Ratatouille
 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/ratatouille/

For those of you who haven't seen Cars yet, here's the trailer that will (most likely) be playing before the show; Disney/Pixar's new film, Ratatouille. (Pronounced Ra•ta•too•wee•yuh, as my girlfriend was so kind to point out.) Cars has been getting a lot of disappointing reviews, especially for a Pixar film, so hopefully this will get Pixar back into gear (no pun intended.). This movie honestly looks like it has a ton of potential, and the snippet of Paris they show in the beginning was absolutely stunning.

The same director who did The Incredibles is at the helm of this one, so it's bound to be extremely entertaining. This could be the next Pixar classic. They haven't listed the cast yet, but doesn't the main character sound a little like Michael J. Fox?

The animation was looking pretty good until they showed the rat. It seems a bit too cartoony.

The "-ouille" words were always my favorite. I disagree with your petite amie though. The correct pronunciation of "-ouille" is either oo'ee or oo'yuh.

Seeing the main character scamper through the door with a cadre of knives in his wake reminded me of The Little Mermaid and Sebastian evading Jacques' flurry (fury?).

Looks like it could be good.

(That doesn't sound much like Michael J. Fox. But, can't put my finger on who it could be.)

Yep. More oo'(yuh) than the other (the 'yuh' is implicit), though. Oo'ee is like for "bouilli" (boiled).
Funny title. It's the name of a vegetable dish, it was the nightmare of children everywhere. At least it was when I was little...

The animation looks fantastic in this trailer. Yeah, the models of the rats look slightly out of place in such a realistic environment, but I think it'll be really funny. Really the key to a great animated movie like this is the story, and Pixar usually does a great job hiring good writers. It's just too bad that Joe Ranft died. Hopefully Brad Bird will do well at the directing helm for this one.

I just got back from seeing Cars and I really don't understand the poor reviews. It was very predictable, but still a great flick. The voice acting was top notch. The entire time I found myself breaking down the procedural textures of the cars in my head. The tributes to the other Pixar movies at the end was priceless.

All Pixar movies are good, imo. Then again, I haven't caught the last two, yet. Oh well. I plan on seeing Cars very soon, and plan on enjoying it.

I hated the Incredibles and Pixar has killed the Disney cartoon for me.

I'm sure we all oohed and ahhed when Toy Story dueted but no Pixar movie comes close to the hand drawn classics (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, etc). CGI doesn't really hold a candle to hand painted. At least for me.

Little Nemo certainly holds up to those classics. And how can you hate the Incredibles? That was certainly Pixar's finest hour.

This movie looks interesting. I was digging the hand animation of the waiter. They are certainly nailing down the subtlties of our hands. I have faith in Brad Bird considering he has directed two fantastic movies and has a legacy on a television series, I'm sure he'll do fine here.

The voice sounded a bit like Billy Crystal or Nathan Lane. I still dislike celebrities as voice actors.

Are you saying that hand drawn animation has to be better cause its hand drawn?

It seems like an argument between 2D and 3D than actual comparison between a good movie and a bad movie, The Incredibles was a perfect combo of a super hero flick and a sitcom family movie, and it was original material as well, while Little Mermaid are classics yes, they are still adapdations. And they certainly are classics just cause of the animation, there's other elements that make a good movie, not just by what tools they used to make it, be it pencil or computer.

God I hate it when people judge a game or movie by the way it looks then the actual movie itself. And just cause Disney is more famous doesn't mean all their movies are the best in the animation departement. They certainly haven't done much in the late 90's and early 2000's, instead of relying on Pixar to keep afloat.

imho disney's 2d movies recently have taken a nose dive.
pixar is disney's only saving face now.

i also don't think that any of pixar's movies could overtake classics like the lion king or beauty and the beast. but they're incredibly enjoyable. no doubt ratatouille will be another smash hit. i'm already droooling.

