[Spoilers]
I have seen both films, and the review is wrong to suggest that the remake is basically a scene by scene remake of the German original. It does start out that way, with a few subtle but quite noteable differences, but it surely doesn't stay that way. It even left out an amusing after the ending scene. Also, the niece role is not very well drawn here. Honestly, I liked Zeta-Jones better.
[Jones reminds me of the original actress ... the owner of the rest., here played by Patricia Clarkson ... does as well. The niece in the original is a more melachony character, having more dramatic weight. Here she is just a cute American actress ... not given much drama, though it is as much a problem of the script -- she has less to work with here.]
The prime plot difference is that the father is totally removed from the equation. This is rather relevant since it affects the story arc and the story conflict as a whole. The remake invents a new conflict [rather lame ... it also makes the owner look bad], not found in the original, involving the sous chef. It removes a charming scene -- again tied to the father -- where the chef has a touching monologue about how the niece is like her.
The father is important for another reason -- it provides the niece a real alternative (and probably a fantasy figure in her time of grief ... they apparently never met) to the aunt. Here, early on, it is a given the aunt has custody. It also provides me an example of the "Americanization" of the story. In the original, the chef breaks down after going back to work soon after the accident that killed her sister. We know why ... her sister died. We don't need it drilled into us. In the film, we have to hear a voiceover of the sister per a letter giving the chef custody in case of such a tragedy happening.
This watering down happens repeatedly. In the original, she finds out via a phone call at work. It's busy, no one answers the phone, so she has no warning ... she is expecting it is just her sister calling about an upcoming visit. In the movie, someone else answers and warns her "you should take this" ... with a telling voice. In the film, we have a few scenes of the niece not eating, including mention of her fainting at school. This makes a scene where the goofy sou chef tricks her to eat more touching. Here, such scenes are truncated, so it seems she just doesn't want to eat the aunt's cooking. In the original, the niece actually does run away, leading to a dramatic/touching scene that shows the heart of the niece. Here, she does not run away, and the scene is watered down. etc.
By the way, in the remake, we see her leaving the niece (who she has custody of by previous agreement) with a sitter ... who turns out to be a jerk ... once. Soon enough, she takes the niece to work with her. Where is this long periods of leaving her alone? Given the chef is shown as in need of an attitude/life adjustment overall -- her boss forces her to go to therapy though she doesn't know why -- we also should respect that she needs time to learn how to act with a child. Since the chef herself is a loner, this also should be taken into consideration.
The original was in some ways a trifle, but was a well made one, showing how quality made fare need not be earth shattering. The original was in some ways a trifle, but was a well made one, showing how quality made fare need not be earth shattering. This started out that way, and has some signs of it at times, but overall comes off as bland fare.
See Waitress instead ... it is more nutritous.
-j
PS Again, even when the movie adopts the original script, they often do it poorly. The original had a more enjoyable ending involving the trio looking at an empty room where the chef imagines will be her new restaurant ... not an actual new restaurant. And, the scene shown in some ads of the sou chef (Aaron Eckhert btw is decent) feeding her soup makes more sense plot-wise in the original.
