Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts

Saturday, September 1

Ratatouille Movie Review

Overall Assessment

Five stars out of Five.

The latest Pixar movie, Ratatouille, simply is, without question, the outstanding animation movie of this past year. There is so much positive things to talk about that I am struggling just to write something which doesn't sound like a run-on sentence of multiple thoughts, or an 'overall assessment' that goes beyond the space of your monitor screen.

For once, it might be more concise to itemize the negative impressions I have. But this is not going to be that kind of review. We shall rise up to the challenge, and describe, with no compromises, why this author believes Ratatouille is worth 10 times what you paid for at the box office.


Story / Plot - 4 out of 5
Dialogue - 5 out of 5

Character Development - 5 out of 5

Acting (or voice) - 5 out of 5

Cinematography / Animation - 5 out of 5
Music - 5 out of 5

X-Factor (variable element*) - 5 out of 5





Plot Theme

On the surface, the plot did not make use of the same material recent animations have -- talking animals, animals loose on the city, animals making their way in the world, etc. Yes, we did have talking rats. But the plot wasn't about the talking rats. It was about one talking rat's dream. The plot was about the dream! On a closer look, the plot gave off a strong flavor of "partial benefit symbiosis" -- where two 'uniques' merge as one for partial benefit to each individual. It was less subtle in this movie (because it was a movie with a much younger audience), but it has parallels to the likes of Cyrano de Bergerac.

In other words, the plot had multiple levels to it -- it was about a rat's passion and dreams. It was about the benefit and harmfulness of a symbiotic relationship. It was a foodie (food-lovers) movie. It was about the relationship between the value we find in what we do, and the value we put into family. It was a 'coming-of-age' movie (for those who like to overuse that one). And it was a funny movie with jokes for the kids, and adults.

Character Development

The characters had depth, because they dealt with problems that aren't too far off from what we deal with in real life. How many of us feel estranged against a parent. Disagree with them about who we are, and what we're capable off. How many of us have dreamed of something better for ourselves. A better job, somewhere we can be happy, friends. How many of us have been jealous for not being recognized, or a sense of wanting to be someone, somebody.

These are all easy to notice on live-picture movies. But in the world of animated films, its hard to see Zebras or Giraffes, Emperor Penguins or Squirrels, Cars or Robots exhibit these emotions. The challenge of character development in animation is whether I can see myself as that character, walking in the same shoes (or paws, claws, etc.).
In Ratatouille, I can easily see myself as the aspiring cook Remy, rat-persona, or no.

Dialogue

The dialogue is one of the smartest and most moving I have heard from animation AND live-picture movies in a long while. It is easy, especially with children's movies, to fall back on time-tested dialogue and humor that is funny because it has been laughed at so many times already in the past. Some movies shine with one conversation or two which stand out. Ratatouille is a movie that overdelivers this. Not snobby, pretentious smart. And not teary-jerk, heart-on-their-sleeve, puppy-dog-eyes moving. But smart because it makes you understand life. And moving because it makes you care for what the characters care for, forgetting for a moment the fact that it is a fictional work.

Examples of the smart-moving dialogue:

1. "Where are you going?" says Remy's dad. Remy says "with any luck (pause) forward."

2. "
In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize that only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."says Anton Ego.

3. "Food always comes to those who cook (fade)." - Chef Gusteau

Animation
I will not pretend to know much about how difficult or easy it is to produce a work of animation. What I can talk about is how much I appreciate how beautiful it was. Notice that the whole movie seemed like it was shot with a camera - the background sometimes being out of focus when it's the forefront that's clear, and vice versa. And the animation of Paris lights, while I doubt if truly reflective of real life, was always breathtaking. The animation of the food was life-like - from preparation to finish.

Music
It had none of the campy, sing-song music that children moviegoers will be singing for weeks. No "I like to move it, move it", or such. And I'm saying that's a good thing! The music raised the level of the movie dramatically - from kids movie, to a heartwarming story. I for one cannot remember any of the songs played in the movie, nor hum any of the melodies. But I will certainly like to have those songs in my music collection someday. They just seem to evoke the right mood, a mix of meaningful happiness and fulfilling activity.

X-Factor
For this movie, the X-Factor was the thought-provoking message of the movie. Not every kids' movie has one. And not every kids' movie that has one goes beyond the overused box of moral lessons. Be yourself. Dream, and make it happen. Overcome the odds. One against many. Courage of your convictions.

Ratatouille had -- anybody (not EVERYbody) can be somebody great. This is pretty subtle, and it took 2 days for the right meaning to sink in to me. Subtle. Unique. Beyond cliche. Concise.

Closure
I will end not with my own words, but in the words of Anton Ego, the critic-character in the film. The following dialogue is his words in the film, about his experience eating from Remy's creations:
"
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize that only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

I wish I could be coming to the defense of something unappreciated and unrecognized, new and brilliant, a work I see that has great value. Alas, this time, I come to the defense of all these things, except that Ratatouille is neither unappreciated or unrecognized. I join the ranks of many on this one.

