Damien wrote:Okay, last night I watched this supposedly great cartoon, a cartoon David Poland informed us for adults -- and kids can come along if they wish.
Jesus Christ!
This is a witless by-the-numbers goddamn cartoon, which doesn’t even have an appealing character as its centerpiece. And the geeky young chef wo befriends him is utterly noisome, a shockingly unappealing presence, someone who should have been made awkward but charming. In fact, the entire supporting players (rodent and human) are annoying and un-amusing, and nothing we haven't seen before in counyless other cartoons.
And what's with the American and British accents in the middle of Paris?
Plus, the whole concept of rats in the kitchen is frankly disgusting. I was rooting for the old woman with the gun in the early scenes. Some of the graphics of Paris are evocative but that's the only remotely okay thing. And it is not quite as obnoxious as that nadir of goddamn cartoons, Chicken Run. But it is an utterly graceless and banal thing. I would wish that all its admirers find their kitchens overrun by rats.
You people are insane!
You hated it, Damien?!?!?
Oh, my God! I am shocked! Shocked and outraged, I tell you!
What next? Bashing a movie that featured Ethan Hawke?!?
rain Bard wrote:Ah, it wouldn't be a genuine modern-day animated classic if it didn't have your stamp of disapproval on it, Damien. :laugh:
Just give me a cartoon with as much wit and intelligence as the best non-aninamted films and I'll happily sing its praises. Haven't been any since the South Park and Beavis and But-head movies.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Ah, it wouldn't be a genuine modern-day animated classic if it didn't have your stamp of disapproval on it, Damien. :laugh:
I suppose a through-and-through cat person like yourself is going to be on the side of rat eradication. (I'm unfortunately cat-allergic myself) I'll admit that I'd rather not have them in my own kitchen, but a little fantasy is what the movies are for. And if I actually thought my policy was preventing the discovery of the world's next great chef, I'd start to rethink it.
As for the accents, I appreciated the dropping of the pretense of 'authentically French' accents in an English-language movie for once. Realizing that making the film entirely in the French language is not a viable option for the American Pixar/Disney alliance, they may as well use accents that American viewers will have affinity with.
Last night I watched, for the first time since the tail end of its theatrical release, the Last Temptation of Christ, which I now agree with you is clearly Scorsese's masterpiece. It's a similar situation; they didn't want to make the film in Aramaic (it would take Mel Gibson to get that bright idea) so why not use accents that bring the story closest to the people the film is intended for?
Okay, last night I watched this supposedly great cartoon, a cartoon David Poland informed us for adults -- and kids can come along if they wish.
Jesus Christ!
This is a witless by-the-numbers goddamn cartoon, which doesn’t even have an appealing character as its centerpiece. And the geeky young chef wo befriends him is utterly noisome, a shockingly unappealing presence, someone who should have been made awkward but charming. In fact, the entire supporting players (rodent and human) are annoying and un-amusing, and nothing we haven't seen before in counyless other cartoons.
And what's with the American and British accents in the middle of Paris?
Plus, the whole concept of rats in the kitchen is frankly disgusting. I was rooting for the old woman with the gun in the early scenes. Some of the graphics of Paris are evocative but that's the only remotely okay thing. And it is not quite as obnoxious as that nadir of goddamn cartoons, Chicken Run. But it is an utterly graceless and banal thing. I would wish that all its admirers find their kitchens overrun by rats.
You people are insane!
Edited By Damien on 1196902496
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
WALL-E is going to be massive, plain and simple. If a teaser trailer can create as much excitement as WALL-E has (especially out of me), it will be big. Ratatouille is about a rat chef - not the easiest sell, and I blame the performance on the public, not the marketing.
So the Pixar/Disney merger isn't quite the bed for roses they expected it to be. After the Disney art department got upset over Pixar's chiefs being put in control, now the Disney marketing department's getting persnickety.
