[QUOTE=iluvurmom]
Has anyone else heard about this movie?
When I first saw it I was like huh? a movie about Rats but then I watched the trailer and its really cute. I promise you will fall in love with Remy:)
[/QUOTE]
We saw it Friday night. Loved it.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
I always thought Bambi was ruined by the stupid talking deer, skunk, and rabbit.
Sorry, Diogenes, but I have to disagree. (I saw the movie yesterday and was very impressed.) There might have been some minor room for improvement in the human character development, but no kid is going to want to see an animated movie of “gangly idiot learns how to cook.” To me, the rats were much more fleshed-out and “human” than the actual humans.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine
With the exception of The Incredibles, this has been a trademark of Pixar’s.
Saw it and liked it, not loved it. I’ll want to watch it again without my kids bouncing around in the movie theater (luckily it was a matinee crawing with other loud and wriggly kids).
Up-thread someone objected to the scene with the gun. I agree, not great for a kids movie - but it was a funny moment nonetheless.
I really can just echo what’s been said already. It looked gorgeous (though it was distracting how many times they had madly churning water just to show off “look what we can do with CG water!”), sometimes really lifelike, and the characters (especially the rats) were animated amazingly.
…but the story was weak. The characters were hollow, the plot simplistic, and the dialogue at times pretty hammy. The script did seem like an overblown short or a sitcom, where a little lie turns into an improbable situation turns into an impossible mess then ends up right in the end.
My ordering, from favorite to least:
The Incredibles - The best story, good animation, real heart. And it was nice to have human characters, instead of anthropomorphic animals/monsters/cars
Monsters Inc - Creative story, great animation, good heart.
Toy Story - The classic. Fun and original story, and well acted by its leads.
Ratatouille - The story was weak, but the animation was the best yet.
Cars - I don’t want to put it too low, because I did enjoy it. It wasn’t the most original by a long shot, and having the characters be anthropomorphic cars was extremely limiting, but they worked well with what they had. And it was good to have a pop soundtrack.
Finding Nemo - Same animation problem as with Cars. They backed themselves into a corner by having the main characters be so inflexibly modeled. And it’s the only one so far where a child is a main character; Nemo’s voice and dialogue both give me a headache. It is a decent story, though.
Toy Story 2 - The Jesse backstory is great, but neither the Buzz/Zerg storyline nor the Woody abducted storyline really did anything for me at all. Honestly, Kelsey Grammar puts this movie higher than it would otherwise be.
A Bug’s Life - I could probably like this more if I’d have seen it more than once or twice. As I remember it, it’s a cute retelling of The Ant and the Grasshopper story, and the animation is a little too shiny, not enough texture.
[QUOTE=Only Mostly Dead]
I really can just echo what’s been said already. It looked gorgeous (though it was distracting how many times they had madly churning water just to show off “look what we can do with CG water!”), sometimes really lifelike, and the characters (especially the rats) were animated amazingly.
…but the story was weak. The characters were hollow, the plot simplistic, and the dialogue at times pretty hammy. The script did seem like an overblown short or a sitcom, where a little lie turns into an improbable situation turns into an impossible mess then ends up right in the end.
[/QUOTE]
For me I thought the story was good and the characters were to me one of the best parts of the movie and were well developed helping us fall in love with them! I do think the animation was some of the best I have seen (leaving me hungry for the fabulous dishes they were cooking up)
I saw this film on the weekend and loved it. As a former cooking school student and cook, I found it heartwarming. I hope it inspires others to develop a passion for food. I especially hope that it influences all the little bratty picky eaters (who, to be fair, are often influenced by picky, disdainful parents) to look at food as an exciting experience and not just as an endless march of chicken nuggets and fries. I mean, if this film is successful, kids will be begging their parents for a dish made of eggplant and peppers! (Sorry, can you tell I have foodphobes in the family?)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So why does it have to be for kids? Why can’t CGI technology ever be used to create entertainment for adults? It seems like a waste to me.
[/QUOTE]
The genre’s already here, though we share it with kids. It’s called video games. 
