Ratatouille

[Josh]

I suppose I could try to be coy or clever about it, but a film of this caliber demands that I be very, very clear, leaving no room for misunderstanding: The streak continues... and no, I'm not talking about Pixar's unbroken (well, pretty close) streak of must-see family films. I'm talking about Brad Bird's streak of masterpieces... films of such timeless quality that they make him, in my mind, one of the very finest filmmakers working today. Period.

Yes, all this build-up is about Ratatouille. And yes, it's a cartoon about a rat. And food. And if you somehow feel prejudiced against it because of that, you are simply and utterly a fool. Because it's oh so much more than just a cartoon about a rat and food. Actually, it's the most sophisticated film in the Pixar canon-- both visually and thematically-- and, even when compared to such masterworks as Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, and Bird's own The Incredibles, it's probably their richest and deepest piece of work.

It's also the least likely to become a huge blockbuster, at least not on the same level as those other films. The story unfolds at a slower pace than any other Pixar film, and there aren't many well-known movie stars lending their voice talents. Nor is it a non-stop joke fest, or a stylish, action-packed adventure.

But the rewards here are so extraordinary that those who take the time to find them will treasure this movie forever, in much the same way that many of us treasure Bird's first masterpiece, The Iron Giant.

It looks stunning, of course, and in fact, it's got some views of Paris that are just as colorful and breathtakingly complex as any of the ocean scenes from Finding Nemo. What amazed me the most, though, were the characters-- these are the most expressive and endearing faces Pixar has yet crafted.

But it's the story that's so rich, so rewarding, so excellent. It's a movie about food, yes, but, in broader terms, it's a movie about art. It's about excellence and creativity. It's about critics. And, as Jeffrey Overstreet brilliantly observes, it's an elaborate parable about Disney and Pixar. It's utterly ingenious.

And there are moments here that almost made me cry-- specifically, the food critic's first bite of the meal prepared for him, and, later, his monologue about the aim of criticism. The tears were close to flowing.

Peter O'Toole is brilliantly cast.

It's very likely to be the best film of the year, but that doesn't mean much. Here's something meaningful: It deserves a place on the shelf beside the very best Pixar movies-- the very best animated films of the last twenty years. It roughly equals Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo and The Incredibles in its greatness. And, more so than any of those films, this one is for grown-ups, perhaps even more than it is for kids. Go see it. Savor it. See it again.

[Josh Powell]

I don't know if any movie could live that write up up

[Wildcatblue7]

Well, I have to agree with Josh--though maybe not quite to that level.  I LOVED it, though.  (I hate posting ineloquently in threads where Josh has torn up the floor with his writing flair . . .  )

[enemy anemone]

the movie's trailer didn't interest me much, but I shall have to check it out.

[bloop]

It's my new #1 film of the year, kind of, but I haven't seen very many.  Still, I would be surprised if it didn't rank high even when I see the Oscar bait that always comes out this Fall/Winter.

One thing that bugged me, though - *spoiler - I guess*














the way Remy controls Linguini's fine motor functions seems quite contrived.

[starhawk]

I wasn't very excited to go see this movie.  I didn't really like Pixar's last one, Cars, and Rat. didn't look very interesting from the trailers I've seen.  To top it off, my local paper only gave it a C+. 

But I want to see it in the theatre too.  I hope I am very pleasantly surprised, and from its other reviews, it looks like I will be.

[murlough23]

Rat. didn't look very interesting from the trailers I've seen.

It sounds like one of those movies that, because it's not as full of rapid-fire jokes and obvious analogues to the human world, they probably had a hard time putting a compelling trailer together, so they went for the most obvious, quick sight gags, which are probably not the movie's main draw.

Originally I just wanted to see this because it was Pixar, even though it didn't look that great, but now I'm really excited about it.

[Josh]

Bloop, the thing that you mentioned is probably going to be the biggest problem that pholks have with the film. I was fine with it, but the success of the movie is highly dependent upon whether or not you can suspend disbelief and buy that one premise.

