This is topic Ratatouille (2007) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001289

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2007, 01:39 AM:
 
I can't believe I am the first to review this, but in this case I think a simple rating is suitable enough.

A well deserved 4.5 out of 5 stars.


 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 06-29-2007, 02:56 AM:
 
I agree! Being a "ratty" person, I had very high expectations, and this film did not dissapoint. I'll be seeing this one a few more times.
 

---

Posted by Michael Hossen (Member # 4274) on 06-29-2007, 03:35 AM:
 
Glad you guys liked it. I think it looks awesome! I can't wait 'till we get it in!
 

---

Posted by Josh Rosen (Member # 4291) on 06-29-2007, 10:48 AM:
 
Great movie! I would give it a 5/5 I thoroughly enjoyed it, and the short at the beginning is great. I thought the sound mix was great as well.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-29-2007, 04:24 PM:
 
The short at the beginning was worth the price of admission alone! But heck.... I didn't even have to pay... I was forced to sit though it for a sound check . I haven't seen the feature yet......

Mark
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-30-2007, 01:12 PM:
 
This is the first movie all year (not counting Jaws) that I found myself wanting to see again when I walked out, despite going in with very high expectations. Very entertaining! I hope it does well.

 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-30-2007, 04:12 PM:
 
CINEMA: Carmike Cobblestone 9, Urbandale, IA
AUDITORIUM: 6
PRESENTATION: Christie DLP Digital
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

FIFTEEN MINUTES BEFORE SHOWTIME: We arrive and the doors are locked. Random Employee hears me pulling on the door, runs out, and opens it. "Come on in." That was refreshing.

There's six people in the auditorium as the show starts. We are in the third row. A family of four comes in. Where do they sit? RIGHT IN FRONT OF US! Stupid sucky people. I come here because of the LACK of people.

This has to be one of the more low brow Pixar releases in some time. I don't recall seeing any television marketing for it. I was actually surprised to see it playing this weekend when looking up showtimes for the "Die Hard" movie.

It's not as good or as clever as some of Pixar's previous releases (my favorite is "The Incredibles"...Wife #1's is "Monsters, Inc"), but even an average Pixar effort is better than most of the movies released thus far this year.

Cripes. I'm glad we ate before we saw this thing. Tasty Tacos isn't exactly French cuisine, but their fried flour tacos are awesome.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-30-2007, 04:56 PM:
 
Location: Megaplex Gateway Screen #1
Time: 12:15 showing
Projection: DLP presentatuion... NEC projector/Dolby server.
70 foot wide matte white screen.

The Gateway is still my favorite of the Megaplex theaters. You don't feel like a head of cattle as you do at Jordon Commons. Wife and I attended the 12:15 showing. Tickets and good seating readily available with little wait...BUT Concessions was another story all together with about 8 people in front of us we waited nearly 15 min.! Unacceptable! The head of concessions should be shot! Many families were bypassing the concession stand all together. When we finally got through the line there was an estimated 40 people in line.

The presentation was great and the image tack sharp. Pixels were definately visible in the bright white areas as expected, no presentation problems through out the entire show and zero artifacts. Screen brightness looked to be right at spec of 14fl. Excellent picture quality that was not any where near evedent on the film print I saw some of yesterday and excellent sound mix. All in all a 4 star film and destined to be come a classic. I agree with Geoff above... its the only film I've seen since "Car's" that I want to see again.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-30-2007, 08:55 PM:
 
I agree. While the story did get a little long before the third act, the awesome animation and attention to detail made up for it. Probably a bit "talky" for the little kiddies, but that's OK, this isn't a film for little kiddies. Pixar hits another one out of the park.

The big chase scene/rainstorm near the beginning is my favorite part so far (especially when the "colony" is revealed), but the segment where Remy is trying to stay out of sight in the restaurant kitchen for the first time is close behind. Just awesome.

I also really enjoyed the sound mix. Good use of surrounds, nice low end.

4.75 out of 5 from me.

