A Rat's Tale: Brad Bird's RATATOUILLE

[mouton]

RATATOUILLE
Written and Directed by Brad Bird

Gusteau: If you focus on what you’ve left behind, you will never be able to see what lies ahead.

Rats are a hard sell. They’re filthy little rodents with fierce, ugly teeth that scurry across your feet when you aren’t expecting anything, dragging their long, scaly tails behind them and sending those they cross into squeals of fear. Rats in a kitchen comedy are arguably an impossible sell. If you don’t like rats to begin with, you certainly don’t want them anywhere near your food. Yet here we are smack in the middle of the premise for the near infallible Pixar’s latest summer crowd pleaser, RATATOUILLE. Separated from his rat colony, Remy (voiced by comedian Patton Oswalt), finds himself accidentally putting his culinary talents to good use in what was once one of Paris’ most prestigious kitchens, earning him rave reviews. Of course a rat can’t take credit for fine food preparation so he forms an unlikely friendship with a gangly, awkward fellow by the name of Linguini (Lou Romano), who serves as his front. Together they bring new life to an aging restaurant and inspire each other to be better than they believe themselves to be. The folks at Pixar might have been sniffing too many expensive cheeses when they concocted this mousecapade but they may also be the only people out there who could have pulled it off. Only, under the writing and direction of Brad Bird (THE INCREDIBLES), they didn’t just pull it off; RATATOUILLE is a masterwork in the field of animated filmmaking, deliciously reaching heights that no rat has ever reached before.

Remy is no ordinary rat. He has a gift, a gift that is being squandered at home. He understands the complicated calibration of cooking. He knows the spice for every occasion yet his overbearing father (Brian Dennehy) uses his heightened senses as a tool to sniff out rat poison amongst the garbage. Like so many of us born into situations that do not lead instantly to fame and fortune, Remy is destined for greatness but has yet to be discovered. Not only does he need to win over the hearts and stomachs of notoriously finicky food critics (like the one voiced so delectably by Peter O’Toole) but he must also win over the potentially lost appetites of modest movie goers who may not want rats with the their popcorn. Bird’s animators studied the bahavior of rats extensively and felt it would be best to have the rats walk about like humans, on two feet, in an effort to appear more likeable. Bird refused. He wanted the rats to act like rats. He wanted their ideals to win us over. When trapped in a jar early on in the film, it is Remy’s charm that gets him set free. There is an earnestness, a yearning, a hope seen deep in his pleading eyes that reminds us just how often we find ourselves trapped in jars by people bent on keeping us down. Besides, aren’t we all just rats in the race?

Like Remy, Bird and his Pixar cohorts know to add a sprinkling of depth to their dishes and that presentation is key. RATATOUILLE raises the Pixar standard of beauty to new levels while seasoning the whole with hints of meaning that are only completely realized once they hit your palette. Pixar’s Paris is a foggy riverside with scattered street lamps at one moment and a string of window lights and fountains the next. While it is romantically distracting, it is nowhere near as chaotic as the view from two inches above the floor. Rats scamper and the camera follows as Remy swerves in and out of kitchen crevasses and sewers (always sure to wash his hands before touching the food). The fluidity of the movement through such luscious colour is hypnotic and magical, simply what one would expect from the city of love. Somewhere tucked away in this city is a tiny one-bedroom apartment the size of a storage space known as not much but still home to Linguini. The friendship formed between the man and his rat is unlikely, yes, but it anchors the film with its humbling mutual appreciation. They learn to rely on each other without forgetting how to contribute the most vital parts of themselves. Theirs is a friendship so powerful and so respectful that it changes the minds and hearts of the naysayers who play witness to it, including those sitting comfortably in front of the screen.

“Anyone can cook.” These are the words of Chef Gousteau, Remy’s inspiration and hero, that run throughout RATATOUILLE. Cooking can be interpreted as anything and therefore anyone can do anything they want. Just look at Remy, a rat with an impossible dream that comes true despite every odd and thanks to hard work (and a dash of fate). Better yet, just look at Pixar. By not simply following the recipe but rather using inspired, unusual ingredients, they have managed to make a mesmerizing masterpiece that is astonishing, endearing and about a rat.

www.blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com

[cinemabon]

I hate to say this about a fellow site user, but you revealed far too much about the film to my liking... anyone reading your review would not be surprised about this film going in, which I find too bad. Because I also wrote a "review" however I purposely left out many plot details, as I believe this film is a true gem among so many loser animated films about penguins, tap dancing or surfing.