Look I never said I hated Pixar because they're doing CGI. The Incredibles had a really awful script, I didn't even care that it was rendered beautifully. What Pixar is doing and what Disney did (hand-drawn) are two different and distinct styles, it's an entirely subjective preference and I just like the style of hand-drawn better. That doesn't mean I won't recognize when a movie is complete shit, Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch were hand drawn and I didn't dig either. I really enjoyed Shrek and that's CGI.

Personally I just don't believe there's been an excellent Disney movie, story and style, since the Lion King. Disney pre-Pixar had a certain charm to it. This might be blinding nostalgia talking about if you watch the movies from that time period (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) and the movies nowadays, there's just a difference in the style and sentiment about it. It's hard to pinpoint but I believe the stories effect you a different way, even if the actual plot is old and unoriginal, the way they tell it is what's so magical about it.

I just regard Pixar as the shift in focus for Disney to sort of abandon the dream of Walt Disney in favor of what they're doing now. And that spurned the sort of industry wide adoption of CGI as the norm and dumping of hand-drawn, which I thought was unfair when you really can have these two artforms co-existing together.

I agree with kat.

I've been disappointed with Pixar's movies of late, and I still say Toy Story was the studio's best movie.

I also feel that Disney's earlier movies (TLK era if you wanna call it that) are better than the stuff studios are making now. I do prefer hand-drawn art to CGI, but like kat, if the movie itself is good, it doesn't matter what medium was used to make it. As an example, I love Toy Story and despise Home on the Range. I just wish CGI and classical animation can co-exist side by side, but the studios think nobody wants to see hand-drawn art anymore, so they've bloody ditched the whole thing.

I predict 2D animation will make a comeback some day. CGI is just the 'in' thing right now, so everyone's going to be making more of these things for the time being.

I understand your point, however I don't see why blame on Pixar that other coporates believe that CG is the "In" thing. Toy Story not only succeeds as a CGI ground breaking in technological achievements, but it also had a good story, and Toy Story 2 had an even better deeper story. ( Woody making a decision on whether he lives forever as a classic toy in a museum or go back to Andy for a limited happy life was to me, very powerful and deeper than any Disney movie I've seen.)

I must ask though what aspect of the Increcibles was bad? I can relate to the characters in the family cause, well, like I said, its a sitcom family show with a mixture of Super Hero flicks. It was funny, had good action sequences, had characters that are likeable and have development, and has heart.Just cause you don't like their style doesn't make it a bad film.

Cars perhaps for me was the weakest movie from them, but it was still much more enjoyable than Superman returns and X3. And I'll be very surprised if you said Finding Nemo wasn't good. It was emotional, had a story most families can relate (since its drawn from the Directors experience) and as a bonus it was beautiful to watch.

People need to realise that Pixar is Pixar,a seperate animation studios. Just cause they are contracted to Disney doesn't mean they're gonna do the same style as them.(Its like saying Square Enix will start tampering each others franchises just cause they merged) Their movies are popular for reasons beyond the CG factor, and 2D has gone down only cause Disney hasn't made a hit in recent times. When others like Miyazaki is still making good films in 2D animation. The coporates just don't realise that there's more to the Pixar movies than the CG, so they churn out CG crap flicks just to cheat the kiddies money, cause most kids don't know a good movie from another. Blame coporates for being greedy morons yet again, not the creative minds that decided to move on to a new form of animation.

I mean, I always loved the fairy tale adaptations from Disney, but Pixar is far more creative, since they conjure up original stories through everyday enviroments. A world in a toy's perspective, Bugs, fish, superheroes, cars. They somehow take these ideas and incoprate a appropriate story that can work in thise specific worlds, like how Nemo works in the ocean cause its a large, beautiful but also scary place that anyone can get lost in. It fits with the story of Marlin being paranoid about this world. And I love how the director put his own story on how he was being over protective to his son to the final film. I like persona touches like that.

