Ratatouille
Being self-employed has its perks. Yesterday we had a company party and went to see Ratatouille. While larger tech companies rent out theaters for Pixar movies we could only muster 12 people (five of them being small children) so logistics were limited to simply getting tickets online earlier in the day.
Ratatouille has to have the most outrageous plot of any Pixar film. They are all fantastic in one way or another, usually by the simple fact that the main characters are toys, ants, monters, fish, cars, etc. that can talk. But going beyond the idea of talking rats (we already saw that in The Secret of NIMH) Ratatouille is outrageous in a different way. It is a film about a rat that wants to be a chef. On the surface this has got to be the least interesting idea to come out of Pixar yet. How many kids are going to line up to see a rat cooking in Paris? How many rat toys will they sell? I can assure you that they’ll move more Cars merchandise this year than Ratatouille stuff.
Yet despite its non-obvious commercial appeal the movie is wonderful. It might be the best Pixar movie yet. Why is this? Well besides the unexpected story I would cite the voice acting and the animation.
In most other Pixar movies the voice acting is very distracting to me. It isn’t that the characters don’t match the voices so much as that the voices are so distinctive that I can’t help but picture the actors behind them. Not so here. My mind rarely wandered from the screen to picturing an actor. The one real exception to this was Brian Dennehy, who caused some minor distraction. But between the French accents (very lacking in some characters) and the fact that I really am not familiar with Patton Oswalt (sorry Patton, I’ll try to fix that) or Lou Romano (a Pixar production designer) I found myself as immersed in the film as I could possibly be. Note that I had my 21-month old daughter on my lap or head during much of the film.
The other thing that sets it apart from previous Pixar efforts is the animation. Each scene is incredibly detailed. There is a sense of openness. This world seems to go on forever and there isn’t an implication that we are seeing the actions happen on a somewhat limited stage with nothingness outside its walls.
Several outstanding action sequences really highlight this. We are given a real sense of what it is like for a rat to scamper about low to the ground, to run through a hole in the wall, to climb up a pipe, to hide under a counter.
As for the plot that seems like it couldn’t possibly be interesting, especially to a child, it struck me as compelling. I’m not sure my three-year old followed it beyond, “the rat cooks!” but I was very involved. The relationship between Remy (the rat) and Linguini (the garbage boy that can’t cook) is somehow believable and sweet. The concept that Remy’s superior sense of smell is the basis of his talent works as well.
Even though I had consumed quite a bit of information about this movie online before going to it there were plenty of surprises. I won’t list them due to my less than photographic memory, but I’ll use the excuse that I want this review to be spoiler free.
I mentioned that my daughter spent some of the movie on my head. It became obvious towards the end of the show that it was too long for her. In order to distract her and still see the ending myself I took her down the stairs and stood with her perched on my shoulders for the last 20 minutes of the film. While standing there she began to pull my hair in one direction or another, attempting to steer me just as Remy does to Linguini in the movie. So although she didn’t last until the end, it was clear that she was watching and learned some new tricks.
Finally, a word about the short, Lifted. I still think that Boundin’ is by far the best Pixar short, but this one was entertaining and brought back painful memories of being 16.
If my primary class of nine year old boys is any indicator, this was a highly anticipated movie in the over-21-month demographic. Half of them saw it on opening weekend, and they brought it up in every lesson for three weeks ahead of its release.
Comment by cantinflas — July 3, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I loved this movie. I think it may be the best movie on the enjoyment of food that I have seen, and that’s not the only best thing about it.
Comment by Backslider — July 3, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
The main reason I have avoided seeing it is that it doesn’t seem very funny. At least from what I’ve seen in the trailers and in the 9-minute preview shown on TV.
Comment by Justin — July 3, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
I am excited to see this movie.
I admire Pixar for pursuing original and creative ideas. I read an article about how they have studiously avoided making sequels of many of their successful movies (with I think the exception of Toy Story).
Comment by danithew — July 3, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Justin,
I thought that it had lots of funny moments. Most of the humor was very clever and mature, sprinkled with thoughtful little surprises. There was plenty for the kids as well, much of it centered on hiding Remy from the head chef.
Completely aside from the humor I thought it was very engaging and entertaining.
Comment by a random John — July 3, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
I haven’t seen it yet (I just saw Cars for the first time last week), but I am already sure that it isn’t better than Incredibles.
Comment by Jacob J — July 3, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
I liked this one a lot. My 5 and 4-year-old sons also liked it. There was enough action to keep them interested. It really is kind of an action movie, even if the action is small-scale and cooking-related. And there is some funny stuff. I laughed for a long time at the scene where Remy controls the sleeping Linguini as the chef lady talks to him.