[murlough23]

Bloop, the thing that you mentioned is probably going to be the biggest problem that pholks have with the film. I was fine with it, but the success of the movie is highly dependent upon whether or not you can suspend disbelief and buy that one premise.

I can't suspend disbelief that much. And for that, I take away one star.

I enjoyed every other aspect of the film thoroughly, though.

[bloop]

I was only willing to take away 1 point for that, which still puts it solidly in my A+ range.  It's a brilliant movie in too many other ways for me to justify going lower, personally.

[murlough23]

I was only willing to take away 1 point for that, which still puts it solidly in my A+ range.  It's a brilliant movie in too many other ways for me to justify going lower, personally.

I see how it's funny, and I see how it's imaginative. I'm not quite grasping the "brilliant" part here, though.

[bloop]

I see how it's funny, and I see how it's imaginative.

Yes, and brilliant in both of these areas.  It goes for the subtle comedy, broader (and perhaps even a little subversive) commentary, and some great slapstick sequences we've come to expect.  It avoids going overboard with the pop-culture references, which is becoming a cliche with comedy and particularly animated comedies. 

I was pleased - you less so, apparently.  I'm fine with that, and I can sympathize with your reasoning.  It just didn't affect my enjoyment to the degree it affected yours.

[murlough23]

Yes, and brilliant in both of these areas.  It goes for the subtle comedy, broader (and perhaps even a little subversive) commentary, and some great slapstick sequences we've come to expect.

I think the slapstick gets a little out of control - while funny, it struck me as a way of extending not enough story into a fuller-length feature.

Subversive commentary? Maybe. A friend explained to me last night how he thought it was Brad Bird's allegory for his own treatment by Disney (failing to recognize a real artist in the making, selling out by peddling cheap products, etc.) And that could be possible, but at the same time, it's not like we've never seen underdog geniuses that no one understands or cares about as characters in a film, or story plots that lament respectable names in business selling out their integrity, so this may be a matter of seeing what we want to see in some fairly common devices. I didn't dislike these devices, but I didn't think it was a work of genius, either.

It avoids going overboard with the pop-culture references, which is becoming a cliche with comedy and particularly animated comedies.

That I'll agree with. Not everyone needs to try to be the first Shrek.

I was pleased - you less so, apparently.

"Less so" is still a B+. I'm not devastated here. I'm still a Pixar fanboy and I already can't wait to see WALL-E.

*SPOILER ALERT!

Honestly, I think this one hit a soft spot with critics in the same way that the ratatouille dish hit a soft spot with the critic in the film. The critic didn't come off as a total bad guy; he was shown to have feelings and memories and an ability to say that something simple was good without his integrity being questioned for it. That's a great message and it probably took a lot of critics by surprise, which doesn't explain the near-universal praise all by itself, but it definitely contributes to it. It hit a good nerve with them. That doesn't excuse the rest of the story for being a bit contrived, but it was a nice touch. It's just not the kind of touch that'll cause me to slap an A grade on the entire film. I think some of the critics were so shocked that the film actually sort of complimented them, that they had to give it a higher grade as a result.

[bloop]

I think the slapstick gets a little out of control - while funny, it struck me as a way of extending not enough story into a fuller-length feature.

Well, I've only seen it once, obviously, but I don't remember the kind of broad slapstick humour that derived from the admittedly contrived plot device lasted much longer than 10 minutes of its overall run time.  Regardless, I think slapstick and physical comedy was a strong point to sweeten the sour taste from aforementioned plot device.  It's all executed beautifully, in an awkward Linguini sort of way.

Subversive commentary? Maybe. A friend explained to me last night how he thought it was Brad Bird's allegory for his own treatment by Disney (failing to recognize a real artist in the making, selling out by peddling cheap products, etc.) And that could be possible, but at the same time, it's not like we've never seen underdog geniuses that no one understands or cares about as characters in a film, or story plots that lament respectable names in business selling out their integrity, so this may be a matter of seeing what we want to see in some fairly common devices. I didn't dislike these devices, but I didn't think it was a work of genius, either.