Here then, is my sentiment:

Ratatouille - directed by Brad Bird

I had high expectations going into the theater today. “The Iron Giant” (1999), directed by Brad Bird, is one of my all time favorite movies for so many reasons. I did not find it strange that the opening shot for “Ratatouille,” a dolly in through a forest filled with warm fall colors, oranges, reds, yellows, should be identical to the opening he used in “Giant.” The similarity to the other film ends there. For “Ratatouille,” I can safely say, will go down in cinema history as one of the greatest animated films of all time, filled with mirth, wisdom, and insight. I could describe the plot; or why I liked this scene, or that. I would spoil it if I did.

Essentially, when we critics, safely entrenched behind what we find intellectually acceptable, are challenged with the ridiculous and the absurd, we should have an open mind. For “Ratatouille” is a careful examination of our soul, lately blemished with too much pride in our ability to choose what is acceptable. We look down our noses on the common… if they do not have a degree from Harvard; they were not good enough to get in. We use that equivalent yardstick when we judge film, for criticism is at the heart of this film, not in a bad way, but in one that will enlighten. The theme of “Ratatouille” is that anyone can be someone… not just everyone, but someone with heart, brave enough to attempt being great. Sounds very simple, yet this film is filled with the profound. The lesson of acceptance is one so few of us learn in life, making the lessons of “Ratatouille” a reminder to the high and mighty that humility is a dish we must often partake in from time to time, to remind us that the most uneducated dolt has something to offer humanity, and we should accept them as if they did.

When I had my oil changed in my car last week, I spoke to the mechanic as I paid the bill, saying that he reminded me of someone I once knew. He removed his cap to reveal he was the nephew of a famous person. “Why are you a car mechanic?” I asked, flabbergasted. “I did not inherit my uncle’s genes,” he sheepishly confessed to me. For the next twenty minutes, we spoke of his uncle, I as an ardent fan, he as the nephew that went to his uncle’s house for years and met so many famous artists, writers, etc. From then on, I addressed my mechanic as Mr. (I promised not to reveal his name). I can honestly say, that one never knows who is in the seat next to you on the bus, or standing in line, and that “Ratatouille” is that kind of experience for me, enlightening.

[mouton]

Hey ... no offence taken but what exactly did you find too revealing? I barely spoke of the plot, left out the romance and the puppet controlling and the family issues. I'm a little confused. I still think there would be plenty of surprises for someone going in.

PS. I loved both of those penguin movies. I don't know if you've seen them but I felt they both had a lot of personality and technical merit to offer. Neither holds a candle to the rat movie but they were both very strong and enjoyable.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
I hate to say this about a fellow site user, but you revealed far too much about the film to my liking... anyone reading your review would not be surprised about this film going in, which I find too bad.

I made this comment on the thread dealing with the excellent Irish film Once:

"Are film reviews meant to be read only after you've seen the film? I used to think one reason to read reviews is to help decide if one wants to watch the reviewed movie or not. I no longer read reviews before watching a movie. The first review I read when I got home from Once was Robert Wilonsky's Village Voice review which leaves no mystery unrevealed whatsoever and manages to say less of any interest than most other reviews I read. Then I came to Filmleaf and found mouton revealing that "she is still married to an estranged husband...". Why spoil the film (to some extent) by blurting out something revealed to "the guy" and the audience in the last 30 minutes of the movie? Alarmed by this development, I picked 10 additional reviews at random and was somewhat relieved to find that only 1 out of the 10 critics found it necessary to reveal the girl is married."

I posted that commentary on 6/22 and didn't get a response from anybody. I ask again: Are film reviews meant to be read only after you've seen the film?
At the very least, a reviewer who finds it necessary to reveal major plot points in order to make a point needs to warn the reader beforehand. It's a matter of common courtesy. I think it's common practice to reveal the premise of a film being reviewed while being careful not to provide clues about a film's resolution. I find that Chris Knipp manages to discuss some plot aspects without spoiling the movie for the future viewer. It's a difficult balance to reach because one does want to give some idea to the reader about content. I think it's important to take into account at which point in the narrative significant information is doled out. My criticism of mouton's Once review is based on the fact that he reveals a twist, so to speak, that occurs two thirds into the film and that none of his points requires making such revelation. I don't know if I agree with you, cinemabon, about mouton's Ratatouille review because I haven't read it or watched the film. But of course I will.

