![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rattus Norvegicus
Jan. 15th, 2008 10:35 amRatatouille (2007), Brad Bird. Jan 13, 7:00pm. View count: One.
This was pretty enjoyable. I of course loved the rats (save perhaps the protagonist, who was a total visual sellout) and as everyone in the world has said, the quality of light, environments, and food are beautiful. The wet rat fur was excellent (albeit on our poor-side-of-mediocre television), too. The exaggerated, caricatured humans are definitely still the correct choice. They're so individually distinct and executed in such fun ways (see especially the Nosferatu-ish Peter O'Toole character, who was just beautifully handled).
It did feel a bit misaligned storywise, as if the transition to Brad Bird was not smooth, which wouldn't be surprising at all. A few scenes felt aimless, like weird vestigial leftovers from a larger scene that was axed. And I had a problem with the protagonist not only in regards to character design but in ability. His challenge was only to be taken seriously in the world of humans (possibly while also keeping his family liking him), nothing more. He never had to work at anything in regards to his craft, it was all just there. Maybe it's just me, but the Raw Talent Conquers All character trait is a scratchy and rash-causing one. It's impossible to identify with, for one thing, except in the most sickening 'if only everyone knew how awesome I really was, I could be beloved by all too!' way. Eugh.
I also think that the protagonist's design was so de-ratted that he was barely recognisable as one, except for in some motions and an occasional underneath shot that showed his incisors. This set up something of a disconnect between him and his brethren, who for me embodied a reasonable balance of 'cute box-office animal' and 'rat'. They looked like the concept people had fun with them, whereas protagonist looked like a by-committee affair. I guess people... don't like rats much. Har.
I found myself put in mind of muppets a lot, which is both good and bad. Good in the sense that tech and 'puppeteering' have progressed to the point where facial skin looks like a believable deformable surface and motion looks like a human could have produced it, but bad in the sense that can't Pixar do better than flat plastic eyes? Arguably the puppet angle is the best way to make a movie about rats palatable to people who don't much enjoy real ones, but can deal with a cloth abstraction. We're already familiar with the muppet concept, and all kinds of weird things are acceptable within it. So maybe it was more intentional than one would think.
This was pretty enjoyable. I of course loved the rats (save perhaps the protagonist, who was a total visual sellout) and as everyone in the world has said, the quality of light, environments, and food are beautiful. The wet rat fur was excellent (albeit on our poor-side-of-mediocre television), too. The exaggerated, caricatured humans are definitely still the correct choice. They're so individually distinct and executed in such fun ways (see especially the Nosferatu-ish Peter O'Toole character, who was just beautifully handled).
It did feel a bit misaligned storywise, as if the transition to Brad Bird was not smooth, which wouldn't be surprising at all. A few scenes felt aimless, like weird vestigial leftovers from a larger scene that was axed. And I had a problem with the protagonist not only in regards to character design but in ability. His challenge was only to be taken seriously in the world of humans (possibly while also keeping his family liking him), nothing more. He never had to work at anything in regards to his craft, it was all just there. Maybe it's just me, but the Raw Talent Conquers All character trait is a scratchy and rash-causing one. It's impossible to identify with, for one thing, except in the most sickening 'if only everyone knew how awesome I really was, I could be beloved by all too!' way. Eugh.
I also think that the protagonist's design was so de-ratted that he was barely recognisable as one, except for in some motions and an occasional underneath shot that showed his incisors. This set up something of a disconnect between him and his brethren, who for me embodied a reasonable balance of 'cute box-office animal' and 'rat'. They looked like the concept people had fun with them, whereas protagonist looked like a by-committee affair. I guess people... don't like rats much. Har.
I found myself put in mind of muppets a lot, which is both good and bad. Good in the sense that tech and 'puppeteering' have progressed to the point where facial skin looks like a believable deformable surface and motion looks like a human could have produced it, but bad in the sense that can't Pixar do better than flat plastic eyes? Arguably the puppet angle is the best way to make a movie about rats palatable to people who don't much enjoy real ones, but can deal with a cloth abstraction. We're already familiar with the muppet concept, and all kinds of weird things are acceptable within it. So maybe it was more intentional than one would think.