A quarter of a star added for not putting any "extras" at the very end. I hate it when people ask me if there are extras, and I say yes, so they wait through 10 minutes of credits, then they watch the extra and come out saying, "Well THAT wasn't so great."
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-01-2007, 09:33 PM:
 
Pixar continues to put out quality time after time...while this wasn't my favorite Pixar flick, I'd still give it a solid 3 out of four stars
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-02-2007, 03:30 PM:
 
Still at 95% on Rotten Tomatoes . An excellent result.

Edit 07.08.07: At 96% now

[ 07-08-2007, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: John Wilson ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-03-2007, 08:58 AM:
 
Excellent movie, yet again, Pixar. Job well done.

The animation that Pixar puts out is nothing short of breathtaking anymore. The sets that they create, the shots of all of the rats running in and out of a room, the scene where the rat is drifting down the sewer, and water drips on his head... wow. Take that, Dreamworks & Sony Animation. The sound mixes on Pixars movies are also always top notch, not to mention they spend the extra $$$ on the higher contrast stock. It's nice to see a company take real pride in their work.

4.75 out of 5. A great movie, and I'm looking forward to Wall-e.


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-03-2007, 02:01 PM:
 
Location: Carmike 8
Auditorium: #3, 10:00pm show
Format: Christie DLP/Doremi Server, 2048 X 852 pixels
Rating: 3.5 stars out of 4

Ratatouille is yet another very entertaining Pixar movie, and another I'll definitely add to my DVD collection (and buy again whenever I move up to the HD thing).

Lots of good comedic moments. Lightning. Old lady with shotgun. Stampeding rats. Food!

I thought Patton Oswalt sounded a little like Richard Dreyfuss.

Peter O'Toole did an excellent job voicing food critic Anton Ego (and Pixar did a great job animating the toothy, brooding character).

The only area where I thought the movie stumbled a little was late in the 2nd act where the storyline ventured into the predictable and obligatory area where characters have to get at odds with each other and risk everything going to hell. You can see that sort of thing coming from a mile away with most movies. Although the movie qualifies as G-rated fare, a good deal of the material may still be over the heads of elementary school age children.

Even though some parts of the movie were predictable, I loved how it finished.

During the end titles (which were also well done by the way) a piece of retro art featured the slogan "100% Real Animation. No Motion Capture." This brings up one of the major differences that separates a Pixar feature from other movies with CGI.

The CGI effects in most live action movies are churned out in a few months. Even some fully animated movies are manufactured this quickly. Get the movie from "green light" to DVD as fast as possible to maximize profit and minimize interest payments on all that borrowed money. It takes an average of 3 years for a Pixar movie to go through actual production -and that's not counting all the story development time. The difference really shows.

Each Pixar movie release has pushed the boundaries of what was possible in computer animation and defined new standards of excellence. Ratatouille is no exception.

Pixar has been able to animate hair and fur very well for its past few features. This time each strand or whisker had many layers of subtle appearance from levels of shine and transparency to dry, damp, soaked and even scorched textures. I really liked the varying depth of field camera lens treatments used to soften certain edges and throw in blur where desired. More than enough was done for many scenes to achieve a photo-realistic feel while also maintaining the look of an animated movie.

To be fair, other studios like Sony Pictures Animation and PDI/Dreamworks are making big strides. However, Pixar is simply on another level. It's obvious those guys really love their work. They put in a lot of extra effort to add many layers of subtle refinement and personality to each scene. Some of that they strive to do requires some serious, innovative software engineering.

The short feature, Lifted, was the funniest Pixar short since For The Birds. It's a good homage to Close Encounters and had a little of the Monsters Inc. feel to it too. The "Wilhelm" scream was a good cherry on top.

Presentation Quality

Image quality: Very good. The feature looked great, just as I expected.

Audio quality: Pretty good. Decent surround use. Music score had a lot of subtle detail to it. The LPCM 5.1 works well to convey that.