Yes, but how many times is it an indirect attack on the folks writing the checks?  I love it when "The Simpsons" used to do this, and I loved it here as well.

That I'll agree with. Not everyone needs to try to be the first Shrek.

I felt that both of the first two Shrek films went a little overboard with it.

Honestly, I think this one hit a soft spot with critics in the same way that the ratatouille dish hit a soft spot with the critic in the film. The critic didn't come off as a total bad guy; he was shown to have feelings and memories and an ability to say that something simple was good without his integrity being questioned for it. That's a great message and it probably took a lot of critics by surprise, which doesn't explain the near-universal praise all by itself, but it definitely contributes to it. It hit a good nerve with them. That doesn't excuse the rest of the story for being a bit contrived, but it was a nice touch. It's just not the kind of touch that'll cause me to slap an A grade on the entire film. I think some of the critics were so shocked that the film actually sort of complimented them, that they had to give it a higher grade as a result.

Interesting theory, and I have to side with them that it was very much a refreshing commentary of criticism in general. 

I haven't read many of the critics on this one - just Graydanus over at decentfilms, Josh's write-up above, and some guy in a newspaper (I want to say it was Roger Ebert, but I think the only review of his I've read recently was that for "Sicko", so I don't think it was).  All were glowing reviews, and all at least mentioned the criticism angle.  Still, you observe well in saying that this alone likely wouldn't be enough to get whatever it has over at Rottentomatoes or metacritic, so I guess I'm a little curious now about what they had to say.

[murlough23]

Well, I've only seen it once, obviously, but I don't remember the kind of broad slapstick humour that derived from the admittedly contrived plot device lasted much longer than 10 minutes of its overall run time.

Sure, but then thre was plenty of broad slapstick humor derived from other things. Like the whole chase scene that ended up with the chef in the river. (He was in-Seine. Har har!)

Regardless, I think slapstick and physical comedy was a strong point to sweeten the sour taste from aforementioned plot device.  It's all executed beautifully, in an awkward Linguini sort of way.

Why not just leave our the sour plot device in the first place and come up with a better way for your two characters to communicate? It was like they had painted themselves into a corner. Rat can understand humans talking; we don't know why, but they do, and for whatever inexplicable reason, humans don't understand rats talking, so rat can't verbally tell human what to do, and we have only one place to hide the rat... yeah, they should have scrapped their whole communication premise and just started over there.

I hate to be such a stickler about that, but it's not just some little side issue, it is the means by which the rat is able to work his magic in the movie. It's a pretty significant thing to ask me to buy.

Yes, but how many times is it an indirect attack on the folks writing the checks?

That's if it's even intended to be that specific, which I don't think we can say for sure it is. If it is, it's broad enough that Disney didn't get the joke.

I felt that both of the first two Shrek films went a little overboard with it.

The first Shrek certainly did a bang-up job of making belittling references to Disney, but that's beside the point. It was meant to be an amalgam of references to various things anyway; its whole premise is making fun of fairy tales, and a big part of why it worked is because of how some of them don't make much sense in a modern context. I liked that they just went absolutely nuts with pop culture; it started to wear a little thin when they did it again in part 2, but that was more because we were starting to see a bunch of other animated films do the same thing since then. It's getting to the point now where I still appreciate the pop culture humor, but it makes a lot of these individual animated films feel like they're really just different episodes of the same cartoon series.

Anyway, getting back on topic, okay, so Ratatouille didn't do the pop culture thing, which is great, they bucked a trend - but what was there in its place?

Interesting theory, and I have to side with them that it was very much a refreshing commentary of criticism in general.

It certainly was! I just wasn't going to let that butter me up to the point where I overlooked the flaws in the film. It's a positive aspect that carries some weight, but the contrivances in the film weren't necessary to get us to that point.