Plot Synopsis:
Remy is a rat, constantly risking life in an expensive French restaurant because of his love of good food, as well as a desire to become a chef. Yet, obviously, this is a rather tough dream for a rat. But opportunity knocks when a young boy, who desperately needs to keep his job at the restaurant, despite his lack of cooking abilities, discovers and partners the young Remy. Its up to the two of them to avoid the insane head chef, bring the rest of Remy's family up to his standards, win his partner a girl, and, of course, produce the finest Ratatouille in all of France.



Sunday, February 25

Review: The Fountain (Movie, January 2007)

Three stars out of five.

"The Fountain" had potential to be a great movie. Only something got lost somewhere between the screenwriters' imagination and the movie-goers eyes. The movie's theme and message was very good. But the creative execution -- multiple timelines and flashbacks / flashforwards / multiple realities -- only gave rise to confusion. Instead of making a brilliant idea come alive, the movie's choice of storytelling made it much more ambiguous. The directing and acting we're just right, but not at all memorable. Here, the creative execution is again to blame. It forced you to focus more on figuring out what was happening, versus seeing how well the actors did justice to their written characters.

My advice - watch the movie, but lower your expectations. And don't worry if you can't make sense of the ending.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A brief summary of the movie follows. For those who have been 'spoiled' enough by what I said above, and still want to watch the film, don't read ahead. For everyone else, caveat emptor and read on.

The year is 2000 A.D. - the present. Tommy (Hugh Jackman) plays a medical scientist in search of a cure for brain tumor (a kind the movie does not delight in specifying). He has a personal stake in it, since his wife Izzie (Rachel Weisz) has been diagnosed and will eventually die from said brain tumor in the near future. He discovers a promising cure -- ingredients from some 'tree in South America'. Meanwhile, Izzie's condition worsens, and she is hospitalized. Despite his efforts, Tommy is unable to make a cure from his recent discovery. Beaten, he decides to spend time with Izzie in the hospital. She dies a few hours later, despite Tommy's protests against it. Fate and life chose to take spite on Tommy as well, because then his experiments give him the results he needed to save Izzie. Tormented by the powers that be, he goes back to his experiments. But now his new goal is to find a cure for death.

In her last days, Izzie writes a book -- The Fountain. Set in the time of the Spanish Inquisition, the book is about a conquistador (named Tomas) on a mission from the Queen of Spain (Queen Isabel). The mission: go to South America, among the Mayan country, and find the 'Tree of Life', beleived to give eternal life from drinking its tree sap. Before dying, she leaves Tommy with one last request - to finish writing the last chapter of her book. The book is the second story timeline of the movie.

The third, and most confusing story timeline, takes place in 2500 A.D. and in space. We see the same Tommy as we saw in 2000 A.D., but we are to infer he discovered the secret to eternal life. With him is a dying tree, who I beleive is Izzie (the tree having been planted on top of her grave, and in Mayan beliefs the tree is her re-created life). They journey towards a nebula wrapped around a dying star -- what Mayans beleive to be Shebalba. Shebalba is the underworld where death creates new life. Tommy is hoping to bring the tree and himself to Shebalba, both to be recreated.

As he journeys closer to the tree, he is tormented by Izzie's memory - reminding him to finish the last chapter of her book. He refuses, and clings to his hope of reaching Shebalba before the tree dies. And for the second time, Izzie (in the form of the tree) dies, before they could both reach Shebalba. Tommy's new grief along with Izzie's final request, convinces him to finish the book. He finishes the conquistador's story by letting Tomas find the Tree of Life and letting him drink from its sap. But in doing so, Tomas dies at the foot of the Tree of Life, with a hundred new flowers growing from his body. Tommy then realizes what he must do, as the pursuit of new life only begins with death. Tommy acts to push himself into the dying star, bringing about his own death.

In one final moment to confuse the movie-goer, the movie flashes back to a critical moment in 2000 A.D., when Tommy is about to begin the work that leads to his discovery (of the tree, of eternal life). Only this time instead of beginning his work, he abandons it to spend time with Izzie instead.

---
The idea behind the plot was inspired -- death as the beginning of creation. Not because death opens the door to eternal life (it may very well do, but that is not the point of the movie). But because death creates life. Not continues it (think "Constantine", "Sixth Sense", or "The Five People You Meet in Heaven"). But creates it.

Unfortunately, that message was lost in the movie's desperate attempt to both communicate a complex idea and to do it by using a non-linear timeline. Actually this approach has been done before (think "The Lakehouse"). The error here was in not explaining if and which of the time periods were real or not, and how the 'not so real' ones related to the 'real' ones. We do not know if the 1500 AD story (Tomas and Queen Isabel) were Tommy and Izzie's "previous lives", or were they simply Izzie's work of fiction that coincidentally symbolized what happened both in 2000 AD in their own lives. We are also puzzled in how real the 2500 AD story was -- with Tommy and a tree floating in space. Did he discover the secret to eternal life? If so, how did the tree survive 500 years as well? Did they leave Earth to pursue this nebula? Or did the Earth die, with both of them being the only survivors because of the secret of eternal life? The ending also compounded confusion -- since if he did not pursue his work on discovering the secret to eternal life, then the story taking place in 2500 AD would have been meaningless.

The Fountain aspired to be a movie with a deep meaning in a challenging creative execution. It fell short of its mark, and no points are awarded for simply just trying. Unmanaged complexity was its pitfall. You almost have to be Mayan to understand the better part of it.