[cinemabon]

Film criticism can vary greatly, but this is my take on it. If I wanted to know about a film from start to finish, I would see the film and not read someone's interpretation. Take A.O. Scott's criticism of "Ratatouille" for example. While he does reveal certain aspects of the 'critic' in the movie, he leaves out the flow of the plot. My objection is a retelling of the film in 'your own words' is not necessary. Movies impart emotion and intellect in my mind... they make you feel... they make you think. When discussing a film, if I am going to speak of a specific scene, I put up "Spoilers" before hand. Otherwise, I talk about a film as it affects me. I'm not concerned with telling people this, this and this happened. I don't agree with that scene. I agree with that scene. What does the scene tell you? How do you really feel? That is what I want to know. Not the plot, not the surprises, not the details... but what did you feel when you walked out... Now, here is another take.


******** SPOILERS********** if you never saw "Citizen Kane" don't read beyond this sentence. No spoilers below on "Ratatouille"




Believe it or not, a woman making commentary on CNN the other night just blatantly said, "I'm going to spoil 'Citizen Kane' for everyone because I want to be a spoiler, and I feel good about it. It was his sled, for Chrissake, Rosebud was his sled!" Well, I think a woman like that is a bitch, a low class uncouth one at that. I seldom use vulgar language. At risk of having him contaminated, I sat my son down and we watched the film together two nights ago. We talked over various points of the film. With all of the unknowns in place, this film had a profound impact on him, especially the final shot, as it was meant to have. I did this out of desperation. I feel that trailers, which used to entice movie goers, now show us the 'highlights' of a film, so that by the time we see it, everything is passe. Well, I'm sorry. Pixar carefully released only certain scenes for their trailer. "Ratatouille" is one of those delightful films that should be a surprise to the patron and not filled with ho-hum, "oh, I saw that in the trailer" moments.

[Johann]

Rosebud is NOT a sled.
She didn't give anything away.

If you really know Citizen Kane then you really know what Rosebud is.
And it ain't no sled.

Happy birthday cinemabon

[cinemabon]

Me and George M Cohan

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
If I wanted to know about a film from start to finish, I would see the film and not read someone's interpretation.
Until after you've seen the movie, right?

What does the scene tell you? How do you really feel? That is what I want to know. Not the plot
Yes, but sometimes you have to describe the scene so that others know what you're talking about.

Believe it or not, a woman making commentary on CNN the other night just blatantly said, "I'm going to spoil 'Citizen Kane' for everyone because I want to be a spoiler, and I feel good about it. It was his sled, for Chrissake, Rosebud was his sled!" Well, I think a woman like that is a bitch, a low class uncouth one at that.
I agree with your characterization of the woman but not that her revelation would spoil Citizen Kane. It's what the sled represents that's truly important and there are at least 2 valid interpretations of what it represents.

I sat my son down and we watched the film together two nights ago. We talked over various points of the film. With all of the unknowns in place, this film had a profound impact on him, especially the final shot, as it was meant to have.
More evidence of the lasting impact of one of the greatest works of art of the 20th century.

I feel that trailers, which used to entice movie goers, now show us the 'highlights' of a film, so that by the time we see it, everything is passe.
I hate trailers like that and they abound. But the very best movies are much more than the sum of their plot highlights and can only be spoiled to a limited extent.

[Chris Knipp]

In practicing my review-writing I've learned not to give too much away, above all not how a film ends. This certainly goes for a new film some of the interest of which is simply in seeing something fresh and new. In dealing with classics, however, one may want to read more thorough analysis, which will take in all the contents. In a film course, the class and the teacher are not going to go through the semester never alluding to the identity of Rosebud. In fact, in great art or literature that's already become established, the element of surprise is unimportant if not nonexistent. It's not what happens but how the story is told. and this was true for the original audiences of traditional storytelling and the ancient or folk epics. The ancient Greek audience of the Odyssey knew that Odysseus arrived home and killed the suitors. Their pleasure was in how the bard embroidered the details. The applies to modern narrative art works that have become classics. Hitchcock's skill as a director means that no matter how many times we've seen Vertigo or North by Northwest, the storytelling is still a pleasure. In a film or literary classic, it's the art we're interested in, or in the case of Rosebud as Oscar sees it, the interpretation, and not the rather childish detective-story impulse to figure out how it will turn out.