I have to admit, I actually expected the critic to raise the restaurant's rating back to four stars, and give them an admonishment that they were going to have to work very hard to earn back the fifth. (Though shutting the place down completely was unexpected and humorous.)

I haven't read many of the critics on this one - just Graydanus over at decentfilms, Josh's write-up above, and some guy in a newspaper (I want to say it was Roger Ebert, but I think the only review of his I've read recently was that for "Sicko", so I don't think it was).  All were glowing reviews, and all at least mentioned the criticism angle.  Still, you observe well in saying that this alone likely wouldn't be enough to get whatever it has over at Rottentomatoes or metacritic, so I guess I'm a little curious now about what they had to say.

Right now it's got 96% at Rottentomatoes (interestingly, with none of the rotten reviews on the main page for the film) and Metacritic's got 95%. That's a pretty formidable showing there. But read the quotes from the reviews and you'll notice that some of the praise is a bit guarded.

I'm still not understanding what aspect of the story or the humor you thought was "brilliant". Other than the surprising moment with the critic, I saw a lot of the same old Disney elements coming through in much of the story - the father who misunderstands, the friends who fight and turn their backs on each other and later have to make amends in a time of need, the only girl in the room who if course is destined to be with the main (human) character, the naysayers who are easily silenced, etc. What's brilliant here aside from the animation?

[bloop]

Sure, but then thre was plenty of broad slapstick humor derived from other things. Like the whole chase scene that ended up with the chef in the river. (He was in-Seine. Har har!)

I'm still not sure it would total to any great block of time.  I guess I'd have to count.

Rat can understand humans talking; we don't know why, but they do, and for whatever inexplicable reason, humans don't understand rats talking, so rat can't verbally tell human what to do, and we have only one place to hide the rat... yeah, they should have scrapped their whole communication premise and just started over there.

I think it was explained indirectly as an issue humans have with pitch.

I hate to be such a stickler about that, but it's not just some little side issue, it is the means by which the rat is able to work his magic in the movie. It's a pretty significant thing to ask me to buy.

Hey, I said it annoyed me mildly.  That's about as much as I can give you on that.

If it is, it's broad enough that Disney didn't get the joke.

I love that even more.

Anyway, getting back on topic, okay, so Ratatouille didn't do the pop culture thing, which is great, they bucked a trend - but what was there in its place?

I think this thread has covered this, Josh covering it more eloquently than I could, certainly.

I have to admit, I actually expected the critic to raise the restaurant's rating back to four stars, and give them an admonishment that they were going to have to work very hard to earn back the fifth. (Though shutting the place down completely was unexpected and humorous.)

Yeah, I loved that particular unexpected touch.  I was predicting the same as you were, and then, like you, was pleasantly surprised.

Right now it's got 96% at Rottentomatoes (interestingly, with none of the rotten reviews on the main page for the film)

The main page is the beginning of the alphabet at rottentomatoes, isn't it?

But read the quotes from the reviews and you'll notice that some of the praise is a bit guarded.

Yeah, average rating of 8.5.  I'm not sure how that translates to a star rating - it's a little skewed like my rating system from the typical school grades system.  But, yeah, you can tell those that absolutely loved the film from those who just liked it quite a bit from their comments.  I haven't opened up the individual reviews.

I'm still not understanding what aspect of the story or the humor you thought was "brilliant".

Hmm - I don't know if I can help you any further than I have here.  You want a bulleted list of what we've covered so far?

the father who misunderstands

As it turns out, the father does understand quite a bit - maybe not about Remy's aspirations, but certainly in the reality of his aspirations.  Remy, for all his good qualities, is pretty reckless.

the friends who fight and turn their backs on each other and later have to make amends in a time of need

I thought the focus of the "rat story" was much more on Remy and direct family than the other rats, who mostly just followed that crew around.

the only girl in the room who if course is destined to be with the main (human) character

There's another commentary there, but it's far more obvious than the one we've mentioned, preachy even.  I do like the character, though.

the animation?

