just watch it!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I think the users here are world class pianist Richard Kennington (Paul Rhys) and his manager cum lover Joseph Mansourian (Allan Corduner) is seducing the handsome and talented Paul Porterfield (Kevin Bishop who also plays Jim Hawkins in Muppet Treasure Island) just to have sex with him.....But Joseph tells Richard that Paul uses them to gets what he wants (what a baloney)First of all Paul is not poor nor a hustler.....he uses his body to Richard because he loves him and idolize him and let Joseph gives him a blow job because he knows that he is Richard's manager in order to hear news about him......Paul even nick the picture of Richard that the latter gave to his managerWhat's wrong in achieving your ambitions?????Paul is still a teen ager and he let those two uses his body but doesn't accept payment and only want to be a world class pianist like Richard......Kevin Bishop is so wholesome that showing off his body and butt makes me smile.......flawless

While there are a few cringe-worthy moments in this movie adaption of the novel ''the page turner'' this does not mar an otherwise good movie about an American teenager coming to terms with his homosexuality. Ganted,towards the end there are some soap opera style moments and Juliet's portrayal of the mother does tend to overact on occasion,however there are some very powerful if subtle emotional elements to ''food of love''. In particular when Paul reluctantly offers himself with little resistance to Richard's sleazy lover/manager's desire for oral excitement;the camera pans around to a picture of Richard and then back to Paul for a close-up of the deeply sad longing expression. The character of Richard who Paul is besotted by is interesting as he doesn't portray the gay stereotype as it works well against the more pretty-boy stereotype look of Paul.Although Richard's shallowness does come through towards the end as we find out that despite his ''normal'' outward intellectual manner he is just as sleazy as his partner/manager,a character I could have done with much less of. On the whole the editing is above average,the love scenes between Richard and Paul were enough to titillate for those viewers who seek such content in such films,and there were enough of them to compliment the storyline.One of these scenes was another example of the subtle yet powerful emotional elements in the film,as the viewer is lead to believe from the beginning that Paul is still a virgin when he meets Richard(having a mother such as he did in the movie would be almost enough to put you off women forever!),and the crushing of the ice cube during the love-making told us that this was no longer the case. I would definitely suggest at least hiring a copy of ''food of love'' and then decide if you want to own to watch again and again,chances are you will want to.

stellarust, You seem to have missed the point of the movie. Its not about the young man's art (his love and study of the piano) nor is it even about his romance with his idol (the piano player he looks up to.) It is, in fact, a fable, or fairy tale, (very much like the many attributed to Grimm). This is why, I believe, you found it heavy-handed. The story is about a mother who learns her son is gay, and learns it while he is still a child (albeit he is 18 and not, technically, a child, yet as most 18 year olds, they still require wise parenting from time-to-time for a few more years yet, when appropriate) and so he needs some guidance. Yet he doesn't realize he does, and fights it for a variety of reasons, most of which are somewhat characteristic of this point in time (the beginning of the 21st century). What this fable does is demonstrate a woman with problems of her own, realizing she her son still needs guidance even if she's not sure what it should be yet. The fable is two-fold: 1) it shows how an enlightened parent should react once they become aware and become educated, and 2) shows that there are still big bad wolves in the forest just waiting to huff and puff and blow your house down. It says to parents: here is how to respond to a gay child/young adult. And it says to gay young adults: beware the wolves of the forest, but, if you notice your parent responding like the mother in this film, trust them.Its about where to place trust, which is always the core of any fable, parable, or fairy tale.Lighten up. Stories cannot be alike. A variety of food is required to fill all your needs. Man cannot live on bread alone.

This film had so much potential, but many things were just off. Most grating to an American were the accents, of which Stevenson's was the worst. Bishop's accent is a wooden attempt at the Midwest, especially Ohio. Stevenson's was an attempt at Los Angeles, with some Brooklyn thrown in. Most of the scenes are set in America, but it's clear they were not filmed there. Everything, right down to the Christmas tree, the kitchen appliances (small European refrigerators!), telephones from the 1970s, the Spanish-looking New York apartments, is from a different continent. Even Bishop's wardrobe reflects a misunderstanding of American culture. Are we to believe that this young, gay pianist who grew up in Boston and San Francisco dresses like a frat boy from Georgia in 1987? This director learned everything about America from old movies, and had no concern for accurately depicting a culture. How can any of his films, set in America or elsewhere, ring true without an eye for details? Actually, this "American" film directed by a Spaniard was an education of sorts. I came away appreciating how distracting it must be for British film goers, for example, to see American actors ham-hand their accents. With the film industry so dominated by Hollywood, I have gotten a taste of what a mess American actors and filmmakers often make of non-American subjects.