The movie is fine on its own. Maybe i'm biased because i like andrew walker. Normally, i like nikki deloach as well but not so much here. Not that she was bad, she just didn't feel like she was owning the role. It's a typical hallmark mystery with a few more suspects than usual so not an obvious solution. My main complaint is why'd they bother tying it into the book series? Granted, the series was/is popular but the book of the same name was written in the 80s; surely there are more recent properties you could use to get a ready-made audience? Or were they hoping no one who saw the movie had read the book? The similarities were minimal. Yes, movie and book goldys are both divorced caterers with children but thats as far as the similarities go. Book goldy has an established business at the time of this story, her ex-husband was (and still is) abusive, their divorce is contentious to say the least, her child is a son, and that's just some of the character differences. As far as plot goes, the victim dies in a car accident and the common ground ends there. So my question remains - why bother with the tie-in?
Review of Curious Caterer: Dying for Chocolate