But if it's a detective story, don't tell. And if it's a new movie, don't tell too much. I don't think I did in the case of Once, so I did not respond to Oscar's complaint on that thread (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=2052&perpage=6).

Nonetheless sometimes I've been surprised to find how much of the content of a film, including sometimes the ending, mainstream print reviewers sometimes reveal.

If being surprised by the ending is the main pleasure a new movie provides, it probably isn't much of a movie. Still I understand a lot of people are touchy about this point and it's unsporting to give too much away. The basic setup must be given to write a review of any kind, most times. Restraint is required though.

How much is too much, however, is up to the individual to decide, and people will always howl with complaint at the revelation of something basic in the setup that the reviewer had to mention to make his or her points. One has the option of reading reviews before or after seeing the film. It is often interesting to read them after, rather than before. Then one can jjudge the review more intelligently. There are other ways of figuring out whether to see a film than reading reviews. In the past I sometimes went to a movie because an influential critic hated it. That made me curious. If there's an extreme reaction, there may be something cool in there.

I hate those over-revealing trailers too--a despicable recent development that ought to be abolished. Compare the one for The Shining, which influenced PT Anderson when he made his for Magnolia.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s. mouton, your website looks ever more beautiful.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I don't think I did in the case of Once, so I did not respond to Oscar's complaint on that thread (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/printthread.php?threadid=2052&perpage=6).
Just the opposite. I singled you out as someone who's found the right balance. But I was hoping for a smart response from you to the general topic and that's just what we got. Compare your approach to the review that prompted my post.
(Quote from the Village Voice's Robert Wilonsky's review of Once contains major SPOILER)

"Both are suffering from love affairs that went wrong." (Knipp)

"And so theirs becomes a friendship and partnership—though not quite a relationship, because of The Guy's ex and The Girl's estranged husband." (Wilonsky)


One has the option of reading reviews before or after seeing the film. It is often interesting to read them after, rather than before. Then one can judge the review more intelligently. There are other ways of figuring out whether to see a film than reading reviews.
Absolutely. When I'm not familiar with the director or with the reception given at festivals (where most notable films premiere), I use Metacritic's extremely helpful composite scores (which are color coded: green, yellow and red).

[Chris Knipp]

Well, thanks. I've become reliant on Metacritic scores myself--even though I don't always trust them 100%; I guess they do get the consensus approximately right..

To restate it, I don't think it's a crime to reveal anything about a classic. People don't have to read about it before they watch it if they don't want to. But revealing details from a new movie that don't come out till after the beginning may spoil an element of surprise that the filmmakers intended.

[cinemabon]

My object which more or less started this brew-ha-ha stemmed from the fact that I tend to ignore trailers, previews, and reviews of certain films I intend to see because I've noticed a trend in which critics, especially, tend to "summarize" the plot in their review. I felt that Mouton, for whatever his intentions may have been, should begin by saying, the following review contains a synopsis of the plot, just on our site. On his site, he can reveal anything he wants, its his site. Reading a review afterward only serves to cement an opinion I've formed by watching the film.

I tend to read reviews sometimes before I see the film to get a feel for the material. I've come to trust our writer's judgment. However, had I read Mouton's review first, many elements of "Ratatouille" would not have the same impact. Just as the sled came as a complete surprise to me (as were many other elements). I watched my son jump, just as I did, when the announcer yelled, "News! On the march!" in Kane. When the thunder cracked as the camera tipped down through the skylight. Had that been in a trailer, all the element of surprise would be diminished. The guns blasting in "Shane" are meant to scare the audience with their power, when we go from near silence to loud percussive bangs. The slow buildup of three violins by Bernard Herrmann before Anthony Perkins jerks back the curtain and a woman screams has been duplicated by horror directors so many times its ridiculous. Yet Hitch did it best. Had it been in the trailer (only a form, her screaming face appeared), the entire scene would be mute. Instead, I recall the theater filled with women screaming, not just in reaction, but for their lives... some got up and left! Advertisements in the local paper begged audiences to stay for the end!

