Roux the Day: A Gourmet Detective Mystery (2020 TV Movie) User Reviews

As much lighthearted fun as you can have in a murder mystery

[Jackbv123 · 7/10 · 20 January 2020]

If you don't mind gaping plot holes, Gourmet Detective movies are usually fun. The leads have good chemistry and manage some decent dialogue. The mystery is interesting. I usually find it goes back and forth with enough complexity that I don't anticipate whodunit.

Unfortunately, perhaps more than some of the Hallmark whodunits, Gourmet Detective also usually has a few too many procedural issues. Apparently the writers never heard of the fruit of the poison tree, and break-ins by one or both of the leads are fairly common. The final perilous confrontation makes no sense since the first thing out of Maggie's mouth should have been to tell the villain what the people back at the station already knew meaning there was nothing left to hide. But then that would eliminate the token drama. Plus another illegal search and why were they there alone? Like I said, ignore the plot holes and the movie is fine.

There's a sweet surprise at the end that has nothing to do with the mystery, but adds another nice element to the personal stories.

Gourmet Detective: Roux the Day

[JoBloTheMovieCritic · 6/10 · 25 January 2020]

6/10 - an intriguing plot isn't as fleshed out as I would've liked, but it fits the bill for a HMM fix

The missing cookbook

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 20 January 2020]

Poor gourmet chef Dylan Neal was really getting exasperated with his police detective bestie Brooke Burns with her constant reference to a rare chef's book of his recipe secrets as a cookbook. What's gone on the market at an auction house is one of those from a really classy San Francisco restaurant back in the day. But when our sleuths go to a rare book dealer who purchased the item, the dealer's employee is found murdered.

As in all the Gourmet Detective movies, Burns and Neal go through the Bay City's culinary scene looking for clues and culprits. A second murder happens as some folks want this book real bad.

The contents are quite interesting and here's a hint. That former classy dining spot had some interesting ingredients the chef used in some dishes.

Nicely done story, the perpetrator had quite an operation to protect.

One of my favorites

[cjf-75780 · 7/10 · 22 January 2020]

While I agree with the other reviews about plot holes, incredulous "police tactics" and that they shouldn't have replaced Bailey, I still enjoyed watching this one. But the thing that bothered me the most was this: after the lady from Louisiana mentioned her Cajun and Creole cuisine restaurant was struggling, Henry decided that since his business is "booming", he wants to add Cajun and Creole dishes to Molly's menu. I thought that was an inconsiderate and heartless move on his part - to draw customers away from her restaurant. I realize the setting is San Francisco which surely can support 2 fake restaurants with Cajun food, but I just thought that was an unnecessary addition to the story line. Otherwise, I like this series and hope they are planning more. I think Henry and Maggie are cute together and like that they're not too mushy with the romance.

Glad to have them back!

[kalderton-63269 · 9/10 · 20 January 2020]

Thoroughly enjoyed Roux the Day. This couple has great chemistry. Great who-done-it.

Excuse me?

[jmorris9999 · 7/10 · 15 February 2020]

"Like every cop I don't keep a round in the chamber." (or words to that effect.)

I thought this was a mystery movie, not a fantasy. Evidently they don't have a law enforcement consultant available.

Best of the series

[brittonwayne-287-425268 · 10/10 · 20 January 2020]

I love the gourmet detective series and was happy that they added another installment after a long break. Roux the day was the best of the series in my opinion. The relationship between Henry and Maggie is more developed and the mystery kept you guessing the whole time Hope to see many more in the future.

Light fun mystery

[coltras35 · 6/10 · 13 May 2023]

Famed culinary consultant Henry Ross is a charming food industry insider in San Francisco. When suspicious sabotage ends in a shocking murder at his friend's five-star restaurant, Henry is put on the case with strong-willed police detective and single mom, Maggie Price. Despite Maggie's protests, they must work together to decipher the clues and investigate all of San Francisco's top culinary pros.

Another enjoyable mystery which is quite cosy and our duo are still bickering like ever. Of course, that's the enjoyable part. It's a light mystery without any dark elements. Maggie is a bit more likeable here, though her dry remarks are still there.

Another fun GD movie

[SunnyDaise · 10/10 · 6 February 2021]

I enjoy the GD series and hope they make more - it's fun to have the woman as the cop and the fella interfering for a change! As usual, it's another opportunity to play Spot The Hallmark Actors, which is always fun and like seeing old friends/colleagues - especially great in Covid isolation. Although I'm having a lovely time out, Classic HM movies are good company and help keep me positive, despite all the murders, lol.