Pixar is a very powerful brand and it’s a studio that deserves a lot of respect because they don’t use their brand power for evil. They have avoided a lot of the pitfalls of cynical Hollywood. They don’t make movies that pander or that exist as transparent money grabs. They tell good stories that they’re passionate about telling. Their work reflects a lot of love for the art and respect for the audience.
Comment by Tom — July 3, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Jacob J,
It is a completely different movie than The Incredibles. In my opinion Brad Bird has now created three classics: The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. I’d have to see Ratatouille a few more times before I can determine which I like more, but all three are on the same level.
Cars (not a Brad Bird film) is not on this level.
Comment by a random John — July 3, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
ARJ, I agree with you on animation. After seeing Ratatouille or Cars, pop in Toy Story and you’ll see the difference. It’s immense. They’ve come a long, long way. (I’m still dazzled by the computer programming that went into Sully’s hair in Monsters).
As far as voices, I liked them too. I like it when I recognize a voice, but can’t pinpoint it at first. After seeing Bug’s Life tons of times (two toddlers at home), I finally recognized the ladybug as none other than Denis Leary the other day, and I was thrilled I didn’t know who it was at first (I always fast-forwarded the credits to see the “outtakes” - another stroke of genius on Pixar’s part). Although I think Billy Crystal is PERFECT for Mike Wizowski, you are correct on the contrast it portrays off of John Goodman.
And yes, “Boundin’” is also my favorite Pixar short, followed (closely) by “For the Birds.” It seems that the shorts keep getting better with time as well.
Pixar continues to not disappoint - very rare for studios these days.
Comment by David J — July 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
I love Patton Oswalt, so for that reason alone I’m considering seeing this.
Comment by Brian V — July 3, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Great film, will buy it. Kids loved it. Lifted was very funny. I got to see it digital, and it was an amazingly high quality image with no bright spot in the middle, so they finally got all the bugs worked out of DLP. The trailer for Wall-E was rather self-serving, and I hope it doesnt herald Pixar’s first ego vehicle.
Comment by Extreme Dorito — July 3, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Good point, arJ, about the voices. I read one review that was actually criticizing the film for not having familiar voices – but I agree, unknown voices are better. Animated films should have the courage to do it more often.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 3, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Extreme Dorito,
I have very little clue as to what Wall-E will be like. I do think it is odd that of their original ideas they waited to do the robot movie last. I would have thought that technology wise a robot movie would have been relatively easy to do in the late 90s. Instead they took on the challenges of insects, monsters, and underwater life, all relatively hard to animate compared to robots.
I agree that the trailer should have been more about the movie than about the track record that they have, however I think Cars was the ego vehicle.
Comment by a random John — July 3, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
I saw it last friday. I’m trying to witholding judgement. I want to think about it a little more; perhaps see it again before I settle on an opinion. Let me just say–for now–that I thought it had great strengths and a few weaknesses. I loved the critic’s monologue toward the end–it had me in tears. And, boy, was Peter O’toole a fun suprise.
Comment by Jack — July 4, 2007 @ 12:06 am
You think Cars was the ego vehicle? How so? When I think “ego vehicle” I am thinking its really about them, like that Wall-E trailer, than the film. That trailer left me thinking, “OK, they have either finally been overcome with hubris, or they dont have enough of this film done to put together a decent montage.”
Comment by Extreme Dorito — July 4, 2007 @ 5:19 am
OK, I get it, youre being punny. Lightning McQueen = Ego Vehicle. Mwahaha.
Comment by Extreme Dorito — July 4, 2007 @ 6:17 am
Overall I really like the Pixar voice work. The only voice work that I have found distracting was Luke Wilson as Lightning McQueen. The casting was appropriate, but he just doesn’t sound like a cartoon character.
Comment by Tom — July 4, 2007 @ 6:44 am
My wife and I went to see Ratatouille today. We liked it so much we ended up watching it twice in a row. We’ve never done that before when going to the theater. I was surprised my wife suggested we do this and was surprised to realize I was willing to do it.
There are some really powerful moments in the film.
In the theater a lot of people were laughing out loud but for me this was not really a laugh-out-loud kind of movie. I thought it was a beautiful story that was beautifully depicted. It seems odd to say that about an animated film about a rat in a restaurant, but after seeing the film, that’s the way it feels.
It’s obvious that a ton of effort went into the details of every scene.
Just a random and completely unrelated note - I saw Rescue Dawn a week ago and it’s an amazing film as well.
Comment by danithew — July 4, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
it’s owen wilson, not luke wilson, who voices lightning mcqueen. i think luke might have been able to pull it off.
