and Zoe, and was fairly interesting. Unfortunately, this was broken when a peripheral character raised a tiresome bit of business about custody and inappropriate parenting designed solely to scare us and add some unnecessary tension. In addition, the romantic potential of the two leads is wedged in there with a crowbar -- it's as if someone remembered that No Reservations was supposed to be a romantic comedy and rushed to stick the usual genre conventions in the second half of the film. The movie is a remake of a German film, Mostly Martha, which I haven't seen, so I can't tell you how faithful it is.Even as a "put your brain in neutral" romantic comedy, No Reservations doesn't work. Nick is supposed to be passionate and inspire passion in others, but instead Eckhart looks goofy, more like a big joking kid than an adult romantic lead. His character seems weird for weirdness' sake. I'm wondering if a European actor would have worked better here, with a sexy accent that seduces the audience. Not a particle of sexual chemistry is present anywhere in the film -- Nick gets along with the little girl better than he does with her aunt. In fact, Eckhart and Clarkson have more chemistry together than he does with Zeta-Jones, which could have made for a much more interesting film.
Zeta-Jones, however, manages the role of a confident, sophisticated woman with a bit of a vulnerable side perfectly -- a calmer Auntie Mame, or a sexier Jane Wyman in Pollyanna. We side with her when she insults the diners, which again undermines any point the film was trying to make about her personal issues. The satisfaction I derived from this movie was in watching many of the actors, who often managed to transcend their flawed roles. Bob Balaban has some of the lamest lines in the film as Kate's therapist, but he's delightful anyway. Patricia Clarkson doesn't get quite enough to do, and her character turns out to be a disappointment, but she's still fun to watch. Brian F. O'Byrne is so charming as Kate's neighbor that it's difficult to understand why she might prefer some opera-singing clown. Breslin reminded me of the young actresses in 1940s melodramas who always looked so sad as they were orphaned or dragged from their parents -- the pale peaked faces of Margaret O'Brien or Natalie Wood.
The original score in No Reservations was composed by Philip Glass, but I would not have been able to tell if I hadn't known beforehand. The score complements the film quite well until the non-original music kicks in -- every time Kate and Nick are alone together, Italian opera plays in the background in an eye-rollingly obvious way. And I could have done without the cover of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight," a song I think should be retired from movies for the next decade at least, due to overuse.
Even the food in this movie seemed a little disappointing -- few visuals of breathtaking dishes, despite the characters' slaving over them. The coveted cuisine in this film is a saffron sauce, which doesn't display well onscreen; we're supposed to take the characters' word for it. I'm ordinarily very fond of foodie movies, and in fact two of my favorite movies so far this year are foodie films: Ratatouille and Waitress. It's funny -- Waitress is a movie about a woman who feels forced into looking for fulfillment from men and children, but wants to seek refuge in cooking, just like the main character in No Reservations. But the characters and their relationships felt more realistic, and the situations felt less artificial, and overall it was a more rewarding film experience. (Also, the pies looked a lot better than Nick's tiramisu.) No Reservations is mired in cliches and wants us to believe what it tells us, instead of showing us genuine people and emotions.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-27-2007 @ 4:27PM
ckhutch said...
I don't like women who are bitter when a strong, confident woman learns there's a different side of life when she has a man and maybe a child or two. I don't care if it's my sister in law in calling us breeders or a movie reviewer, who takes out her frustrations on a character who found a different version of happiness with a family, it's insulting to married women, and I am a married woman for long enough that I still feel insulted. This was the bias I carried into reading your review on No Reservations, in which Catherine Zeta-Jones plays a top-notch chef and single woman whose life was pretty top-notch, but went through a change; for better or worse. It's called a plot.
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 12:59AM
Alicia said...
ckhutch - it's not about being bitter that some women find they can be happy with children and a family. It's about movies that make it seem like it's impossible to be happy without those things. It's about being made to feel that we're dysfunctional as women if we don't have a husband and 2.7 kids.
You have found your happiness with a husband and family - good for you. This world being what it is, I don't begrudge anyone their happiness. I think what Jette is saying (and I agree) is that it's bothersome to those who have found their happiness elsewhere (or haven't found it, but aren't looking in a family-sized box) to constantly be bombarded with movies and TV shows telling us we're idiots to consider an alternate path. Just like the "breeder" comments bug you, we get ticked with our dried up old spinster reps.
Plus, it's extra sad when, as Jette says is the case here, the movie woman who can't live without a man doesn't even have chemistry with the man she can't live without.
Reply
7-29-2007 @ 12:03AM
liya said...
I agree that this is too common a theme for movies about women. I think the real problem is that there is a good amount of women who are attracted to these kinds of movies--and that's why they make money, and that's why they're produced. If women didn't go to see these movies, we wouldn't be "bombarded" with these images.
Reply
7-28-2007 @ 5:57PM
Ishakabibble said...
The same tact could be taken on movie after movie that show men going through a phenomenal transformation when they realize that their lust for success and personal fulfillment leads them to emptiness that can only be satisfied by embracing family life and being a good daddy and husband. Should we be outraged that the movies pander to such ancient images and don’t want to try to sell tickets based on modern ideas of self actualization outside of the constraints of family, relationships and certainly love affairs?
These movies are cookie cutter. If you have seen one romantic comedy, you have seen them all. Is this movie more offensive in taking the concept that an occasional woman finds fulfillment in marriage, children and a husband and projecting that all women should be like that? Well we can if we are sitting around waiting for Hollywood to start making movies that line up with our political visions of a utopian future.
But Hollywood has to make money. So they will use stereotypes and cookie cutter formula movies because they make money. You want the unconventional, movies that don’t end in a happy ending or movies with complex characters that are good and bad all at the same time – stick to the Indies.
This movie is getting hammered not that it has the wrong political values but because it is poorly written and the characters don’t make sense even within the cookie cutter framework. Another movie using the identical idea with a better script, better producers and maybe performers who actually have chemistry with each other would make this identical movie a huge hit. That is how movies have always been evaluated and I expect that will be the system for a long time to come.
Reply
7-30-2007 @ 3:42PM
katherine said...
An excellent review, if not a tad negative...not surprising after reading the admittance of your long-single past.
But I adored Philip Glass's score.
Reply