Audience quality: Most of the audience was well behaved. However, it only takes a few selfish idiots to cause serious distractions and disruptions in a theater. Several teenage boys sat in the third row of the theater compulsively texting on their mobile phones. Of course, everyone else in the theater could see those bright, distracting displays.

 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-04-2007, 03:43 AM:
 
The gf and I went and watched the 11 pm showing tonight at AZ Mills. Why we didn't go to my theater I'm not sure. Why do people bring little kids to a 11pm show? Some people do not know how to parent their kids.

Any way to the film. I can't say really anything that hasn't already been said. Pixar just knows how to make a GREAT film time after time. I will add this to my DVD collection when it comes out.

How ever I'm not to sure about Wall-E. I think that this one could be their first stinker. There will be no voice cast for this film, all done by the coimputer. But I COULD and most likley am wrong.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-04-2007, 07:11 PM:
 
Cinemark Suncoast, Screen #8, $7.00 for the 1:55pm matinee.

Brad Bird working with Pixar does it again. Very very satisfying to watch, on several different levels. Well done!

Caught this at the now Cinemark Suncoast. Projection and sound appear to be about the same as I remember for this location. It was in frame and in focus from the start. Just a little bit a dirt at the beginning and some less than invisible reel joins and automation cues. Not bad - certainly not the worst I've seen in this town.

Two things they need to work on though:

1. Their entire digital rolling stock was cropped in half due to the top mask being set for 2.39 while the digital projector was zoomed to fit the entire width. So I didn't really get to see what Front Row Joe looks like on a big screen.

2. This theatre has always had problems with its dowsers. Every presentation I've seen here tails out on the screen. At least the audio is muted. This time the dowser closed about half way. Progress.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-07-2007, 02:50 PM:
 
Cinema #3 Corydon Indiana; Dolby Digital. Only one drop out in middle of the short. No marks of any kind on feature. Sharp/clear projection; but feature transferred "just" out of focus.

No one has mentioned the panned dialog!!!! I have not heard this for a long time.

Note that Gary Rydstrom, Gary Thom and others from the original Star Wars have credits. Also Jay Ward (Bullwinkle). Louis

[ 07-07-2007, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Louis Bornwasser ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-07-2007, 06:46 PM:
 
I noticed "Jay Ward" in the credits too, but unless it's a pseudonym or tribute, it's not the Jay Ward of Bullwinkle fame. That Jay Ward passed on in 1989.

One thing I forgot to pass along was listening to the audience reactions. An audible gasp from the whole crowd went up with the shot of all the rats being revealed when the old lady's ceiling came down. Later wide shots showing rat crowd scenes didn't get that reaction. I guess people had warmed up to the critters by then.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-08-2007, 06:31 AM:
 
I screened this at the Arlington SMG theater and also at the Rave in Lewisville in digital. The film print at Arlington looked better in every way than the digital. (Sounded significantly better too.) The digital presentation was very soft and not as vivid overall as the film presentation (and yet this ORIGINATED in the digital domain!) As such I am still not sold on this digital shit. The industry just needs to get some competent projectionists and couple them with good equipment. It's not that hard.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-08-2007, 08:53 AM:
 
I saw it in DLP and thought that it looked pretty good. I haven't seen a film print for comparison, however. Interestingly, it seems that the theatre (AMC/Loews Boston Common cinema #8) has removed the 35mm equipment from this house. There was something "wrong" with the screen surface, but I assume that it was just a silver screen that was installed for 3D.

In any case, it was a quality motion picture and I can recommend it. Not as good as the Incredibles, but better than Cars. It was interesting that they played two trailers (Bee Movie and Robots) that both used the theme from "Brazil."

Edit: I should add that I enjoyed the short, but that it wasn't new at all. I know that it played as part of some animation compilation that I ran last year (the Ron Diamond show, I think).

[ 07-08-2007, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-11-2007, 02:25 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

No one has mentioned the panned dialog!!!! I have not heard this for a long time.

---

quote:

---

Was 'Ratatouille' ripped off in Oscar race?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Among the tales of depravity and violence that dominate this year's Academy Awards race sits the bright and shining "Ratatouille." A rat never seemed so sanitized.

