Ratatouille

MY GOD, you're totally right! Now i think about it...it all makes sense!

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

the idea of having a rat which has a talent in cooking opens the mind of people to be considerate.

To be considerate is a nice thing that the movie teach the viewer only if all the rats in the world is like Remi...Unfortunately note, how could we became considerate with them (literally)...lol...

Remy The Chef

Remy is so cute...hope all the rats are like him so that they will not be discriminated...lol....

Just saw this last night, I really loved it. I would say this is easily the best animated film I've seen since The Incredibles and since its the same guy apparently kudos to him for making another 'good un'.

Does anyone know when Disney bought up Pixar? Seems to me to be a rather shrewd business move on their part, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw an animated film that just had the Disney logo on it that I wanted to see again and again. A part of me will always just call Pixar, Pixar but now for the first time I noticed that Disney is also on the label with them. Most likely I just haven't been paying attention.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

I know Lucas and friends developed Pixar and then it got bought out and turned into a company.

__________________

yeah thats it is correct, having it owned by disney, what a smart guy, yet int he opening if the film it did surpass the previous record, compared to finding nemo's opening...

This film was amazing. There was allot of biblical parallelism in the film. I loved it.

Nice heart warming movie but i think that some of the other Pixar films are better than this one.

Saw this again last night, and, believe it or not, I don't feel it held up terribly well. It's still a very good movie, and I enjoyed it just fine, but I wasn't blown away. My initial review of Ratatouille used some pretty glowing language, though I gave it "only" . It just didn't come together as smoothly as some of their other efforts, which is why it didn't get a truly superb rating. After seeing it a second time, I think I can put some of my less-than-blown-away-edness into words. Mild spoilers follow, but nothing that'll ruin the film for you.



Mainly, I think Linguini is a tremendously weak, uninteresting character. I don't find his awkwardness particularly endearing, or anything he has to say all that intriguing. There are any number of ways they could make him more interesting. He's Gusteau's son, yet there seems to be little expectation within himself that he should be able to cook. Nor is there much confusion or soul-searching over the fact that he can't. In fact, we really don't see him react to the news much at all. Remy brings him the paper divulging his inheritance after a fun chase scene, and the movie springs forward with a montage, never stopping to let the character react to what's going on.

Collette (the love interest) isn't much better. The love story is hurried and unnecessary, and she seems to exist only to a) provide a strong female presence, and b) occasionally remind people of Gusteau's personal motto, "Anyone can cook." The latter, at least, could've easily been outsourced to one of the several chefs in the kitchen, all of which are quickly introduced, and most of which aren't fleshed out at all, save for an amusing moment or two referencing Horst's past.

The film's message is a little muddled most of the way. After Remy's dispute with his father reaches its height, it seems to be likening his relationship with Linguini to some sort of civil rights issue. The dialogue here is very good, but still out of place:

"You can't change nature."
"Change is nature, Dad. The part that we can influence. And it starts when we decide."
"Where are you going?"
"With luck, forward."

Good stuff, but it never comes full circle. At this point in the film, there seems to be no core theme; something I think is often crucial in a great family film.



Everyone seems to agree, however, that the film finds its footing in the third act, and everyone loves Anton Ego's speech on the nature of criticism. I'm no exception on either count; the speech is lovely, well-written, and perceptive, and it does bring a central idea into sharp focus...but not one that the film has been building towards all that effectively. The idea that "Anyone can cook" is, of course, a way of suggesting that you never know where talent can come from. But what of Linguini? Surely his presence underscores the fact that bloodline alone does not determine merit...but what is his merit? What does he ultimately bring to the table, other than (as he puts it), "the ability to look human"?

There are other, smaller gripes, such as the fact that the film opens with a television floating in the ether to convey information to us; a hackneyed method of introducing us to anything, and well below what we've come to expect from Pixar. I'm not too fond of the sporadic use of voiceover, either. I'm not using any McKee decree as the basis for my complaint; it just feels unnecessary.

But, I still like a good deal of this film. I think it arguably looks better even than several of Pixar's more recent films (it's probably their best-looking film ever), Ego's speech is sublime, and I love the use of sound and color to try to represent different tastes visually. All lovely ideas.

Perhaps I'm missing something with Linguini and some of the ancillary characters. Linguini strikes me as so ineffectual that I almost feel I must be. What do you guys think?

I didn't like this one bit the first time I saw this, but now that I have Netflix, I want to re-watch it. I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually.

This is in response to Chris's re-review just a post above. I'm not sure if I'm actually responding to Chris's concerns because many of them do not concern me at all. For example, the floating TV is a classic movie motif, so I won't try to address that, but if I felt the need, I'd say something along the lines that it's Remy's mind remembering what he's already seen. True, Brad Bird used the TV more effectively in The Incredibles and The Iron Giant, but it goes without saying that Bird likes to communicate info through TVs, especially primitive ones.