Passable but Lacking.

[FredTippettII · 7/10 · 21 January 2020]

Frankly, I found this entry to be decent but not perfect--and, honestly, not terribly good either.

First, the positives. 1. Dylan Neal and Brooke Burns don't have the absolute best chemistry, but theirs is pretty good--and far better than that between the Detective and Amateur in most of these Hallmark Mysteries. 2. The mystery is largely grounded and sensible, with a culprit and final twist that aren't terribly predictable.

Now, the negatives. 1. The plot, at times, borders on the unbelievable--and the movie is made all the worse by the fact that many of the more unbelievable twists are the cruxes used to move the movie into its next acts. 2. Three highly-trained cops who chase a suspect on foot and box him in somehow completely lose sight of him in a fully open space. 3. The Detective, the Amateur, and his father enact an elaborate breaking-and-entering scheme to get evidence on a suspect to use against him during a later interrogation. Maybe the cop meant to bluff him with the mere knowledge that said evidence existed--and not actually use the evidence itself as a part of her case against him--but something about the whole situation just rang false to me. 3. The final culprit decided to base the name and emblem for his illegal and secret operations off of a picture hanging for all to see in his house. 4. The final act involves the Detective and Amateur's sneaking--in the dark of night--onto the property of the final culprit, whom they both knew to be a murderer, in order to collect evidence of his guilt. Given that, at the time, the police already knew of his guilt and possible participation in at least one murder, it's hard to believe that they would ever allow a Detective and civilian to engage in such dangerous behavior instead of simply getting a warrant to search the culprit's home and another warrant for his arrest. 5. As usual, the mystery's final acts involve the Detective and Amateur's being held at gunpoint by the culprit and prevailing over him/her by some form of acrobatics and/or trickery. 6. The actor who played Bailey was changed for apparently no reason. That isn't so much a plot sin as a general movie making sin, but it always has been one of my pet peeves. If actors are unavailable, their characters really should just be written out of or replaced in future installments. This movie establishes that it takes place months or years after the last Gourmet Detective installment. The movie's writers and directors could easily have written Bailey out as on vacation or as having transferred to another Precinct or Department--and could have written a new Detective into his role. Audiences notice these inconsistencies, and filmmakers really should tell stories accordingly.

Why did they change the actor who played Bailey?

[brittonwayne-287-425268 · 10/10 · 20 January 2020]

This installment had a different actor playing Bailey. He did okay but actor changes in a series messes with a shows chemistry.

Cajuns will eat anything that doesn't eat them first.

[cgvsluis · 5/10 · 1 June 2021]

This is the fifth and probably my favorite of the Gourmet Detective series, which turns the hallmark mystery genre around by having the male lead be the non-detective consultant.

"More than happy to return to my usual culinary work."-Henry

This episode is around a missing Chef's Book from the famous San Francisco institution Belvedere's Fine Dining. The restaurant has been closed for ten years and the chef's book has been missing for years. The mysterious chef's book is going up for auction. Our Gourmet Detective gets hired to determine the authenticity and bid for a client if it is real. Meanwhile, real detective Maggie is missing her daughter, Abby, who is in college and is excited about taking Henry to his first Giants game.

"No a Chef's Book. It's like a cookbook, but much more important and far more detailed."-Henry Ross

At the auction they find out it has been sold out from under everyone before the auction. The sale is private...but that doesn't stop a plucky food critic and young creole chef of the Creole Rooster. Helpful Maggie gets the buyer's info for Henry...in order for him to help his client. While they are bickering about Maggie needing a hobby, they discover a dead body in the buyers' antique shop. ...the chef's book is missing and the mystery is afoot!

"Chef's book! There is a difference!"-Henry.

Light, breezy, filled with good natured joking around. The Gourmet Detective is a fun watch on Hallmark Movies and mysteries.

A very good ensemble

[wjspears · 9/10 · 17 November 2021]

I am frankly a little surprised how much I have enjoyed all five of these Gourmet Detective episodes.

It struck me as too much of a copy of the "Murder, She Baked". While I had no idea which show came first, it seemed like a bad idea to have two mystery shows, with such similar format. But I was ignoring what makes so many of these Hallmark mystery shows so enjoyable--the care taken in casting.