Well! Visually a delight, as expected from Pixar. Definitely the first movie to make me ashamed of my concession stand snack purchases. By the end of the film, I totally wanted to run out and become a master chef. But it was the middle of the night, so I ended up microwaving some waffles instead. It just wasn’t the same.
Pixar’s visual designers must have the most fun of any people in the film industry. I wish to god I’d made the sort of career choices that would allow me to spend months investigating the best restaurants and most scenic areas of Paris on Disney’s dime. Kudos to whoever was responsible for designing those ultra-Europey cars in the street scenes; they clearly had a blast.
Scriptwise, the movie seemed unnecessarily intricate. Once they’d committed to the sitcom-like ‘elaborate deception’ plotline, I think they might have been better off spending screen time fleshing out more character details, instead of the half-dozen or so subplots they had going by the end. They made a point of introducing this kitchen staff full of characters with supposedly fascinating backstories, and then never really capitalized on any of that.
Much as I enjoyed the Food Critic of the Apocalypse, it seemed like he belonged in a completely separate film from the plotline with the secret will. What was the deal with that, anyway? They build up the paternity issue as if it were going to be the big secondary plotline, and then doodly-doodly-doop! Suddenly it’s resolved, and there’s still half the movie to get through! And I’m like: “Wait-- what? Is this an extended dream sequence? Hmm… No, I guess that actually happened…”
The twist ending was fairly baffling as well. I have nothing against confounding expectations, but honestly: what the hell, Pixar?
I have to say, while watching Cars, I did not wonder about how a civilization of cars could occur nearly as much as I wondered during this film how humanity could coexist with intelligent rats and not notice. Obviously the idea isn’t new in animated films. But generally it’s something you’re just asked to accept and move on. This movie kept calling attention to the situation, and then not really doing anything with it.
Also, at some point during the filmmaking process, they really should have come up with a better name than “Linguini.” It’s really not all that funny.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
… I never never quite get over my gorge at the sight of rat in a kitchen handling food. …
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come now, they washed their hands, er, paws.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
… I never never quite get over my gorge at the sight of rat in a kitchen handling food. …
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JonScribe]
Oh, come now, they washed their hands, er, paws.
[/QUOTE]
Besides, they were mass-sanitized in the dishwasher!
I literally howled with laughter at that one. Yes, I’ve spent way too much time in the dishpit. Disclaimer: I do not recommend commercial dishwashers for the cleaning of rodents or any other housepets. Furbys, Tamagotchis, and other virtual pets, on the other hand, may and should be thrown in with impunity.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
I have to say, while watching Cars, I did not wonder about how a civilization of cars could occur nearly as much as I wondered during this film how humanity could coexist with intelligent rats and not notice. Obviously the idea isn’t new in animated films. But generally it’s something you’re just asked to accept and move on. This movie kept calling attention to the situation, and then not really doing anything with it.
[/quote]
Well, at no point does Remy speak to Linguini. He understands the kid and gets his point across with gestures. Earlier, with the old lady in the farmhouse* it’s established that humans can’t understand rats. When Remy is warning his brother, all the O.L. hears is rat squeaking. So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a rat long enough to establish he can understand you?
Works for me.
*In the farmhouse scene, what was with the gas mask? I’m thinking she was a bit barmy.
I liked it. But I’ll have to watch it again at home to determine how good I really think it is, as I was distracted by my kid at the theater, had to do a potty run, etc.
I do agree the people were pretty boring. My favorite human was the critic. I also agree “Linguini” was a stupid name - they must have been trying for a joke, but it’s so unbelievably lame it’s embarrassing. Come to think of it, the “Don’t steal” theme was really dumb, too.
But I liked Remy. I loved his introductory scenes, and his joy at combining the mushroom, cheese, and rosemary, compared to his job as poison detector. My only problem with him was when he was gesturing with those little pink humanoid hands, I was unavoidably reminded of Brown Jenkin. shudder
The most fun was the research and animation, though. How they clearly studied how French chefs work, Collette’s lecture about dirty sleeves and such, and the beautiful food. On the other end of the spectrum, it was very obvious to me that they spent a lot of time watching rats move - when they were not doing humanish things, they were incredibly realistic (which I guess is what freaks some people out). I also liked the “phoofy” look after they got cleaned in the dishwasher.
We saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I kept getting distracted by the beauty of the animation, which is both a plus and a minus.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
The twist ending was fairly baffling as well. I have nothing against confounding expectations, but honestly: what the hell, Pixar?
[/quote]
Twist ending? You mean Alton retiring from criticism and opening a restaurant with Remy? What was twisty about that?
That was just about all I could think about in Cars, but mostly because the movie didn’t give me anything to distract me from that question. But really, you could say the same about pretty much all of Pixar’s films, except The Incredibles. How has no one ever noticed toys coming to life? How has no adult ever stumbled on one of the monsters coming out of their kid’s closet? How does a vegetarian shark not starve to death? Ratatouille was one of the easiest times I’ve had suspending my disbelief during a Pixar movie.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Twist ending? You mean Alton retiring from criticism and opening a restaurant with Remy? What was twisty about that?
[/QUOTE]
Because the entire ‘food critic’ subplot was built around whether or not Remy’s cooking would enable Gusteau’s Restaurant to regain its former reputation. Supposedly it was the food critic’s poor review that killed Gusteau to begin with, and it was Gusteau’s influence that inspired Remy to take up cooking and got him mixed up with Linguini and the restaurant situation in the first place. Even the entire subplot about the inheritance wasn’t so much about Linguini being cheated as it was about the little monkey-guy’s nefarious plans to exploit Gusteau’s reputation to sell frozen foods.
And after all that-- after Remy and Linguini work out their differences, the meal is prepared against all odds, the food critic is enraptured, writes a glowing review-- after all that… “Well, of course they shut Gusteau’s down; we couldn’t keep the health inspector locked up forever!” Har har. So in the end, the restaurant goes down in flames anyway. Even the critic’s reputation is ruined and he has to find another job, after people learn of his glowing review of a rat-infested restaurant. And yet somehow it all works out, and everyone is happy at the end, though I don’t see how that makes any sense considering that they’re still in the exact same situation that got Gusteau’s closed down. What happens when the monkey-guy decides to call in another report? He seems to have nothing better to do. Are Remy and Linguini just going to leave a trail of condemned restaurants as the health inspector follows them around Paris?
The more I think about it, the more cheesed off I am at Remy’s selfishness. He had it all at Gusteau’s; he had it made. From scrounging garbage in that crappy little farmhouse, he followed his dream, and finally managed to set up the perfect situation where he could cook as a master chef in one of Paris’ greatest restaurants. And then he blew it for everyone. Ultimately his love of cooking wasn’t as strong as his need for praise. He couldn’t stand that Linguini was getting all the credit, even though that was the original deal (and heck, it was his dad’s restaurant anyway). Remy could have just stayed under the hat until after the big food critic review, and the restaurant would have never been closed down.
Mainly I’m disappointed because of the throwaway nature of the conclusion. The whole ‘health inspector’ subplot was entirely unnecessary anyway; it only added a minute or so to the running time. They already established that monkey-boy tried to use the health inspector to exact his revenge, and was rebuffed: “Maybe in three months.” So what was the point of having the guy show up at the end anyway, just to provide an excuse to shut Gusteau’s down? For that matter, why was the health inspector taken any more seriously than monkey-boy was when he tried to explain about the rat? “Yes, Gusteau’s must be shut down immediately, as it is infested with rats. I walked in on them while they were cooking, then they jumped on my car, tied me up and locked me in the freezer.”
The ending just seemed like a last-minute attempt to make the story seem less formulaic than it actually was. But I’d already sat through two hours of that formulaic story, and it was handled with great style and humor, so why turn around and shoot it in the foot at the end like that?
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
The more I think about it, the more cheesed off I am at Remy’s selfishness. He had it all at Gusteau’s; he had it made. From scrounging garbage in that crappy little farmhouse, he followed his dream, and finally managed to set up the perfect situation where he could cook as a master chef in one of Paris’ greatest restaurants. And then he blew it for everyone. Ultimately his love of cooking wasn’t as strong as his need for praise. He couldn’t stand that Linguini was getting all the credit, even though that was the original deal (and heck, it was his dad’s restaurant anyway). Remy could have just stayed under the hat until after the big food critic review, and the restaurant would have never been closed down.