Comment by makakona — July 4, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I liked “Ratatouille” as a technical wonder. You could see every hair on the rats’ bodies, and the streets and scenery of Paris were brilliantly done. The execution was absolutely flawless, and up another notch from the previous Pixar films.
On the other hand, the story was not as compelling as “Cars” or “The Incredibles” or the incomparable “Toy Story” tandem, which can, in some respects, be used as teaching tools for smaller children. The lessons of “Ratatouille” were ambiguous at best.
I was a little disappointed that many of the leads did not go to really big stars as in past Pixar films. I kept seeing Gene Wilder as Remy, and Lucy Liu as Collette.
But I was impressed that much of the action took place in the Paris sewer system, as it did in “Phantom of the Opera” and “Les Miserables” which also had a girl named Collette. There was also an homage to “Casablanca” where they always had Paris. My guess is there is a bunch of other inside stuff there, and kudos for that.
Overall, I put this one into the middle of the Pixar pack, but that puts it into a very small club nonetheless.
Comment by Rod — July 5, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Nobody else thinks Paul Newman is distracting in Cars? Or Larry the Cable Guy? Or Bob Costas? Or John Ratzenbeger? Or Cheech Marin?
The only well known actor in Cars whose voice isn’t distracting is Michael Keaton. Before you argue with me, let me add that I’m sure that I’ve listened to (not seen, just listened to) Cars at least 100 times.
Comment by a random John — July 5, 2007 @ 10:01 am
ED,
Glad you got it. But there is an element of ego vehicle in Cars. John Lasseter really wanted to make a classic car movie. Badly. While there are aspects of it that I think are great, it doesn’t hold up when compared to the other Pixar films, with the exception of A Bug’s Life. Note that both are remakes of other films (Doc Hollywood and Seven Samuri and/or Three Amigos.)
Cars has, however, sold a ton of toys. I would guess that we have at least $100 worth of Cars related material in my house, probably edging out Thomas the Tank Engine for such things.
Comment by a random John — July 5, 2007 @ 10:06 am
For some reason Cars is my least favorite Pixar movie, though I didn’t dislike the film. I had a hard time getting caught up with what was happening, that’s all. It’s probably more me than the movie.
I wonder if it’s easier for me to temporarily believe that animals can talk. Seeing a car talk, even in animation, is a little bit weird. Again, that’s just my take on it.
Comment by danithew — July 5, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Rod, are you talking about Cosette? Just, for the record and all.
Comment by Eric Russell — July 5, 2007 @ 11:37 am
I liked Cars.
One thing I find interesting about Ratatouilli is that given the main push of the film revolving around the climatic review by the resteraunt critic, I wonder if anyone has had the guts to give this movie a bad review. (I don’t think it deserves one mind you, but I am curious)
Comment by Matt W. — July 5, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Matt W.,
Compare how the critic is treated in Ratatouille with the critic in The Lady in the Water. Also look at the rationale for the character in each. Clearly M. Night was fighting back against critics, to the point of the character being a tacked on distraction. Ego in Ratatouille is a integral part of the plot.
The film is so good that even the absence of bad reviews (currently 96% on the Tomato Meter and 100% on the real critic meter) doesn’t indicate to me that critics were swayed or intimidated by the Ego character.
Comment by a random John — July 6, 2007 @ 10:22 am
I haven’t seen Ratatouille yet. I should note that Brad Bird was brought in halfway through the project to replace the original director. So it’s not entirely his baby. Although apparently they redid many scenes. But some have complained about a disjointedness not typical of Pixar films and this is probably why.
As to Cars, to me it was among the weakest of the Pixar films. It drug in the middle for me and just wasn’t that compelling. I think it was a project that sounded good on paper but that was harder to pull off. I think Paul Newman was perfect though…
The best is still The Incredibles followed by the two Toy Stories. Even though the animation is much simpler, due primarily to technology, the stories and work are excellent.
Comment by clark — July 8, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I saw it and think it might rival Finding Nemo as my favorite of the Pixar movies. I liked it a lot more than I expected.
Comment by Geoff J — July 8, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Finally saw Ratatouille. A great film. Well done Mr. Bird.
Comment by Dan — July 10, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
I too think Cars is the weakest of Pixar’s movies. I thought A Bug’s Life, while weak, to be better than Cars. I think the reason is that Cars was following a formula too much.
The Incredibles is still Pixar’s best film.
As far as Wall-e is concerned, I’m concerned. Not much at all was revealed about the movie, and the robot’s voice was annoying as hell.
Comment by Dan — July 10, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Okay, after thinking about for a few days, it seems to me that Ratatouille is a little “messy.” It’s a little convoluted. It’s as though the writers can’t decide how to tell the story–or whose it is at times.