I love both Disney movies (the classics) and Pixar movies (all of them thus far), I just hope that Ratatouille will be as good as what they did so far. I was a Pixar skeptic before I saw Toy Story, after I saw it along with their other movies, I loved them, despite being different from the Disney movies.

Also, 2D is making a comback, thanks to the new CEO of Disney. Please realise that is because of Eisner that Disney is going CG crap before, NOT Pixar's fault. Don't blame on creativity, blame on the coporate stupidity that is Micheal Eisner.

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/1954/awayck2.jpg
Hey look, it's Flushed Away, another CG rat movie coming out soon.

What's with CG kids movies always competing against each other in the same genres?

Just cause they have rats in both movies, doesn't mean they're the same stories, movies or styles. For one thing Ardman Studios is contributing to the movie Flushe Away (hence similar character designs), so its more Wallace and Gromit style, and it takes place in England and the movie is British, not American. The only thing thats changed is that is CG instead of Clay. And by gods Wallace and Gromit is a totally different style compare to Pixar or Dreamworks movies.

If Lion King-caliber movies are all you're interested in, you'll be sorely disappointed quite often. Hercules and Mulan both came out after The Lion King and are both incredibly enjoyable. Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch were also very good.

It really has nothing to do with Pixar. What would you have Disney do? They lost a pot full of money on movies like Atlantis and Brother Bear. Consider that Atlantis cost 20 million more to make than Cars and that it was made 5 years earlier. And Cars already has made nearly 3 times as much. It's not Pixar who ruined Disney, it is sheer incompetence. If Disney wanted to make animated movies, if they made some good ones, people would see them.

You can say that Disney should be making better stuff, but if you remember, pre-Little Mermaid, Disney was dry as shit. They had a run with 4 of the best animated movies ever (Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King), but almost no one could tell you the animated movie they put out before Little Mermaid (Oliver and Company) nor the one that came out before that (The Black Cauldron, way back in 1985).

You're putting a company up on a pedastal who in, what, 30 years, has had 4 excellent movies and 4-5 very good movies.

You got to stop claiming I hate movies just because of their style. I didn't like the Incredibles because of the super cheesy script, disgustingly predictable plot and whiny, annoying characters. Sure it was a feel-good sunny super-family comedy and I'm sure a bunch of kids and adults loved it, but I wasn't one of them and nothing you can say can change that.

Whether we think a movie (Pixar/Disney or otherwise) is superior than another is our own opnion and I doubt we can change either of our minds about it. You think Pixar is really inventive and imaginative, and I would beg to differ. More resources and capital are being put into, not only Pixar the company, but into technology as a whole so I (note on the word I) feel that there's a decrease in simple, effective storytelling and more WHOA LOOK AT THAT HOW COOL GIANT TURTLE HAHA HE JUST GOT FLUSHED IN A TOILET POTTY HUMOR FART. It's a quick shallow comedic fix for the kids watching without the emotional depth that the older films had.

To be honest, I don't even hate Pixar as much as this thread believes, it's not like I want to go and burn their studios down. I recognize that what's happening in this genre (whatever you want to call it, kid's movies, Disney movies, whatever) was inevitable with the advent of technology, shift of focus in Disney as a company, etc. So I don't fault Pixar necessarily for what has happened beyond their control but they are the company are sparked the flame as well as took the content to a whole other direction. I just don't think their movies are as good as Disney once was, that's what I think and there's no way around that. Their movies, to me, are Hollywood movies, nothing more and nothing less.

Yeah well, maybe in the end I just need more singing. Not nearly enough singing in Pixar films.

zomg she thinks all films without singing interludes are awful. defensive verbal diarrhea

I forgot about Hercules and Mulan but I enjoyed those, as well as Oliver and Company and the The Black Cauldron, so again, something subjective. I also liked Robin Hood, The Aristocats, The Rescuers and The Sword In The Stone. I really enjoyed Pocahontas when a lot hated it. Plus Disney pre-Pixar, put out (what I regard) as their best work, Cinderella, Bambi, Dumbo, Fantasia, Snow White, Lady and the Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, I just don't believe Pixar's work comes even close to what these movies were in their time and now.