That may be the biggest draw for me, at least initially.  Technical accomplishment goes pretty far for me compared with others on this board, but I think there's much more here to enjoy.

[murlough23]

I'm still not sure it would total to any great block of time.  I guess I'd have to count.

It seemed to me like much more of the humor was physical than verbal. When things get too slapstick I tend to start tuning out - I like it in small doses, but for the most part I tend to prefer my humor more witty.

I think it was explained indirectly as an issue humans have with pitch.

That explains one half of the issue (I do remember the old lady hearing the rats squeaking), but it doesn't explains why the rats understand the humans. That part was just laziness.

But my point wasn't really why they couldn't communicate, it was that deciding to make them not communicate drove them into the dead of having to have a really dumb way for the rat to tell the human what to do.

Hey, I said it annoyed me mildly.  That's about as much as I can give you on that.

I can't change the way you felt about it; I'm just trying to express why I thought it was significant enough to warrant losing a whole star (plus I was trying to be coy and imitate the food critic's explanation for taking a whole star away from the restaurant, but I think I wasn't clear enough with the reference).

I love that even more.

What, that Disney didn't get that they were the target of the sell-out accusation? Probably because you could level that accusation against most of Hollywood; there's no real need for them to take it personally. So once-respectable names churn out crap with no integrity just to make a few bucks. It's generally funny to rag on that (as it was in this film), but it's not exactly a brilliant observation at this point. Everyone kind of knows that.

I think this thread has covered this, Josh covering it more eloquently than I could, certainly.

I re-read his review, but can't find what he's specifically saying takes the place of the absent pop culture jokes.

The main page is the beginning of the alphabet at rottentomatoes, isn't it?

I meant their main page for Ratatouille - it has a smattering of review quotes, but not all of them. You can sort through all ratings by clicking over to another page - I did that because I figured a non-100% rating meant there had to be some squishy tomatoes in there somewhere, and I wanted to see what those quotes had to say.

Yeah, average rating of 8.5.  I'm not sure how that translates to a star rating - it's a little skewed like my rating system from the typical school grades system.

I figure 8 is somewhere around a straight B, so an 8.5 would probably be a B+, which is in line with the rating I gave it. Definitely gives a tells a different story than when you just look at the 96% that liked it, doesn't it?

But, yeah, you can tell those that absolutely loved the film from those who just liked it quite a bit from their comments.  I haven't opened up the individual reviews.

I'm not begrduging anyone their love of the film. I'm just noting that I'm far from the only one in the "good, but not brilliant" camp.

Hmm - I don't know if I can help you any further than I have here.  You want a bulleted list of what we've covered so far?

Yes, because other than talking about the critic (and I agree with you on pretty much everything you've said regarding that character), I haven't seen much specific evidence of something in the film that was truly brilliant.

As it turns out, the father does understand quite a bit - maybe not about Remy's aspirations, but certainly in the reality of his aspirations.  Remy, for all his good qualities, is pretty reckless.

Sure, but Remy still proves the dad wrong in the end.

I thought the focus of the "rat story" was much more on Remy and direct family than the other rats, who mostly just followed that crew around.

I was talking about the film's central friendship, between Remy and Linguini.

There's another commentary there, but it's far more obvious than the one we've mentioned, preachy even.

What would that be?

I do like the character, though.

She's probably the only Janeane Garofalo character I've liked thus far.

That may be the biggest draw for me, at least initially.  Technical accomplishment goes pretty far for me compared with others on this board, but I think there's much more here to enjoy.

Technical accomplishment's almost a given for Pixar, and while that's laudable, it doesn't mean as much to me if the awesome animation isn't telling an excellent story. It's the same reason I didn't lavish praise on The New World despite its admittedly striking cinematography. The technical aspects of how you made your art are interesting to me, but they can't substitute for a good story that is told well.

[bloop]

It seemed to me like much more of the humor was physical than verbal. When things get too slapstick I tend to start tuning out - I like it in small doses, but for the most part I tend to prefer my humor more witty.