Now, when I read your original review, Yoda, you seemed to consider that Remy was the main character, and he certainly is, but this last post implies that Linguini is the main character and unless I'm mistaken, you never once mention Remy. To me, the movie is about how the most ridiculous-seeming characters can do what they do and do it well. Maybe I'm misremembering this, but I thought that Holden had some major problems with this flick because Remy was a rat and involved with food, and then when he calls on all his friends and family to help out, they were ALL RATS TOO! Now, I know for a fact that if Remy and all his friends were gay humans that Holds wouldn't care one bit, so I find this negative criticism to be irrelevant, and I bet I've had more rats in my houses eating away at things which I care about than he has.

So basically, I think the film's message is more along the lines that you may find your better half (Remy is obviously Linguini's better half) in the strangest places. I love and laugh out loud, repeatedly, at the way that Remy controls Linguini by pulling his hair. It's physical slapstick as good as it gets and just about as good as anything the great silent clowns ever did. Another message is that humans and non-humans can relate equally as long as they respect each other, although I'm not sure how much Remy actually respects Linguini up front, after all there's not much there.

In general, I just love the storytelling ability of Brad Bird. That, and the fact that he can write hilarious dialogue. The thing which appeals to me about Ratatouille is that there is so much going on that I cannot complain about most of it because I'm too busy enjoying it. Yes, Act III is the best. Does everyone notice that Ego looks like a character out of a Tim Burton flick, that his typewriter has a skull on it and that his "gothic room" is in the shape of a coffin? You can see that all in the scene where Ego learns that Gusteau's is now popular again.

As far as the "artificial" romance is concerned, maybe it is underdeveloped, but it's certainly believeable. Linguini seems to have almost no social skills, but you don't need social skills to be attracted to women in the workplace. It's just normal. Linguini has very little past and very little depth (except for what Remy gives him), so it's not surprising that he doesn't especially grow after he learns he's the offspring of Gusteau. However, he does use what he can do quite well in Act III. Linguini uses his skating prowess to serve everyone quite handsomely when Ego shows up. He also seems less-tongue-tied than normal. I still give Ratatouille , but I'll admit that the last 25 minutes are the best. However, among my earlier, fave lines are "Let's toast to your non-idiocy!" and " I don't LIKE food. I LOVE it. If I don't love it, I don't SWALLOW". Maybe I'll add some more later.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I think, too, that Linguini isn't Pixar's best character, but I always took it all to mean that Linguini isn't particularly talented in cooking when he has the blood of a great chef in him, and Remy has no inherited qualities, yet he is talented because the theme of the film is in Anton Ego's speech: "It's not anyone can cook, but talent can come from anywhere." (something like that)

At the same time, he seems to be a personificiation of his father's slogan because he takes on Remy pretty easily. But you bring up a good point, Yoda, in that there isn't much depth to him. Of course, if he had a lot of soul-searching going on then would that have taken away the focus on Remy?

All in all, it's not my favorite Pixar film (UP and Finding Nemo are tied for that honor) but I think the theme about talent being anywhere was incredibly sweet. I didn't notice that I thought Act III was better... I just thought it was an incredibly cool ending.

And about that dialogue exchange you posted -- I don't understand your point. It seemed that dialogue exchange is the core message here -- that we are ever evolving and changing. I'm not sure why you thought it felt out of place, especially since Remy was feeling doubts about himself before that.

EDITED TO ADD: Did you all know the shadow of the dog that appeared was Dug from UP?

i dont have much to say but i liked it shows up things that are in doors waiting for us

Sorry for the delay. Couple random thoughts/replies:

That makes sense, though I'm not sure I like the idea more just because it's something Bird does. I felt it was pretty out of place in Ratatouille, especially considering it was so manifestly unnecessary. Remy's already running around the old woman's house near the beginning of the film, so you'd think it'd be an easy thing to just have him stop and watch the TV (which he does early on anyway).

Yeah, I'm not really bothered by the fact that they're rats, with one small exceptions: they make a specific point to note that Remy walks upright, because of his love of food and food-handling, so it is a little odd to be so aware of this point, but still have all the other rats join in later. It doesn't ruin it for me or anything, though.

Re: Remy being the main character. You're right, I do assume that, but it's very interesting you raise this issue. Courtney and I had a reasonably long discussion immediately after watching the film the other day (the viewing that spawned this thread's resurrection) about precisely that issue: whether or not Remy was the only major character, and how his screentime and importance relates to Linguini. After a second viewing, I find the difference between the two blurred. It doesn't really seem to take one point of view or the other, though it clearly leans in Remy's direction (voiceovers, the opening, etc.). To me, this means far too much time is spent on Linguini. He's not a central character, and isn't interesting enough to be one, but is still treated like one in terms of screentime and emphasis. I really think that 90% of the things that bugged me this time around can be traced back to that.