I wonder in 50 years, if people are still going to watching Cars. I'm sure when I ask most kids these days what the characters were in Monster's Inc or a detailed account of the story, they'd be really hard press to say. For me, Disney cartoons were movies I'd watch 50, 100 times and never get sick of them. I saw Finding Nemo once and didn't really feel possessed to watch it a second time.

Then its all a matter of opinion in the end.

Though why anyone would enjoy The Black Cauldron more than the Pixar movies is beyond me. I fail to see how you didn't see emotional depth in Toy Story 2 (choosing between immortality but alone forever, or live a short but happy life with the person you care about, and god Jessi's flashback has got to bring some tears) or Finding Nemo (When Marlin is distraught that he may never see his son again, several times on the movie I might add). If you wanna talk about movies that uses shallow humour and cheap puns and lack emotional depth, look at Shark Tale instead. Now THAT was a popcorn Hollywood movie.

And if Pixar doesn't spark the flame of the CG movies, someone else would have anyway, like PDI dreamworks who have been creating CG animation for along while themselves, like creating the 3D Homer segement in one of the treehouse of horror episodes. And others jumping the band wagon are moron coporal jackasses that wanna conform since if you conform in a trend, you get money, and that has nothing to do with Pixar, they just want to make good movies, thats all they care about, it was DISNEY's idea to make it a big thing and it was Eisner who actually believe that 2D is dead and fired all the Disney animators.

The majority people regonise Pixar as a company that cares alot of its stories and not just the technology. They also care about their colleagues and pay tribute to those who have passed on, unlike Disney corp that fired all its 2D animators, the same ones who did Lion King and the classics we love. The late Disney movies are crap cause they no longer care about the stories, and believe that as long as Disney is slapped on it as a label, it has to be good. I just hope that Bob Iger can get things right again, cause I too love the Lion King, Little Mermaid and all the old classics myself. It was never about Pixar being better, its about Disney declining in quality management. I"m a Disney fan myself, and it hurt me to see how low they have sunk and relying on Pixar to gain profits.

And by comparison I still think Pixar is more creative just on the sole fact that they have not done an adaptation thus far, instead creating stories drawn from their own experience,(Brad Bird puts his own family situations in the Incredibles, Andrew Stanton coming up with Nemo cause he was acting like Marlin towards his son) and thus make things more three dimensional. But I guess you like the more fantasy like stories in the fairy tales Disney adapts, and so do I, but I love Pixar's works for different reasons, and I prefer to not compare them as they do things differently.

Don't understand this, whats so wrong about a giant turtle, and no one laughed at the flush toilet scene, no one will, unless you're the type that thinks about toilet humour all the time. That is not a cheap humour, thats called PLOT DEVICE! Thats his escape route! Not to mention he didn't go down the toilet in the end, he went down the dental little sink. I don't think you really get these movies at all if thats all you can refer to as "cheap humour", when its not even humour in the first place. Ok, so there was a fart joke, it suddently makes it some cheap low humour flick cause Disney movies are so classy they didnt use any fart jokes? One fart joke doesn't undermine the rest of the emotional depth and core story of the movies, which in Nemo's case is a father coming to terms on how he should be with his son.

It was a matter of opinion in the beginning. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I'm just curious about the reasonings behind your opinions thats all. Personally I compare Pixar movies to Live action than other animated features, cause the story lines can be somewhat used in a number of Live actions movies, especially Cars. Thats probably why I love their movies despite the fact they feel nothing like the Disney classics.

Still looking forward to Ratatouille, to stay on topic. Must say that graphical wise, from the teaser, they are getting better an better, the food in the teaser looked very real and edible, without being photo realistic, I love the mixture between fantasy and reality in details like that.