Dylan Neal and Brooke Burns are a terrific team. They are believable in their attraction to each other, and their care for each other. Equally they are believable in their different tastes, and their nettling of the other.

At the end of this episode, Henry's father, Jim (Bruce Boxleitner) remarks that they make a great detective team "like Holmes and Watson". Maggie humbly declines the comparison. Henry pipes in with "Beckett and Castle!"--a sweet nod to the former popular ABC detective show, that for my money, The Gourmet Detective compares very favorably to.

Great series, but

[Jazzie-too · 10/10 · 28 January 2020]

Why did they change actors for Bailey? What happened to Marc Senior? I preferred Senior, as it keeps the theme of the series in tact.

Love these

[ashlishain-42803 · 9/10 · 20 January 2020]

Love The Gourmet Detective Mysteries. Love the actors in each of these. This one maybe my fav! Other than the mispronounation of Daniel Whelan. Not pronounced Whee-len, should be be Way-Len. I think I can confirm that 😉

Pretty good but faux pasta..

[lkozma-88596 · 8/10 · 28 March 2020]

I enjoyed the movie, BUT wormwood is NOT NOW illegal as an ingredient in alcohol in the USA for a few years. So, no, Nicholas and Dom were NOT running an illegal wormwood operation.

Where are Marc Senior and Maggie's mom?

[anniejay-03796 · 5/10 · 24 May 2020]

When characters change and/or disappear, it's very disconcerting. The chemistry is all wrong.

First you make a roux

[wehymel · 10/10 · 30 January 2020]

Entertaining movie with interesting characters. The only drawback are the food references. Cajun or Creole cooks would NEVER put tomatoes in Gumbo. NEVER!

A New Level of Stupid

[kpassa · 1/10 · 11 May 2020]

I watch these shows because of my wife: Happy wife, happy life, etc., so I don't go in expecting much but this was beyond the pale stupid. Using tactics that would get any police detective fired and probably sued in order to catch criminals motivated by an illegal operation that isn't illegal. What a concept! At least add a little bit of believability next time.

Hey Maggie, what's that stench coming from the oven?

[Ed-Shullivan · 4/10 · 9 September 2020]

Sorry Dylan Neal and Brooke Burns but this recipe about a family heirloom restaurant cookbook should have stayed buried forever rather than being discovered and auctioned off before another murder occurred. I felt the romantic spark between Maggie (Brooke Burns) and Henry Ross (Dylan Neal) was so superficial (right down to their sprayed hair-do's and caked on make up) that it became irritating the constant banter between the two of them.

As for Henry's elder statesman dad, Jim Ross (Bruce Boxleitner) running the father and son restaurant I felt his role was meaningless and he added nothing in the form of fatherly advice to his son Henry, nor any off setting intended humour to this supposed mystery theater production.

Overall I was disappointed with Dylan Neal himself, who had previously delivered more interesting roles and films, until this bomb. Something burned badly in the Ross's kitchen this time, and maybe it was the heirloom cookbook everyone was trying to get their greedy hands on, but more likely it was the end of film script burning by the cast.

I give it a 4 out of 10 IMDB rating.

Hallmark for Housewives

[westsideschl · 2/10 · 28 September 2021]

Another cheap Hallmark redux of the formula crime series for bored housewives. 99% of scene time is just talking & even the dialogue is middle school graduate level. Script the usual food, romance, and mystery - all the hooks. Actors all have heavy makeup & designer fashion, never gets dirty & always wrinkle free, clothing (even a wardrobe change with practically every scene change). We get one crime moment (brief) with a very fake studio prop gun. Acting worse than even daytime soap.

Disappointing (spoiler)

[kenny-58 · 1/10 · 21 October 2022]

The plot line was fine and things were flowing nicely... until...

The sting scene. Or, more accurately, immediately after the sting scene.

Sure Henry probably should have given the money for the book. And, sure, Henry probably shouldn't have risked things by taking the time to examine the book... but...

Really?? The guy escaped the scene of a police sting? And then for the police to make the statement that if Henry had just given him the money they would have captured him (and recovered the money)? And if that wasn't bad enough, Henry agreeing with that "logic" just cemented my disappointment.

What semi-intelligent viewer would really believe the "logic" of this given the suspect had just escaped being captured. Maybe we are supposed to think "well, if he'd been given the briefcase with the money he would have moved slower and then, of course, would not have escaped."

Sorry, major logic breakdown and very disappointing!

I had to stop watching after the failed sting scene. For me it ruined everything.