i felt the same too, i was upset with the ml that in that scene where he flies the paper plane for the fl i said…
Exactly! đ I felt the same way.
When he started throwing those paper planes into her room, I was just thinking, "No... please close the door." đ
I actually saved my original comment before continuing because I knew people were going to come for me. There are always diehard fans who defend the ML no matter what. But for me, this has nothing to do with the actor. I'm a huge Tian Shiwei fan myself, so I'm definitely not being biased against the ML because of who's playing him.
My issue is with the writing. No amount of good acting can fix a plot decision that doesn't make sense. I really dislike when a male lead does something that hurts the female lead, never properly apologizes, then does one nice gesture and suddenly we're supposed to move on as if everything is fine.
Honestly, it would've been much more refreshing if she hadn't forgiven him so quickly. Let him actually earn her trust back. That would've been far more satisfying.
Also, I loved the competition at first, but it ended up feeling like only two teams existed. The other contestants were basically mannequinsâwe barely got to know them. Even if they were only there for that arc, giving them more personality would've made the competition feel so much bigger and more intense.
And honestly, the second male lead calling to check on her after the competition felt more touching to me than the paper planes.
I know Iâm only at episode 6, so maybe my opinion will change later, but I have to say Iâm already starting to dislike the male leadâs actions.
I understand that he wanted to compete against the female lead fairly. I understand wanting to prove yourself against someone talented instead of just being seen as her âgenius teammate.â But the way he went about it completely contradicts that idea.
He joined the team of the girl who already had a problem with the female lead and the teammate who betrayed her. How is that fair competition? If he truly wanted to compete on equal ground, he could have created his own team or simply refused to join a group that was formed because of the conflict surrounding her.
What bothers me even more is how they won. He basically predicted that the female lead would trust her own abilities and focus on her own strategy, then used that knowledge against her. Was that really winning fairly, or was he just taking advantage of the fact that he understood her personality?
I can see what the writer was trying to show: even geniuses can lose, and believing too much in your own ability can sometimes become a weakness. That message is fine. The problem is the execution. The team that won did not feel like the stronger or more deserving team; it felt like they won because they used personal knowledge about the female lead against her.
Then after everything, he comforts her at the end. But I honestly struggled with that scene. He already knew how much it hurt her when people ignored her, spoke badly about her, or refused to work with her. He knew she valued her teammates and her abilities. So joining the people who hurt her made his actions feel worse.
Yes, he defended her when that guy bullied her, and I appreciate that. But that does not erase everything else. Protecting someone in one moment does not automatically make your other choices okay.
Maybe the story will explain his actions better later, but at this point, I feel like the male leadâs intentions and his methods do not match. He wanted a fair competition, but his choices made the competition feel unfair.
Review: Tastefully Yours (2025) â Beautiful Food, Nonsense Story
Honestly, this drama was nonsense. The cooking part? Amazing. The food looked beautiful, mouthwatering, alive on screen. That should have been the heart of the drama: showing how creativity, authenticity, and passion in food can overcome corporate greed. And at times, you could feel that message. Even without a big restaurant, you can still create food that touches people everywhere. That theme could have carried the entire show.
But instead, every time the writers had a chance to prove it, they dropped the ball.
Take the cooking competitions. The trial rounds. Yeon-joo and her team obviously had the better dishes, the passion, the originality. Everyone watching knew it. And yetâsomehowâthey were cheated out of it without much explanation. It was treated as if corporate money and sponsorship automatically makes a win legitimate. In this day and age, where online voting and transparency are normal, are we supposed to believe itâs that easy to rig such a contest without question? The logic just doesnât hold up.
Then thereâs the core betrayal: recipes stolen, restaurants burned, betrayals piling up. And yet⊠the consequences never matched the crimes. No real public exposure. No professional fallout. Just soft apologies, vague excuses, and a âweâre still familyâ ending. Thatâs not storytelling. Thatâs cowardice.
The motherâs years of dirty business practices? Brushed off with some humanizing scenes.
The male leadâs thefts for his mother? Explained away because he wanted love.