I deal pretty well with either/both.  Having grown up in the 90s, I acclimate easier to ironic wit and sarcasm, but slapstick and physical comedy is capable of keeping my attention as well.

That explains one half of the issue (I do remember the old lady hearing the rats squeaking), but it doesn't explains why the rats understand the humans. That part was just laziness.

Honestly, I just didn't need an explanation for the perceptual differences of rats and humans.  I could accept this much at face value, I suppose.

I can't change the way you felt about it; I'm just trying to express why I thought it was significant enough to warrant losing a whole star (plus I was trying to be coy and imitate the food critic's explanation for taking a whole star away from the restaurant, but I think I wasn't clear enough with the reference).

That will affect different people differently, obviously.  Josh hardly at all, me slightly, you more significantly, others, I'm sure, even more than you.

What, that Disney didn't get that they were the target of the sell-out accusation?

Well, yes, there is that, but I like these kinds of things where you can read it so specifically or broadly as you please.

I re-read his review, but can't find what he's specifically saying takes the place of the absent pop culture jokes.

I don't think Josh considered it from that angle in his review at all, but this isn't a zero-sum game where, hmm, pop culture jokes are absent, so what to fill in.  The film is filled with . . . what fills the film.

I figure 8 is somewhere around a straight B, so an 8.5 would probably be a B+, which is in line with the rating I gave it. Definitely gives a tells a different story than when you just look at the 96% that liked it, doesn't it?

Well, I'm not saying a B+ is an outrageously unfair score to give the film (I'd say it's a little low on scores that are still fair, but fair nonetheless).  It's just not what I felt it deserved from me.

I was talking about the film's central friendship, between Remy and Linguini.

OK - I misunderstood you here.  All this talk of his father, then that . . . you know.

What would that be?

Concerning our lone female chef, the obvious feminist critique of society is presented directly.

She's probably the only Janeane Garofalo character I've liked thus far.

You're one up on me.  She's the only Garofalo character that I can even recall at the moment.

Technical accomplishment's almost a given for Pixar, and while that's laudable, it doesn't mean as much to me if the awesome animation isn't telling an excellent story. It's the same reason I didn't lavish praise on The New World despite its admittedly striking cinematography. The technical aspects of how you made your art are interesting to me, but they can't substitute for a good story that is told well.

So, that makes at least two films where we disagree as to how well they tell their stories, but, beyond that, beautifully shot film can and sometimes is its own end, and I don't have a problem with that, either.  Please, take me somewhere I haven't been.  That's a wonderful thing, too.

[Josh]

I'm writing a review right now-- the first I've written, really, since seeing the film-- and I can already tell that I will never again be able to write a review without the words of Anton Ego going through my head. In some ways, I think his review/monologue at the end is the film's masterstroke-- the thing that really makes it sing, and takes it from great to really extraordinary.

[murlough23]

I'm writing a review right now-- the first I've written, really, since seeing the film--

Oh. I thought your description of the movie in your first post was your review. If there's more to come, maybe that'll give me some better insight.

and I can already tell that I will never again be able to write a review without the words of Anton Ego going through my head. In some ways, I think his review/monologue at the end is the film's masterstroke-- the thing that really makes it sing, and takes it from great to really extraordinary.

I liked that aspect of the film, but I don't think it makes the rest of it extraordinary. It sets up the reason why the restaurant needed to get its act together, so it propelled a lot of the plot, but that didn't necessitate the more Saturday morning-esque contrivances.

[murlough23]

I deal pretty well with either/both.  Having grown up in the 90s, I acclimate easier to ironic wit and sarcasm, but slapstick and physical comedy is capable of keeping my attention as well.

Slapstick gets predictable when it's used too much, so I tend to not be a big fan of comedies that rely mainly on it.

Honestly, I just didn't need an explanation for the perceptual differences of rats and humans.  I could accept this much at face value, I suppose.