But not before you get to insult the credibility of anyone who disagrees with you, right?

You can read my posts over, I think I've covered my bases pretty well but basically I just don't enjoy the plot lines and characters in most of their movies. Like I said, I really believe Pixar generates "Hollywood" films that are more quick fixes than a pieces of art that can survive the long term.

Toy Story is probably their best and I liked Monster's Inc. when I watched it but I just don't regard these films as "great".

Also I hope this isn't an offensive question but I was just wondering if English is your first language. I see you're from Hong Kong.

WHAT.

English is my second language, but I went to international school which teaches everything in English by teachers from English speaking worlds, mine was Australian. I'm from Hong Kong, but I've just move to LA for college.

I find Pixar's work more genuine than some other movies, like Shark Tale, now that has Hollywood written all over it! I find Pixars work charming cause of the story. Hell if Nemo or the Incredibles was performed by Sock puppets I still enjoy it. (Inceidently thats a easter egg in the Incredibles DVD.)

And I'm pretty sure Toy Story will always be a classic now. Not sure about the other movies, but they all retain a certain level of quality, Cars being the lowest but was still better than other summr movies like X3.

It is silly to say that is Disney's body of work "pre-Pixar". I mean, they had a good 40-55 years after most of that stuff came out before Pixar came along.

I'm not taking issue with your opinion of Pixar movies, and it's not really much of an issue because a brief look at Rotten Tomatoes puts you squarely in the minority. But to blame Pixar for Disney's lack of 2D animated success is ridiculous. Had there not been 3D animation, Disney's animation studio would still likely be falling apart.

how do i get to that easter egg? i'm interested.

Anyone else get a chance to catch Bird's latest? Not only was it visual eye-poppery (the fur and textures are grade-A renders), its affirmation that morality and choice supercede any sort of inate programming is a return to themes explored in Bird's own The Iron Giant. Coupled with familial issues tackled before in his Incredibles picture, this light-hearted picture carries formidable maturity and gravitas.

Did I also mention it's damned funny? Bird's eye and ear for humor is seriously wicked, finding comic moments in dialogue, but even more formidable, in characters' actions/motion within the frame. Many segments resemble silent films, and Giacchino's music splendidly enhances.The critic character Anton Ego may look like he walked out of Tim Burton's sketch book but his ending revelation is a moment of great beauty.

This is the animated stuff our kids should be seeing (teens + adults too, no doubt); not unwatchable, demoralizing shit like Happily N'ever After, Shrek 3, so it goes.

Oh THANK GOD this movie kept up the quality with the previous Pixar movies! I was so worried that one day the crappiness from other cartoons, and the sinking of Shrek will one day infect Pixar as well, the only CG company who is actually making good animated movies. Thank god its not gonna happen from the looks of it.

I'm gonna go see this ASAP Room!

Oh wait, Australia's release date is AUGUST 30th! WTF?! I hate it when Pixar movies do that, it just encourages me to download the damn thing cause I dun wanna wait or get spoiled!

Nor can I watch it earlier if I visit my parents in Hong Kong, same release date!

DAMMIT!

Why is it so hard for movies and TV shows to get released in the same MONTH?! Hong Kong has some retarted marketting scheme for their X mas movies cause they believe Chinese New Year in Feb makes better profit for kids movies than December! But what does the rest of the world have as an excuse? Its just ONE of major the reasons why people download!

(I miss LA already....)

I have heard a LOT about this movie even before it was released in theaters. This seems a lot better than the regular ol' pixar commercial-fest. Its also nice to hear that Giacchino is making the musical rounds in the film.

I hope to check it out soon.

An excellent film. Pixar never fails to impress and, as far as the story goes, this is probably the best film Pixar has done yet.

I enjoyed it but I do think it was a little on the long side. There was a 20-minute period about 2/3 of the way through where I was fighting boredom (just a little), but other than that, and the fact that somehow the characters weren't quite as lovable as the Toy Story, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles gangs, it was good.