The Pixar film landed five Oscar nominations and was ranked by many critics as one of the year's best, yet was never a serious contender for best picture. Instead, it was relegated to the relatively new category of best animated feature, which the academy began dolling out in 2002.

Directed by Brad Bird, "Ratatouille" has garnered an aggregate score of 96 on Metacritic.com, ranking it above "Pulp Fiction," let alone this year's best picture candidates: "No Country for Old Men," "There Will Be Blood," "Juno," "Atonement" and "Michael Clayton."

And its other nominations across three different disciplines -- best original screenplay, best score, best sound mixing and best sound editing -- suggests the kind of broad consensus that often results in bigger awards like best director or best picture.

Its five nominations rank as the most ever for a computer animated film, and rate second among all animated films, only surpassed by the six received by Disney's "Beauty and the Beast." That picture, done in the traditional Disney style in 1991, stands as the only animated film to ever be nominated for best picture.

If not for the best animated feature category, it's safe to say "Ratatouille" would have been strongly considered for best picture. Brad Lewis, the film's producer, is quick to point out that he has no sour grapes with the academy -- and that he's ecstatic about the five widespread nominations.

Still, he has to wonder.

"Ultimately, it makes it perhaps too convenient for people to look at an animated film from an isolated perspective," said Lewis. "Somebody can say, 'You know what? We have a place for that, so we don't necessarily have to give it broader consideration.' "

Tom O'Neil, a columnist specializing in awards coverage for the Los Angeles Times' "The Envelope" Web site, has pondered whether "Ratatouille" -- which he calls the best reviewed movie of the year -- is the equivalent of "Beauty and the Beast," only it had to deal with the specialized category.

"Is this a case where it's penalized and ghettoized because there's a separate category for animated fare?" O'Neill said. "It seems to have the same respect in the industry and among film critics as 'Beauty and the Beast.' "

"Ratatouille," made by Walt Disney Company and its Pixar Animations Studios, is also not a conventional animated movie. Its framing is largely based on the techniques of classic filmmaking, and the story of a rat who dreams to be a chef has been called a Joycean "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Rat."

"I don't think people when they walk out of 'Ratatouille' the first thing that they're thinking about is 'I went and saw an animated film today,' " said Lewis. "It's partly because we're telling more sophisticated stories and I think it's because we have a more sophisticated filmmaking tool."

"Ratatouille" also has the support of that great international critical body: the French. The film, which is set in Paris and imbued with French culture, was No. 1 at France's box office for six weeks in a row -- surpassing a record set by "Titanic." After making $206 million at the domestic box office, "Ratatouille" made $410 million internationally.

Those totals are much greater than any of the best picture nominees, which combined haven't grossed as much domestically as "Ratatouille."

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott listed "Ratatouille" as one of the five films that deserved to be nominated for best picture. He earlier called it "a nearly flawless piece of popular art, as well as one of the most persuasive portraits of an artist ever committed to film."

That judgment is notable in part because it doesn't make use of the word "animated."

Lewis, who's working on directing a film for Pixar, cited fellow nominee "Persepolis" -- an animated French language film about a girl coming of age during the Islamic Revolution -- as proof of the breadth to animation today. (The third Oscar nominee is the more standard family fare of "Surf's Up.")

"The type of filmmaking that's taking place in the animation category is very broad," said Lewis. "And it's perhaps traveling beyond what people felt the parentheses of the industry were before."

And considering the increasing role that digital animation and computer-generated imagery play in the making of nearly all movies today, it's becoming difficult to firmly say what is and isn't animated. Just as "Ratatouille" reflects live-action filmmaking, live-action films like "King Kong" and "Transformers" often reflect animated works.

"It's folly to have a separate animated category because it hurts the chances of a movie like 'Ratatouille' for being in the best picture race," said O'Neil. "But considering the academy history and the fact that only once did they have the guts to do it, at least the little rat is getting the chance to be a big cheese in one category."

---