![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alobearI realised recently that my reviews have been getting shorter, less interesting, and severely lacking in any kind of insight. I think this is partly because I've been really busy, and the lack of time combined with my rule of reviewing absolutely everything new I read or watch has encouraged me to become lazy. However, I think it's also partly because I've started avoiding putting spoilers in my reviews, which makes is harder to find detailed things to say in them.
So, warning to those on Bloglines - here there be spoilers!
So, warning to those on Bloglines - here there be spoilers!
Our first attempt to watch Ratatouille in Finchley last Sunday failed because it was sold out when we arrived, but rapid booking of tickets for a showing in Enfield meant we only had to wait three hours to see the film.
I really enjoyed it. Having read various articles about computer animation over the years, I have enough knowledge to appreciate just how amazing the animation in Ratatouille is. The water, in particular, when Remy is washed down the sewer, has come along in leaps and bounds since the technique was first tried. Dave swears he heard a disembodied voice cry, "Gollum!" as the rat was swept down the sewer tunnel, which is very cool. I think the best animation sequence, though, was the rat's-eye-view when Remy is scurrying around the kitchen, being chased by the cooks - it was an incredible roller-coaster ride of excitement - excellently done.
My main concern about the film was the interaction between the humans and the animals. Normally, in Pixar movies, there are animals, toys or other creatures (eg cars) that talk and act in a way very different from real life. However, the internal consistency of the world within the film means that this isn't a problem - once you suspend disbelief for the initial premise, the rest follows along completely naturally. However, these abnormal creatures don't normally interact with "real world" humans in the film (apart from very occasional exceptions such as a moment towards the end of Toy Story). Ratatouille is different, in that whole groups of humans find out about the abnormal behaviour of the rats, and I was worried that this would break the internal logic and make it difficult to accept the story. Not so - the interaction is dealt with brilliantly, and the whole thing works very well.
Whilst the idea that a rat sitting on a person's head would be able to control the person's body by pulling on his hair is utterly ridiculous, it did make for some very funny moments. This was particularly the case when Remy caused Linguini to slap himself in the face - as Dave does this to himself quite a lot and it made me think he must have a rat secreted somewhere about his person for just such occasions.
The story was ingenious, the attention to detail incredible, the dialouge frequently very funny, and the overall feel of the film just darn good fun. When it got to the part where Linguini was revealed as Gusteau's son and he took over the restaurant, I found myself thinking that the film had been far too short and that the conclusion was very weak - then it went on for another half an hour in a totally new direction and ended somewhere completely unexpected! I absolutely loved the way they impressed the evil food critic by giving him something that would remind him of his childhood and break him out of this bitter, superior shell - wonderful stuff.
All in all - great movie!
I really enjoyed it. Having read various articles about computer animation over the years, I have enough knowledge to appreciate just how amazing the animation in Ratatouille is. The water, in particular, when Remy is washed down the sewer, has come along in leaps and bounds since the technique was first tried. Dave swears he heard a disembodied voice cry, "Gollum!" as the rat was swept down the sewer tunnel, which is very cool. I think the best animation sequence, though, was the rat's-eye-view when Remy is scurrying around the kitchen, being chased by the cooks - it was an incredible roller-coaster ride of excitement - excellently done.
My main concern about the film was the interaction between the humans and the animals. Normally, in Pixar movies, there are animals, toys or other creatures (eg cars) that talk and act in a way very different from real life. However, the internal consistency of the world within the film means that this isn't a problem - once you suspend disbelief for the initial premise, the rest follows along completely naturally. However, these abnormal creatures don't normally interact with "real world" humans in the film (apart from very occasional exceptions such as a moment towards the end of Toy Story). Ratatouille is different, in that whole groups of humans find out about the abnormal behaviour of the rats, and I was worried that this would break the internal logic and make it difficult to accept the story. Not so - the interaction is dealt with brilliantly, and the whole thing works very well.
Whilst the idea that a rat sitting on a person's head would be able to control the person's body by pulling on his hair is utterly ridiculous, it did make for some very funny moments. This was particularly the case when Remy caused Linguini to slap himself in the face - as Dave does this to himself quite a lot and it made me think he must have a rat secreted somewhere about his person for just such occasions.
The story was ingenious, the attention to detail incredible, the dialouge frequently very funny, and the overall feel of the film just darn good fun. When it got to the part where Linguini was revealed as Gusteau's son and he took over the restaurant, I found myself thinking that the film had been far too short and that the conclusion was very weak - then it went on for another half an hour in a totally new direction and ended somewhere completely unexpected! I absolutely loved the way they impressed the evil food critic by giving him something that would remind him of his childhood and break him out of this bitter, superior shell - wonderful stuff.