"Ratatouille" is a surprise in a season of cutsie animated cut ups filled with over done belch jokes, fart jokes, and the obvious. For once we got art and intelligence in the same package, and the reason it is the highest rated film of the year.

[mouton]

To read or not to read, that is apparently the question. Only more precisely, the question is when to read, not whether to read at all. I personally do not read any reviews before seeing a film. First off, there is enough buzz floating around to shake out of my head before seeing a film as to give myself the most objective viewing possible. Secondly, I don't like shaping my ideas about what to write about before the film is unfolding before my eyes. I am too easily influenced. I do read reviews afterwards to get other persepctives and begin dialogues about certain aspects of the film.

When I write, I try not to give away any major plot points. I sometimes fail unknowingly. I sometimes fail on purpose but I warn the reader first with your standard spoiler alert. I do find it necessary to discuss scenes or sequences to demonstrate points or just to gush. I try to write with the knowledge that there will be people reading who have not seen the film. The balance there is to contextualize them within the film while whetting their appetite for more and not giving too much away. Again, some attempts are better than others. I tend to not mind so much giving away pieces of the film that happen in the first scenes. Unless its a major surprise, I'm not really ruining anything if it happens right away.

As for the postings I leave on this site, they are essentially identical to what I post on other sites. I write reviews and I feel that a synopsis is necessary to complete it the reading experience as I cannot know whether my reader has seen the film or not. If they have not, a synopsis will help them to understand what I am writing about. If they have, I guess a synopsis might seem repetitive. That being said, if one chooses to read a review without having seen the film, I think one generally expects to be reading a bit about the plot. Announcing that a review contains a synopsis seems superfluous. Some might actually be reading these reviews in hopes of learning about the story. Personally, as far as postings on this site are concerned, I almost feel that there should be no debate about whether a synopsis, detailed or vague, is included as this site has always seemed like more of a discussion forum than anything else. If you're a part of the discussion, then it stands to reason that you've seen the film and have already had your private experience with the film.

Again, I'm kinda surprised, cinemabon by your reaction to my review because I've given much more away before than I did in this review. I try to tease but clearly the line is easily crossed and some times, I don't even know I've crossed it. As far as my rat movie review goes, I tried to focus on the artistic elements like the character and set design as well as the some of the themes. I made mention of the rat's culinary ambitions but those are prominently featured in the trailer. I still think that reading my review would encourage someone to see it or at least I would hope so. I would never want to take away from someone's experience ... especially when the experience is as fantastic as Ratatouille.

I think I read somewhere that it was your birthday too ... so happy belated birthday, cinemabon!

------

Chris ... thanks for the site kudos once again. How do you like the sheep?

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon: you wrote:


Reading a review afterward only serves to cement an opinion I've formed by watching the film. I get what you mean, but I am into reviews so always hope one will blow my mind and turn around my opinion.

mouton, I can understand that your young mind is more malleable so you must not read a review beforehand but I am old and experienced and stubborn so that is not a likelihood. I read reviews with the coolest of eyes. But as I said before it is more interesting to read reviews after watching the film, naturally. . .because one knows what they are talking about (if they are really talking about the same film) and can assess it better.

mouton--go on doing whatever you want to do. In my opinion though I'm not sure it's really necessary to provide a "synopsis" of a movie--rather, you need to provide what information is necessary about it to make your points and give your assessment. One of the hardest things to do in a review is to perform the seemingly mechanical task of quickly outlining the basic elements of the movie (without revealing too much) in an economical fashion, leaving more space for anything interesting one has thought of to say.

We all agree that give-away trailers suck. I mentioned the one for The Shining, in the SEventies. Those were better days. It's just of the elevator filling up with blood. It's all you need to be terrified and intrigued. Hollywood has some idiots, and they mostly are driven by commercial preconceptions. They probably think they have to nab the "demographic" or some such nonsense. The elevator and the blood nab everybody. . .