This is an interesting angle which, I admit, hadn't occurred to me before. I've always thought the film was summarized in Ego's speech near the end about finding talent in unusual places, and that there was a sub-moral about social change and reaching out to people who are different. I see what you mean about finding one's better half, but I think the film's attempts to imply that they compliment each other are kind of weak. Linguini reveals his own uselessness when he describes his end of the bargain as being able to "look human." It's not as if the film shows us a shortage of competent waiters, and Linguini swoops in with his one real talent (skating) to save the day. He just sort of starts doing it and seems randomly competent at it. I feel like, if the film were trying to drive any of these points home, it'd have done so more obviously. Or perhaps it's just trying to have too many meanings at once.

I'm with you there; I actually think this is better looking than Pixar's more recent efforts. Something about it just seems crisper and better, and the "set" design, as you point out, is lovely and often amusing. Generally a big fan of Bird's, as well; love The Iron Giant and adore The Incredibles.

Oh, the fact that Linguini is attracted to Colette is fine. The fact that she just sort of starts feeling the same way feels less authentic. Though I'll admit that this is the kind of thing that seems annoying if you think a little less of the film, and isn't terribly important if you think a lot of it. So it goes.

I have to respectfully disagree about the revelation that he's Gusteau's son, though. To me, that's just a glaring omission, particularly given its importance to the story, the amount of time spent on the deception behind it, and Linguini's hand-wringing over his lack of cooking talent. It feels like such an obvious way to give his character depth, and it speaks to all sorts of themes that the film is already playing around with; talent, upbringing, the importance (or lack thereof) of your bloodline, etc. Not to mention that it creates an interesting little comparison to Remy's own issues with his father. It feels like there's a lot of potential there.

A good question, and I'm not sure. I think it could have dovetailed with things about Remy's own story, though, particularly the father thing. It seems almost too obvious that Remy's reconciliation with his own father could have been at least partially stirred by Linguini's having never known his at all.

I agree that both characters embody the "Anyone can cook" mantra, though; Remy in the sense that he's an unlikely chef, and Linguini in the sense that he's willing to look in unusual places for that kind of talent (even if it's mainly out of desperation). That's a pretty cohesive way to look at it, actually.

Oh, I really love the third act so much more than the rest of the film. Hard to explain why in purely rational terms, though. We get the speech about criticism, and the lovely flashback to Ego's childhood, which for whatever reason, struck me as pitch-perfect. I'm tickled by the idea that even the most cynical people were once children, and often took delight in simple things.

I think it's a fairly different message than "Anyone can cook." It's more focused on the nature of change and social progress. The two morals aren't completely alien to one another or anything, but it strikes me as a much more abstract angle, I guess. "Anyone can cook" is basically "don't judge a book by its cover." Remy's conversation with his father is about about progress being defined by our willingness to change. They link up a bit, but I feel like that conversation is much bigger than the rest of the film. Very hard to put into words, though.

Which scene did this happen in?

You see Chris, I agree with Bird on this one. There is just way too much going on for Ratatouille to add on to the "important stuff" that Linguini should be able to grow as a chef because he's Gusteau's son. In fact, the only two reasons I believe Linguini's revealed to be Gusteau's son are: (1) for him to get hooked up with Gusteau's "true son" who teaches him things but cannot convey the true love which Remy has. Remy is actually Gusteau's son, if not genetically, at least through that damned TV/cookbook and the way it convinces him to "rise above his station"; (2) Linguini has to foil that scumbag Skinner who's completely selling off the Gusteau name and is a hilarious character who needs to be put in his place. That, to me, is the entire reason that Linguini HAS to be his pop's son, and not to learn something because he is. If you were going to incorporate that subplot into the current version of Ratatouille, it would have to be at least two-and-one-half hours long. So I say, no thanks. If you want to explore it, you can put it in Rato 2: The Revenge of the Yucky Nibblers.

It is One of the Best But I think the INCREDIBLES is better
it is more exciting

This is one of those movies I tend to disagree with people on. I thought Ratatouille was decidedly average and quite boring.

To those that enjoyed it: What was so entertaining? The plot moved slowly, and wasn't particularly engaging once Remy made it to the city. Linguini wasn't interesting and the dialogue wasn't funny. Only cheesy slapstick comedy that is done far better in every single other Pixar movie is left. The only dialogue I thought was funny is transcribed like how I remember it:

Chef(or sous-chef? can't remember) - So how's your mother?
Linguini - She's, um, deceased. But she was religious, so I guess she's covered, afterlife-wise.

I thought everything afterward wasn't entertaining and I think it is by far Pixar's weakest work. I'm not sure based on what I think of it that it's even worth analyzing. When I don't think they put the work in to make compelling characters, why would they add more depth? I loved Toy Story, Up, and Wall-E to death, and this movie is just nothing in comparison.

Now don't take this harshly, since I haven't seen the movie in a while. I was just very surprised at the level of thought people are giving it that I just don't see as warranted. I would welcome being enlightened, however.