At some point I have to realize it's a cartoon. They can make up whatever rules they want. It's just that usually the made-up rules lead us to a good payoff, a good source of humor, something like that, and in this case, it forced them into a contrivance regarding how their two main characters could communicate.

Well, yes, there is that, but I like these kinds of things where you can read it so specifically or broadly as you please.

I don't have a problem with things being open to interpretation. But it's because it's very broad that I'm not seeing why it's so brilliant. If I could tell it was aimed more specifically, I would applaud them for being so subversive.

I don't think Josh considered it from that angle in his review at all, but this isn't a zero-sum game where, hmm, pop culture jokes are absent, so what to fill in.  The film is filled with . . . what fills the film.

Which is what, exactly?

I can give a film a decent grade based on something it did not do, but I can't give it an A just based on that.

Concerning our lone female chef, the obvious feminist critique of society is presented directly.

True. I had higher hopes for that character based on her original critique of all the men in the kitchen - I didn't mind so much that they ended up falling in love, but she mostly lost her edge at that point. (Except when she nearly slapped him as she walked out with the rest of the employees - that was a nice touch.)

You're one up on me.  She's the only Garofalo character that I can even recall at the moment.

Her characters tend to be rather gloomy and pessimistic, from what I've seen, which I guess is true to the actress. Not that I've seen that many, but she's never really excited me.

So, that makes at least two films where we disagree as to how well they tell their stories, but, beyond that, beautifully shot film can and sometimes is its own end, and I don't have a problem with that, either.  Please, take me somewhere I haven't been.  That's a wonderful thing, too.

If your goal is just to show me beautiful scenery, then please don't waste my time with the pretense of a plot. I am a huge fan of beautiful places that I've never been before, but you know, I could just turn on the Discovery Channel.

Pixar did an amazing job with the Paris skyline for what little of the movie took place outdoors, but saying the movie was great because of that is like saying a rock album is great because of a couple really good guitar solos.

[bloop]

Well, it's not that I think any one of these things make it great (not even the film's "masterstroke", as Josh put it), but that the sum of all these ideas added up to what I think is a great movie.  I've said what I basically like about it, and if you like those things somewhat less, I can't really help you too much.  I'm not a movie critic, and I don't consider myself an authority on them as such (although I find it interesting that so many of the most respected critics absolutely loved the film). 

I'm more like a film enthusiast - I wish I understood more about why I react positively or negatively to movies.  I've only really studied film in an introductory course in high school, so I know a little bit about shot composition and so forth, but that's not really what I was paying attention to my first time through the film.  I'm somewhat informed in literature (which plays to plot, theme, characterization, etc.), but I know my descriptive limitations here as well. 

It sounds like we liked many of the same things about the picture.  The major plot contrivance, while we both recognized it as such, affected us differently.  Apparently, its importance will vary greatly among viewers.  I understand that, and it's alright with me.

If your goal is just to show me beautiful scenery, then please don't waste my time with the pretense of a plot. I am a huge fan of beautiful places that I've never been before, but you know, I could just turn on the Discovery Channel.

That may have been a goal, but I don't think that was the only goal of either "The New World" or "Ratatouille". 

Film can be and usually is theatrical and plot-driven, but it has to be visual at its core or it ceases to be anything we can meaningfully call a motion picture (sounds familiar?  "Modern music can be and usually is driven by lyrics and is generally songwriter-oriented, but it has to be musical").  How fundamentally important the visual aspect is to what it means to be part of that medium drives my assessment of many movies, and places those kinds of technical aspects legitimately on an equal footing even with story.  Not that I think either of the aforementioned films are failures from a story-first perspective, either.

[murlough23]

Well, it's not that I think any one of these things make it great (not even the film's "masterstroke", as Josh put it), but that the sum of all these ideas added up to what I think is a great movie.  I've said what I basically like about it, and if you like those things somewhat less, I can't really help you too much.

