Critical of Critics & A Review of Ratatouille

"We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and read." -Anton Ego, food critic in Ratatouille

I like to think that I am not nearly so harsh as the wonderfully named critic Anton Ego, but his words about negative review and the safety of being a critic did strike a cord within me. It is very fun to write a negative review of something. Somehow the sharp turns of phrase just come out better when being cruel than when praising a work. In the thinking critic this is tempered by the knowledge that those being criticized are real human beings with feelings doing their jobs. So too are critics doing a job, one I suspect is minimally paid until one reaches the very apex of the profession where it will be a mere comfortable living with the certain knowledge that the great hordes of the public, and amateurs like myself, think we could do a better job than they do and will stop paying the minute they stop producing.

That said I am vastly disappointed in the quality of the criticism of Ratatouille. Where are the well turned phrases? Or the insightful commentary about the stereotypical vampire critic, Anton Ego? If you did not like a movie it is license to let loose with every sort of criticism rather than a bunch of milquetoast, and I dare say, cowardly weasel phrases about this being "the worst Pixar film in a decade". I know some will take this the wrong way and say I am advocating being needlessly or pointlessly cruel, trust that I know the difference and move on.

First off these egoists need to learn that just because something has been done before does not mean that doing it again is automatically bad. It makes it predictable to someone who has seen those previous movies but not everyone has. In addition predictable is not in of itself bad in entertainment that does not entirely dependent upon The Twist or mystery to engage its audience. It would be the height of conceit to think that just because a play has been staged very successfully before it should never be done again because it won't compare with the golden memories of that great night you had in your youth, so to it is the province of self centered myopics to think that movies should not be remade or ideas used again. Criticize on the grounds that the new twist on the old formula does not work and give reasons or compare it to something similar.

To continue teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, which really should not be necessarily but manifestly is given the weak little synopses given by the likes of Jason Ferguson of the Orlando Weekly, a commentary on not knowing who the movie is aimed at or other box office punditry is not a review. That sort of stuff should be left to marketing executives in departments of movie distributors rather than reviewer who allegedly are writing to an audience of ordinary people.

Finally with a movie a synopsis is not the same thing as a review. This can as easily be aimed at the positive reviews of Ratatouille as the negative ones. Over and over I saw the same facts that seemed to be rejuggled bits from a press packet about the movie. I know original writing is hard, but if your biggest problem is that the movie is not original then the critic had better be saying something original himself or he's no better than the hypocrite politician who partakes of vice while publicly excoriating it.

This movie is not the sort that most audience members or critics will come out saying that it was one of greatest ever made. It has a simple premise using one of the oldest what-ifs in the cartoon book, "What if rats/mice/rodents are more clever than they are in real life." Of course in real life this is ridiculous. The trick is to so engage a majority of viewers in so that they'll only think about such logical questions after the movie is over. Under difficult conditions of many children, including a crying baby in the same theater who's parents utter lack of concern for their fellow humans make me fear for civilization, the movie succeeded admirably with this viewer.

After the first few turns I was so sucked in that I only felt what the filmmaker intended, fearing for the life of the little gourmet, Remy. And now I must include another digression aimed at far too many other critics, gourmand is emphatically not the same thing as gourmet, buy a dictionary you illiterate word slingers, and back to the review. I saw only with the eyes of a child as I feared for his small life in a very big world full of dangerous things. It was so visually perfect that the artistry of the digital animation disappeared into the background completely. The makers of live action films should take note of this and learn that visual wizardry should not stand out, it is distracting from the story.

It is a movie in the tradition of Tom and Jerry cartoons or The Pink Panther. A lot of wacky and impossible things happen surrounded by an ordinary background. There is also a fair amount of physical comedy and pratfalls. But there is a lot of dialog between the rats or between the humans. I think this movie is most appropriate for children older than about age seven.

And Anton Ego is a wonderful and principled critic who is not merely a voice for hurt artists, but a fully formed and humble person who is aware that he is playing a role. I give this movie high praise (for me) in that I want to go see it again, preferably with a plan of eating a fine meal immediately afterwards.