Pixar Smells a Rat -- In Disney's Marketing Department
Although Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille crossed the $200-million mark at the domestic box office over the weekend, some Pixar executives are blaming Disney's marketing staff for failing to create a promotional campaign for the movie that would have pushed it into the top-five for the year, as Toy Story was in 1995 (No. 1); A Bug's Life was in 1998 (No. 4); Toy Story 2 was in 1999 (No. 3); Monsters, Inc. was in 2001 (No. 4); Finding Nemo was in 2003 (No. 2); The Incredibles was in 2004 (No. 5); and Cars was in 2006 (No. 3). According to Disney watcher Jim Hill, Ratatouille currently ranks eighth at the domestic box office and might wind up out of the top ten entirely by the end of the year. As a result, he says, Pixar execs are now overseeing the marketing campaign for the upcoming WALL-E, something that has apparently infuriated the Disney marketing staff. Hill quotes one unnamed studio insider as saying that Ratatouille "was a very difficult picture to sell during an incredibly competitive summer. ... They're now being complete bastards about the WALL-E trailer, insisting that only they know the proper way to promote their next picture. ... But that's okay. Let them call the shots on WALL-E's marketing campaign. Next year, they'll be the ones who'll be taking the fall when that Andrew Stanton film doesn't measure up to expectations."
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
It could be a result of oversized expectations, based on reviews (here and in the press) and my truly great love for The Incredibles, but I didn't enjoy this as much as I'd hoped.
This is not to say I didn't like alot of it. I think it's far superior to Cars, and wonderfully fast-paced throughout. But I didn't love it except in spots.
To start with the positive: I thought the opening section was perfect -- economically introducing characters and setting all the plot elements in motion, then changing the focus of the story with startling swiftness (in the process invoking the legendary Disney separation-from-parent). I also liked the early kitchen scenes alot.
But then I started to wander. I found too many of the story developments stale -- particularly "family members turning up and ruining the situation" and the "will that must be kept secret till a crucial date" (though at least the film dealt with that element early-ish, rather than saving it for the climax). I remembered that Bird, in addition to writing the fiendshly clever Incredibles, had also turned out The Iron Giant, which I thought was just second-rate Spielberg sentimentality. This film had a bit more of that than I cared to experience.
Also, this is likely just me: the actor who played Linguini sounded to me exactly lke David Schwimmer -- an actor whose dreary presence wears on me very quickly. So, I found everything to do wth him pretty quickly tiresome.
And I found the ending just a bit rushed and unsatisfying. I'm guessing Bird was after something like High culture judges by credentials (the forced closure of the restaurant), but popular culture goes only by taste (thus the people-and-rats-together popularity of the bistro). But I had to extrapolate that; I didn't feel it organically as I was watching.
Finally, my likely most controversial call: I wasn't all that wild about the visuals. Again, this is relative: I started my relationship with Pixar being absolutely wowed by Toy Story's look, and retained some of that wonder through Monsters Inc./Finding Nemo/even some of Cars. But here I didn't feel any special animation magic. Like Sonic on Incredibles, I thought it could have easily been live-action, and when BJ says it merits an art direction nod, I can agree...but only because the sets look like (beautiful) live-action sets. I don't think it's a higher purpose for animation to achieve the reality of...well, reality.
As for the rats...here I think it's just a matter of familiarity breeding a shrug. When I saw the vivid detail of every hair on John Goodman'' Monster Inc. body, I was awed. Seeing the same thing on the rats, I thought, That again.
Let me restate: this is not to dissent mightily from the consensus. Ratatouille is better than any of last year's animated nominees, and it wouldn't kill me if it won this year's prize.
On the other hand, I'll be looking more closely at Bart and Homer now.
It was only lackluster compared to the previous Pixar box office triumphs (the $70M for both The Incredibles and Finding Nemo, $62M for Monsters Inc., $60M for Cars). I can say that I am a little disappointed because I think everyone should rush out to see it, if not for the emotional heft, then for the visual richness and mayhem. And yes, I can't wait to find out what Wall-E is about, the robot was just adorable!
kooyah wrote:Apparently, this had a relatively lackluster opening. How in the world was it marketed? All I ever saw for it was a billboard. I didn't even know a lot of people who knew it existed.
I don't think it had a 'lackluster' opening. I think it opened pretty good considering the very heavy competition.