At least now I understand what the parts are; we just disagree about how much those parts add up to, and there's probably no reconciling that one. I just wanted to be sure you were excited about more than just what the movie was not.

I'm not a movie critic, and I don't consider myself an authority on them as such (although I find it interesting that so many of the most respected critics absolutely loved the film).

The movie basically validated those critics. That's a pretty unusual occurrence.

I'm more like a film enthusiast - I wish I understood more about why I react positively or negatively to movies.  I've only really studied film in an introductory course in high school, so I know a little bit about shot composition and so forth, but that's not really what I was paying attention to my first time through the film.  I'm somewhat informed in literature (which plays to plot, theme, characterization, etc.), but I know my descriptive limitations here as well.

I'm working with similar limitations, if not more.

That may have been a goal, but I don't think that was the only goal of either "The New World" or "Ratatouille".

I didn't think that it was, but you seemed to be saying it was fine if a film wanted to pursue that, and only that, as its own end. And if you're gonna do that, fine, but don't waste my time with a host of underdeveloped characters and the pretense of a relational story between them. (Not saying that either of those films did this; I'm just saying that in both cases people's praise for the appearance of the film seems to have distracted from the so-so storytelling.)

Film can be and usually is theatrical and plot-driven, but it has to be visual at its core or it ceases to be anything we can meaningfully call a motion picture (sounds familiar?  "Modern music can be and usually is driven by lyrics and is generally songwriter-oriented, but it has to be musical").

I agree, but if your primary goal is just to play instruments in an interesting/beautiful way, and the lyrics and their meanings are really just a secondary thing to you, I'd probably prefer that you just stick to instrumental music - do what you do best and leave out the other pretenses. Same thing with movies that really just want to show us beautiful places. (I know; if you don't have names and faces to advertise, nobody will come see your movie, just as no one will play your instrumental song on the radio. There's the rub.)

How fundamentally important the visual aspect is to what it means to be part of that medium drives my assessment of many movies, and places those kinds of technical aspects legitimately on an equal footing even with story.  Not that I think either of the aforementioned films are failures from a story-first perspective, either.

I think they're flawed from a story-first perspective. I didn't hate either film. I just think a lot of praise was heaped on both of them that was based more on technique than on it being an all-around good film.

I'm not a critic, either; I'm a moviegoer. I don't look for the "easy outs" that will entertain most people, but I do enjoy a good visual, a good laugh, a good plot twist, and a good overall story that I haven't seen ten thousand times before. Tell the story well, and make all of those other things serve the story, and that'll met my primary needs as a moviegoer. I just don't see the point in writing a script if you're only secondarily interested in telling a story.

[bloop]

*shrugs*  It just sounds like I enjoy both stories more than you did (although I think with "The New World", it was the pace of the film that frustrated you more than anything else).

[murlough23]

*shrugs*  It just sounds like I enjoy both stories more than you did (although I think with "The New World", it was the pace of the film that frustrated you more than anything else).

You enjoyed the Ratatouille story more than I did. The New World is based on real events and I found both the events and the translation of them to a screenplay to be very interesting (at first). But yeah, it was the pacing in that one that bugged me. I can deal with long, slow movies. I came in expecting that. What I got frustrated with was all of the hinting and just barely painting around the edges of events and then, "We could show you the next scene, but instead, here are some more trees!"

NP: "Tale of the Dragon's Defeat", Wavorly

[starhawk]

Just saw it.

What an excellent movie.  Everything about it felt so effortlessly done. 

I want to see it again, and not alone this time.  That's probably the best compliment I can give it right now.

[oneafroboy]

I like this movie so much, I decided to come out of lurkdom. But just for a second. 

It's great. Very enjoyable. I love the animation.

Let's see...in regards to the whole rats-can-understand-humans-but-not-the-other-way-around... That had symbolic meaning for me (in the context of movie). Which one has made a life from the other's garbage? Which one thinks the other is a pest? And finally, look at the internal (and partly external) conflict Remy faces throughout the film.