[/QUOTE]
In fairness, Linguini was a guilt-riddled dim bulb who just HAD to share that he was being helped by a rat. He so desperately wanted to tell Collette after he began to fall in lurve with her, and so desperately wanted to explain the rat when Remy abandoned him.
Is it just me or was Collette the hottest animated babe ever? 
Having spent the last 24 years working in restaurants, I just had to see this, and I’m glad I did. I thought it was wonderful. I loved the realism of how things worked in the kitchen.
However, that primitive dish machine had nothing on mine.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Why can’t CGI technology ever be used to create entertainment for adults?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it is used for that, but they keep trying to pass laws against it 
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, although I agree with many people’s comments that the script just wasn’t all that tight. A few too many subplots and morals not really integrated together. Stealing is bad, mmkay? But at the end, what are the rats doing? Well, they’re still rats, and only Remy has a job (as far as we know), so they’re presumably still stealing.
The animation was stunningly gorgeous. Also, the action scenes were incredibly well done and exciting. And the physical human-animation comedy, particularly Linguini-as-a-puppet, was hilarious. I found myself enjoying the comedic performance by a talented human, even though of course there was no human (at least, not up there on screen).
Why doesn’t Pixar make films specifically for grownups? Because in the US, everyone knows that animated movies are for kids. If they made an animated movie for grownups, people wouldn’t know how to market it or sell it. I mean, sure, if you had $100 million to spare, you could make an animated film for grownups and start the long process of changing people’s minds. But you’d lose a ton of money. It’s not Pixar’s fault that that’s the way it is.
You are putting Ratatouille in the same category as Over the Hedge and Open Season? Really? Seriously?
Well, at least you didn’t compare it to Barnyard, I guess.
As for the idea that the movie should have done away with the rats entirely and just been about Linguini and Collette running a restaurant themselves…suppose this was the script you had created, why would you imagine that making this script an animated movie would be better than live action?
You wouldn’t make an incredibly expensive ultra-realistic animated movie out of that script, you’d make an inexpensive independent live-action movie out of it. Animation can do incredible things, but what’s the point of animating a movie about two humans who work in a restaurant together and fall in love? What does the animation add?
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
[/QUOTE]
They did. The Incredibles is about being a parent first, coping with the differences between the expectations of youth in contrast with your mid-life achievements second; kiddy entertainment is tertiary, at best. Almost an afterthought.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You wouldn’t make an incredibly expensive ultra-realistic animated movie out of that script, you’d make an inexpensive independent live-action movie out of it. Animation can do incredible things, but what’s the point of animating a movie about two humans who work in a restaurant together and fall in love? What does the animation add?
[/QUOTE]
The animation isn’t so much about realism, as it is ultra-realism. In Ratatouille, they work with nothing but the most vibrantly colored vegetables, on the cleanest chrome surfaces, wearing the whitest, wrinkle free uniforms, often shown from camera angles that would be hard to set up in real-life. There can be fanciful CG moments like the dark “exploration of taste” scenes where combining flavors was likened to building music and flashing color. There’s just such a world of cinematography that could never be properly realized in live-action.
The character models for the humans were very charming looking, but intentionally exaggerated, and they were not familiar characters you’d seen before. This is a major part of it. When you watch any Hollywood live action movie, you can’t help but see that it’s Brad Pitt playing the part, opposite Cameron Diaz in costume. There’s always some degree of recognition that ruins the illusion. In animation, it’s less. I never tried to think “Who is that playing Colette? Oh, it’s Jeanine Garafalo!.” The only one I gave any pause to was Brian Dennehy, who unsurprisingly just sounded like Brian Dennehy. Animation frees up actors to not looking like themselves. Sure, there will always be the Robin Williamses who sign on board, and broadcast the actor’s persona without regard for the character, but then there will be the smaller names like Patton Oswald or Brad Garrett who can just be Remy the Rat or Gusteau, respectively.