I do read reviews before I see movies--if they happen to come along in the papers I read. In NYC I might read the short TimeOut NY ones. They are not reliable by the way. The more you read the more they cease to affect you. And if you really think that reading a review trumps the experience of watching a film you have a strange conception of what movies are all about. I do not see how knowing what "happens" trumps the experience of watching a film. Does a summary of Kill Bill or Mulholland Drive or Syndromes and a Century trump the experience of watching them? How could it possibly? The whole thing of "how it turns out" is such a teeny element of a movie.

But by all means avoid those trailers. So start getting invited to press screenings where there aren't any, or barring that, just arrive ten minutes late so you miss 'em.

[Johann]

George Lucas said:

Making films is an art. Selling films is a business. The problem is they don't know how to sell films. (major Hollywood studios)

[Chris Knipp]

Well said, and aptly quoted.

[cinemabon]

Mouton, your critical gifts are not in dispute. Please forgive me if you thought I meant any criticism of your prose. My only objection is to this "synopsis" style, which even the great Mr. Knipp has violated, and is quick to agree.

Perhaps I found something personal in "Ratatouille" that Mouton did not, and therefore he felt free to openly discuss parts of it, as if to say, well knowing this much is not crucial to any element of surprise, and he may be correct. However, I felt more like the critic character, taken by surprise and transported to another place and time where memories become as tangible as the waking dream.

[mouton]

I love respectful people. I did not take any offence. Please do not take my responses as anything other than an attempt at understanding.

[tabuno]

While I enjoyed the movie, I didn't find any mesmerizing nor brilliant execution such that this particular movie would stand out. It is better than most animated features this year. Yet the plot while well constructed didn't seem deliciously original nor unique, fantastic. As for the animation technology in this film, I'm afraid that the movie industry is headed for a collision course into animation and realism and the narrowing of the distinction will require a fundamental change in the way movies are perceived. I an get as much or more out of a Charlie Brown movie in terms of emotional endearment, dry wit, and humanities failings from Snoopy the dog or the complicated and much more daring use of animation from Spirited Away. So far it seems that this movie is overrated somewhat.

Some precedent setting animated features that I feel worth considering:

Akira (1988)
American Tail, An (1986)
Antz (1998)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Brave Little Toaster, The (1987)
Bug's Life, A (1998)
Cars (2006)
FernGully: The Last Rainforest (1992)
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)
Finding Nemo (2003)
Incredibles, The (2004)
Iron Giant, The (1999)
Lion King, The (1994)
Little Mermaid, The (1989)
Mononoke-hime (1997)
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Nightmare Before Christmas, The (1993)
Pocahontas (1995)
Polar Express, The (2004)
Scanner Darkly, A (2006)
Secret of NIMH, The (1982)
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
Shrek (2001)
Snoopy Come Home (1972)
Toy Story (1995)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

[cinemabon]

"...this movie is overrated."

I couldn't disagree more with either that comment or some of your examples, such as Final Fantasy (this is an example of a great story?), Polar Express (with its lifeless doll's eyes) Fern Gully (downright silly), Antz (a rip off of "A bug's life"), and Roger Rabbit, which isn't even an animated film. It's a live action film with animation overlays.

Without going futher into why I feel your list leaves out some of the finest animation (such as Disney's Pinocchio or Fantasia), I want to better understand your objections to "Ratatouille" other than it is overrated, in your opinion.

I am a huge fan of animation, both domestic and foreign. Your only mention of Japan is the anime "Akira" hardly representative. The Japanese version of "The Snow Queen" is pure poetry, highly recommended. Miyazaki is the reigning prince in Japanese feature-length animation (you mentioned two titles, I can think of seven off hand). Shrek with its reliance on fart jokes and belches is cute but hardly compares to Bambi or Sleeping Beauty in terms of art or story. While Shrek made lots of money, that is not always a yardstick for excellence, nor a measure of significance.

[tabuno]

Part of the basis on which I prefer movies is how I become emotionally touched by them. I believe that too many people have become fascinated by the animated technology of this movie which inevitably will be surpassed in short order (thus Final Fantasy set a new benchmark in this regard). Emotionally, this movie didn't set any real depth for substantive discussion as Fern Gully addressing environmental issues which in the context of today's global warming concerns foresaw an real threat to our entire planet. Plot-wise a Bug's Life is on par with this movie in terms of the issues involved, a individual isolated and alone who needs to become more. Ratatouille involves teamwork much like Shrek. Movies about food have been done before. Again there isn't much original about this movie. There is a lot of moving about, animated action (but Tarzan offered a lot of skateboarding scenes that provided a lot of action). Beauty and the Beast provided a much more intense dichotomy between differences in culture and more associated with humanity. This movie seems overrated because I don't find much in the way of standing out from many of the animated features that came before it.