All in all - great movie!
On Tuesday, Dave and I had tickets to see the Shaolin Kung Fu Masters at the Peacock Theatre in Holborn. The evening started badly with a restaurant failing to serve us for 40 minutes and then getting Dave's order wrong. Then, I couldn't find the theatre and we ended up running up and down Kingsway in vain, finally arriving five minutes after the show had started. They made us wait a few more minutes before they would let us in, but in the end we didn't miss much.
What I would say about the show was that it was all incredibly impressive - it just wasn't all that interesting. It was made up of lots of different displays by different members of the company - they would come on, do their thing for a few minutes and then go off again, to be replaced by another set with a different display. They demonstrated different fighting styles, different weapons, some contortionism, and several rather unpleasant feats of endurance that involved walking on sharp objects or having things broken over their heads.
They were all excellent at what they did (though Dave was disappointed by their lack of synchronicity when they were doing things in groups), but I missed there being a narrative to pull it all together.
The things I liked best were the animal forms - monkey, frog, eagle, snake - as they had a sense of character to them, but the rest of it was just a little monotonous.
What I would say about the show was that it was all incredibly impressive - it just wasn't all that interesting. It was made up of lots of different displays by different members of the company - they would come on, do their thing for a few minutes and then go off again, to be replaced by another set with a different display. They demonstrated different fighting styles, different weapons, some contortionism, and several rather unpleasant feats of endurance that involved walking on sharp objects or having things broken over their heads.
They were all excellent at what they did (though Dave was disappointed by their lack of synchronicity when they were doing things in groups), but I missed there being a narrative to pull it all together.
The things I liked best were the animal forms - monkey, frog, eagle, snake - as they had a sense of character to them, but the rest of it was just a little monotonous.
Yesterday, we went to see Stardust at the Trafford Centre. Before I continue with the review, I would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it - the story was interesting, the cast were excellent, it was entertaining and amusing and generally good fun. Plus, siroswold will be glad to know that it contains lots of absolutely gorgeous horses.
However, since coming out the cinema, I have started to pick holes in it. The opening was bizarre and unsettling - it leaped straight into the prologue very abruptly, in a way that made me think we'd missed the first ten minutes of the film. This might have been because I knew the story already and I was confused about which part of it was being shown - I thought it had started with the main character crossing the wall before all the build-up as to why he was doing it, when it turned out it was actually his father and we were being shown the background before the main story started.
Bits of the plot and acting seemed a little stilted - I thought Ricky Gervais in particular was rubbish and could have done quite happily without him altogether. Also, for a PG film, there was an awful lot of killing - mainly of characters we'd had a chance to get to know at least a little, and the almost total lack of reaction from those present during the violence was a little disturbing. Several aspects of the plot made little sense, particularly when people conveniently arrived where the plot needed them to be wihout them having a decent excuse for knowing how to get there. Towards the end, the vast number of different bad guys and peripheral characters converging in one place made the climax a bit overlong, the final destruction of Michelle Pfeiffer's witch was pure deus ex machina, and the sudden resolution of the succession subplot by making Tristan king was utterly ridiculous.
That said, I still really enjoyed it!
However, since coming out the cinema, I have started to pick holes in it. The opening was bizarre and unsettling - it leaped straight into the prologue very abruptly, in a way that made me think we'd missed the first ten minutes of the film. This might have been because I knew the story already and I was confused about which part of it was being shown - I thought it had started with the main character crossing the wall before all the build-up as to why he was doing it, when it turned out it was actually his father and we were being shown the background before the main story started.
Bits of the plot and acting seemed a little stilted - I thought Ricky Gervais in particular was rubbish and could have done quite happily without him altogether. Also, for a PG film, there was an awful lot of killing - mainly of characters we'd had a chance to get to know at least a little, and the almost total lack of reaction from those present during the violence was a little disturbing. Several aspects of the plot made little sense, particularly when people conveniently arrived where the plot needed them to be wihout them having a decent excuse for knowing how to get there. Towards the end, the vast number of different bad guys and peripheral characters converging in one place made the climax a bit overlong, the final destruction of Michelle Pfeiffer's witch was pure deus ex machina, and the sudden resolution of the succession subplot by making Tristan king was utterly ridiculous.
That said, I still really enjoyed it!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-21 10:23 pm (UTC)> the sudden resolution of the succession subplot by making Tristan king was
> utterly ridiculous.
You didn't see that coming as soon as the girl in the market at the start said "I'm a princess"?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 08:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-22 08:56 am (UTC)