The collar awarded to the winners of the Meilleur Ouvrier de France (Best Craftsman in France) is more than the ultimate recognition for every pastry chef - it is a dream and an obsession. The 3-day competition includes everything from delicate chocolates to precarious six foot sugar sculptures and requires that the chefs have extraordinary skill, nerves of steel and luck. The film follows Jacquy Pfeiffer, founder of The French Pastry School in Chicago, as he returns to France to compete against 15 of France's leading pastry chefs. The filmmakers were given first time/exclusive access to this high-stakes drama of passion, sacrifice, disappointment and joy in the quest to have President Sarkozy declare them one of the best in France.
The collar awarded to the winners of the Meilleur Ouvrier de France (Best Craftsman in France) is more than the ultimate recognition for every pastry chef - it is a dream and an obsession. ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Ian T (nl) wrote: Its not bad in parts. The found footage approach feels a bit gimmicky, you keep thinking, why would they shoot this? This also seems to lesson the impact of some scenes. I think they would have been better off just shooting it..Its let down from some bad acting and dodgy exposition. The sole purpose of Patrick's character seems to be to explain the extra camera shots. I think the best stuff was taken from the actual events of jonestown, the rest gets a bit B-movie.
Conrad T (nl) wrote: Not too mystic, not too suspenseful. Hoffman was a good actor, despite a lot of similarity in acting in different movies.
Bode B (nl) wrote: It was easy to watch but it's not interesting. The characters are not interesting. Nothing is interesting.
Nicholas G (au) wrote: Tries to tell a cautionary tale about how looks aren't everything but fails completely.
Paul A (ca) wrote: For me hard to decide whether to rate it a 2 and a half or a 3 but I had to go for the 2 and a half... the movie really didn't have a very strong story to it, but it ended happily. I think the movie. Could of been a lot funnier there isn't really any funny memorable parts except for chicken exploding twice
Ryan S (jp) wrote: 4/5. It's a really fun movie that is vastly superior to the 3rd film. It's silly, but very entertaining.
Trenton R (kr) wrote: While I think there are smarter satires of Hollywood out there, Kevin Spacey and Frank Whaley bring this movie up to the next level. Not to mention its dark and provoking ending.
Steve T (ru) wrote: How do you respond to millions of angry trekkies embittered at you killing off the quintessential character? Come up with an elaborate scheme to "resurrect him." Supposedly this was planned, but I have always suspected that Nimoy wanted to switch completely to directing and that this rewrite treatment was last-minute before shooting. Makes sense since the franchise was at risk due to the previously stated nerd rage. And trust me, you do not want to be on the business end of nerd rage. I'd rather be dropped into a furry costume Katy Perry show dressed as a shark doing the robot. Cast includes Jim from Taxi who makes for a horrible Klingon (i.e the opposite of Plummer!) A Saavik replacement who WAS NOT HOT 1982 KIRSTIE ALLEY WITH SEXY VULCAN EARS! Kirk's son - the doppleganger of the Greatest American Hero bought it! And we finally learn that Dame Judith Anderson can transform minds from one body to another. Yeah, this movie has a lot of Vulcan woo-woo for a planetary race of species built on reason and logic.
Terri H (fr) wrote: No thankyou - Not interested
Edgar C (ru) wrote: If there was a director more suited for directing comedy as a part of the Nouvelle Vague ( love pronouncing that term), it was Truffaut. For the second time he directs comedy and employs Laud in a feature length movie. Sure, we had Tati, but it is surprising, even for a Truffaut follower, how light-hearted this film progressively gets. It lacks a sense of consistency, and that's the point. It goes everywhere like a leaf in a tornado without caring about its course and yet remaining surprisingly charming.Jean-Pierre Laud is the most underrated actor ever in my book and personal experience. Acting comes so naturally to him that one wonders the extent to which he is portraying himself, like some directors did in front of the camera in their obsessive, but undeniably stylish cameos. The whole array of anecdotes in the life of the protagonist, who once again likes to read Balzac, like some of the main characters in Truffaut's films (hadn't you noticed?), feels like improvisatory bliss for the sake of entertainment, and it even resorts to slapstick and "dumbness" humor in the vein of Mr. Hulot.Anyway, just watch this delight. A simple review for a simple film. Truffaut was, once again, finding his language, continuing Antoine Doniel's story for the fourth time.81/100
Sapan S (es) wrote: predictable to death, total waste of time!