That said, I may find upon further reflection that it’s more artful than I’m giving it credit for. I do want to see it again. And sometimes seeing a doughtful piece a second time is what is needed to really appreciate the work–as we are already aware of it’s apparent failings and are, therefore, able to relax and open up to its strengths.
Comment by Jack — July 11, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Jack, that’s partially because, as I mentioned, Bird was brought in to fix the project about halfway through. So a lot of people noticed those elements since it was a result of changing creative direction halfway through. Short of redoing everything, which would have been time and cost prohibitive, they just redid portions. But this reportedly leads to threads that don’t go anywhere since the motivation for that scene is now gone.
Still, it sounds like Bird really saved the project.
(I’ve not yet seen it)
Comment by Clark Goble — July 12, 2007 @ 10:48 am
I don’t have any special information, but I’m not sure that Bird came in so late. He’s the only credited screenwriter, so I think that means that not all that much had actually been produced when he came on. I’m pretty sure that if a bunch of scenes that had already been done before he came on made it into the film, they would have had to credit the writer(s) of those scenes.
There are three people, I think, credited for the story, though.
Comment by Tom — July 12, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Tom,
Industry-related articles indicate that Bird took the reigns when the project was significantly underway, so Clark’s intimations are correct.
Comment by cantinflas — July 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
But what does “significantly underway” mean? That’s vague enough that I still am not sure if that means that some scenes were done already. And if some scenes were done already, would there not have to be someone credited for writing those scenes besides Bird? I don’t know the answer to that question for sure (I bet BrianG knows), but it seems to me that his being the sole screenwriter means that he wrote the whole thing, and, therefore joined before any scenes were completed.
Comment by Tom — July 12, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
this probably contributes to the ambiguity, but in his own words:
What happened when you got the SOS to take over the directing of Ratatouille?
I had just got to the end of The Incredibles. The storyline of this movie was not coming together the way they thought it would. Everybody loved the idea, the way it looked but it was not coming together. So they asked me to figure out the storyline. I worked a few things out and left them to see how it goes. I got a call from Steve Jobs to say they were concerned that Ratatouille felt a little like Toy Story 2, which was another movie that everyone had loved the idea but had trouble coming together. Then the next day I was asked to come on board. Time was running out. It was the equivalent of the curtain going up, we had a nice set, nice costumes, a good collection of character types, but we didn’t have a script. And nothing matters if the story is not working. So they asked me to come on board and though I felt conflicted about taking over someone else’s baby. And I had a live action film that I wanted to do after my vacation, but the three guys that had made Pixar were in trouble. It was the first movie with100 per cent Pixar money in it and we did not know whether we would be changing studios. So for that company and those guys I thought that I would take one for the team.
That must have been daunting?
It was really scary. But the story was too rich, it had too many possibilities. Any two or three of which could have made great movies. I had to get ruthless with it and say which was the most important storyline and which of the other stories would support. What did I change? I had Remy get separated from the family. Before they were always together. Then Remy did not share the apartment with Linguini, he always went back to the sewer and the other rats. I felt he needed to be separated from the family to get time to be in the kitchen and to bond with Linguini. I felt the idea of using the hair for Remy to communicate with Linguini was a thin idea but I couldn’t come up with a better idea. Another simple idea, which solved a lot of problems, was to have the chef’s hat semi-transparent, so that Remy able to see through the chef’s hat but nobody could see him. That simple idea allowed selling the idea of having him involved in the kitchen but still being hidden. So I cleared away 10 minutes of screen time to show the audience step by step how they fumbled into this idea of communication. I made Colette a major character. I cut the character of Rene’s mother. I killed off Gusteau and made him part of Rene’s imagination. The will was not there that Gusteau left behind. It was still a story about a rat named Remy who wanted to cook and a food critic named Ego but there were a lot of challenges to make it all come away. It needed room for things to breathe. If you have 10 trees and they packed tightly together they are not going to grow very tall before they are not getting enough air and light. But if you can lose a few trees then the ones that remain can become healthy and rich and sturdy. And that’s kind of a good analogy for what I had to do with the narrative of the film.
Comment by cantinflas — July 12, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Thanks, cantinflas.
It sounds to me like they had characters, look and feel, and story ideas, but no complete story, no screenplay, no storyboarding, and definitely no actual production that made it into the finished product. He must have written the screenplay and he must have directed all of the voice and animation work. So I would unequivocally call this a Brad Bird film.
Comment by Tom — July 12, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
My understanding (and I’d have to look up sources) is that there was storyboarding for a lot already and a lot of finished animation.
Comment by clark — July 12, 2007 @ 8:46 pm