Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ughdrunkatvogue t1_j6c27f0 wrote

I mean, there were only three real "foodies" in the movie, everyone else were just rich people who wanted an exclusive experience. It was just basically the critic and her assistant, and Holt's character who were being portrayed as "foodies", and they were both terrible people. The movie focused on those characters because that's what the movie was about. It's all satire. Remove them, and then it's just people enjoying a dinner.

2

happyposterofham OP t1_j6c2h5v wrote

I suppose I'm talking about Holt's character here. It feels like he's a pitched up version of ... everyone who saves up to go to a restaurant and is excited about it? And it feels weird to dog on that specifically.

1

ughdrunkatvogue t1_j6c3nre wrote

He is because that was the point - to be a caricature of a "stereotypical food snob" who actually knows nothing about cooking but acts like they do and takes it too seriously. The movie never made fun of people who legitimately enjoy food and want to save up to go to a fancy restaurant solely because they enjoy food. The entire menu of guests were people who were the antithesis of that.

3