It was a fun movie to watch, in all honesty :3: The effects/details were jaw-dropping, but it didn't strike me as being as funny as, say, Cars. The groups that made them differ a bit, and this one (that made The Incredibles) focuses more on story and plot, whereas the Cars & Toy Story group seemed to attempt humor much more often.

I laughed a lot in the film, but there were long stretches where nothing really funny actually *happened*. Still, very worth the price of admission.

The short at the start is dynamite <3 I loved it so much. Unfortunately, it wasn't loaded with extras, puns, or many references (loved the Boyardi(sp?) reference).

Pixar reached "Deity Divine" status in my brain when the Finding Nemo was released, and Ratatouille (thank god) preserves this status still.

I thought that I was going to be disappointed in it and I was a little apprehensive about seeing it, but it is more than capable of living up to the hype and the legacy that Pixar has created with The Incredibles, Toy Story and etc. It is extremely entertaining, and well animated, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. You should go see it!

I found the CGI to be a bit inconsistent...my jaw literally dropped on more than one occasion, but there were other times when I wondered if they weren't paying their interns enough.

Story was good. Characters and dialog seemed like standard Brad Bird fare (take that as you may). Had a healthy dose of both verbal and physical humor, too...I still chuckle while remembering some of the scenes.

The score was excellent. Hope the soundtrack is released soon.

I think one thing that was particularly of interest to me was the association of taste with sight and sound...I'd never looked at food in quite that way. Makes me wonder if maybe they consulted with an actual synesthesiac for those sequences.

eheheh. I thought Finding Nemo was much much better than this movie (not to say I didn't enjoy it). Of course, the quality of Pixar movies still astounds me, but I feel that this movie lacked the greatness and warmth i felt from Finding Nemo. I really liked the beginning short though. Anyone know where I might be able to score a digital copy of it?

It's always special when a film is so good that you can't even keep track of all the things you love about it. Ratatouille is that film. Terrific pacing - by the time the credits are rolling, it feels like it's been about a half hour. As expected, brilliant animation, lovable characters and a few moments that almost made me vocalize my endearment:



I think I still liked Knocked Up a little more, but Ratatouille was outstanding in pretty much every way.

I just saw this yesterday, and I think everyone saying this is Pixar's best has totally lost it. They get worse every film. I genuinely like Toy Story, but now I'm just bored by their new films. Every film they do has pretty much the same plot; it gets a little tedious.

I don't think Ratatouille was Pixar's best movie, but it certainly was better than Cars. It's true: how do you top classics like Toy Story/Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo? It's not just that those are animated classics, they are classic movies over all of Hollywood. I'll never go into a Pixar movie expecting those to be topped, but I enjoyed yet another movie which is all I can really ask.

Ratatouille will still end up as one of the best movies of 2007. In that sense, Pixar returned to their previous status of elite film-making (Cars being the only real sore spot). Brad Bird isn't my favorite, I like the other Pixar movies better than Ratatouille and The Incredibles, but they are still superb. And next year's movie goes back to Toy Story + Bug's Life + Monster's Inc.

Seriously: find even one studio with Pixar's rate of success and rate of quality. There isn't a single company there today.

Finally the movie is out in Australia. Just saw it a few hours ago and it was great. While I do agree with some of you as that its hard to compare to their older classics and feels a bit inferior, it was still an excellant film. To me it did feel bit better than Cars, which is also my sore spot in their works so far, (though still a great movie on its own right.)

And goddamit after watching it, I was craving for some french food... Damn those great effects that made the food look so good and realistic.

The film was funny, had great character moments, and was just solid throughout. Pixar continues to show they have near consistent quality, and that they only compete among themselves in quality thus far. Can't wait to get the DVD to add to my collection.

I've seen it. IMO it is entertaining, although it is rather slow for a cartoon. I don't know why, but this movie makes a good proof that the city of Paris creates a certain atmosphere in movies.