[oscar jubis]

SPOILERS
(but most of you have seen it and, those who haven't, should)

Ratatouille is a technical marvel. The realism of the animation is photographic. The plot falls well within the American animation staples of interspecies friendship and impossible dream realized. The originality is in the details. The coronation of a rat as France's greatest cook by a persnickety critic (voiced to perfection by Sir Peter O'Toole) is echoed in the elevation of the titular peasant dish to gourmet status. The theme of the disparity between art and commerce blends into the plot nicely. I appreciate the script's avoidance of topicality and hipsterism. Not as funny as Finding Nemo but equally inspirational.

[tabuno]

As I've mentioned before, animation technology will always continue to advance (perhaps to the point of creating serious cinematic issues regarding the distinction between animation and live action). While I can understand the apparent appreciation for the high quality animation, for me, it's like buying a computer, there will always be a better computer. Still I look at a movie like No Reservations (2007) or the original Mostly Martha (2002), the food experience is even more brilliantly illustrated. In fact, I would say Simply Irresistable (1999) with Sarah Michelle Geller is on par with Ratatouille when it comes to the food experience. There's more to a great film that realism, animated realism at that. There is even a scene in Beauty and the Beast (1991), if I recall correctly, of a delicious feast scene that is not realistically animated but is just as enjoyable and fun as this movie. The bottom line here is that this movie looks good but still it doesn't add up really filling up one's hunger for something both fun, entertaining, and special in terms of depth and substance and emotionally stinging at the same time.

[Chris Knipp]

Don't forget Babette's Feast.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by tabuno
There is even a scene in Beauty and the Beast (1991), if I recall correctly, of a delicious feast scene that is not realistically animated but is just as enjoyable and fun as this movie.

I agree. It's called "Be Our Guest" and it's a great number, imaginatively realized and beautifully choreographed.

[oscar jubis]

For once we got art and intelligence in the same package, and the reason it is the highest rated film of the year. (cinemabon)

Animation is alive and well. The best reviewed film of the year in France is also animated. Here's an excerpt from Variety's review:

" By LISA NESSELSON
'Persepolis,' co-directed and co-written by Marjane Satrapi, is based on her graphic novels.

Any stragglers still unconvinced that animation can be an exciting medium for both adults and kids will run out of arguments in the face of "Persepolis." Like the four-volume series of graphic novels on which it's based, this autobiographical tour de force is completely accessible and art of a very high order. First-person tale of congenitally rebellious Marjane Satrapi, who was 8 years old when the Islamic Revolution transformed her native Teheran, boasts a bold lyricism spanning great joy and immense sorrow. In both concept and execution, hand-drawn toon is a winner. Sony Classics will release an English-dubbed version Stateside."

[Chris Knipp]

I've read the books.

[oscar jubis]

Did you like them? Are you interested in watching Ratatouille and/or Persepolis?

[Chris Knipp]

The books don't give me any desire to watch the film, really. But I probably will go to see it because of my interest in that part of the world and to review the information. It's not exactly a fun story!
Ratatouille would be a duty. I am not a fan of animation, or of graphic novels. Sure, some animations have enchanted me. Fantasia was cool, when I was 12. But the proliferation of it is not cause of rejoicing for someone like me. I tended to hate animated cartoons when they preceded feature films in the old days. Again cool ones in art houses were sometimes charming. I liked Gerald McBoing Boing. And Film Board of Canada stuff. But the Loony Toons--give me a break. I watched a lot of Japanime but really, I got tired of it. I still think Tetsuo the Iron Man is more amazing than any of that.

[cinemabon]

It's official... Rottentomatoes.com rated "Ratatouille" the highest rated film of 2007 to date (as of July 12):

10 - The Lookout
9 - Waitress
8 - Zodiac
7 - The host
6 - Sicko
5 - Hot Fuzz
4 - Knocked Up
3 - Once
2 - Away from her
1 - Ratatouille