The female leadâs suffering? Minimized, trivialized, explained away as anger she should âget past.â
It all boils down to this: Tastefully Yours prioritized a fake, feel-good reconciliation over justice, accountability, or even basic narrative sense. The food deserved better. The audience deserved better.
When he started throwing those paper planes into her room, I was just thinking, "No... please close the door." đ
I actually saved my original comment before continuing because I knew people were going to come for me. There are always diehard fans who defend the ML no matter what. But for me, this has nothing to do with the actor. I'm a huge Tian Shiwei fan myself, so I'm definitely not being biased against the ML because of who's playing him.
My issue is with the writing. No amount of good acting can fix a plot decision that doesn't make sense. I really dislike when a male lead does something that hurts the female lead, never properly apologizes, then does one nice gesture and suddenly we're supposed to move on as if everything is fine.
Honestly, it would've been much more refreshing if she hadn't forgiven him so quickly. Let him actually earn her trust back. That would've been far more satisfying.
Also, I loved the competition at first, but it ended up feeling like only two teams existed. The other contestants were basically mannequinsâwe barely got to know them. Even if they were only there for that arc, giving them more personality would've made the competition feel so much bigger and more intense.
And honestly, the second male lead calling to check on her after the competition felt more touching to me than the paper planes.
I understand that he wanted to compete against the female lead fairly. I understand wanting to prove yourself against someone talented instead of just being seen as her âgenius teammate.â But the way he went about it completely contradicts that idea.
He joined the team of the girl who already had a problem with the female lead and the teammate who betrayed her. How is that fair competition? If he truly wanted to compete on equal ground, he could have created his own team or simply refused to join a group that was formed because of the conflict surrounding her.
What bothers me even more is how they won. He basically predicted that the female lead would trust her own abilities and focus on her own strategy, then used that knowledge against her. Was that really winning fairly, or was he just taking advantage of the fact that he understood her personality?
I can see what the writer was trying to show: even geniuses can lose, and believing too much in your own ability can sometimes become a weakness. That message is fine. The problem is the execution. The team that won did not feel like the stronger or more deserving team; it felt like they won because they used personal knowledge about the female lead against her.
Then after everything, he comforts her at the end. But I honestly struggled with that scene. He already knew how much it hurt her when people ignored her, spoke badly about her, or refused to work with her. He knew she valued her teammates and her abilities. So joining the people who hurt her made his actions feel worse.
Yes, he defended her when that guy bullied her, and I appreciate that. But that does not erase everything else. Protecting someone in one moment does not automatically make your other choices okay.
Maybe the story will explain his actions better later, but at this point, I feel like the male leadâs intentions and his methods do not match. He wanted a fair competition, but his choices made the competition feel unfair.
Honestly, this drama was nonsense. The cooking part? Amazing. The food looked beautiful, mouthwatering, alive on screen. That should have been the heart of the drama: showing how creativity, authenticity, and passion in food can overcome corporate greed. And at times, you could feel that message. Even without a big restaurant, you can still create food that touches people everywhere. That theme could have carried the entire show.
But instead, every time the writers had a chance to prove it, they dropped the ball.
Take the cooking competitions. The trial rounds. Yeon-joo and her team obviously had the better dishes, the passion, the originality. Everyone watching knew it. And yetâsomehowâthey were cheated out of it without much explanation. It was treated as if corporate money and sponsorship automatically makes a win legitimate. In this day and age, where online voting and transparency are normal, are we supposed to believe itâs that easy to rig such a contest without question? The logic just doesnât hold up.
Then thereâs the core betrayal: recipes stolen, restaurants burned, betrayals piling up. And yet⊠the consequences never matched the crimes. No real public exposure. No professional fallout. Just soft apologies, vague excuses, and a âweâre still familyâ ending. Thatâs not storytelling. Thatâs cowardice.
The motherâs years of dirty business practices? Brushed off with some humanizing scenes.
The male leadâs thefts for his mother? Explained away because he wanted love.
The female leadâs suffering? Minimized, trivialized, explained away as anger she should âget past.â
It all boils down to this: Tastefully Yours prioritized a fake, feel-good reconciliation over justice, accountability, or even basic narrative sense. The food deserved better. The audience deserved better.