Gnomeo and Juliet: A Movie Review

Who could forget the story of Romeo and Juliet? Anyone who had this story overanalyzed in their high school literature class will remember the tragic events leading to the deaths of both young lovers. Here we have a retelling with a happy ending. The other major difference is that the characters are played by garden gnomes.

With very little prologue, the audience is taken to the front yards of the Capulets and Montagues. The owners of the houses hurl insults at each other as they leave for work. Once they are gone, the garden gnomes come to life, revealing the materialistic and antagonistic tendencies they have inherited from their owners. The Blues (Montague) and the Reds (Capulet) are obsessed with outdoing the other’s gardens.

While on a mission to obtain a beautiful flower from the top of a greenhouse for her family’s garden, Juliet Capulet meets with Gnomeo Montague. He is on a revenge mission and they are both in disguise. It is love at first sight, and they play-fight over the flower until their disguises are removed and they discover they each come from opposing families.

With the help of a frog gnome, who plays the nanny to Juliet, and a pink flamingo, who serves as a sort of chaperone during their trysts, Gnomeo and Juliet meet several times. In the meantime, the war between their families continues. Ben Montague loses his tall blue hat in a fight with Tybalt Capulet. Gnomeo attempts revenge through a mower race with Tybalt. Tybalt loses, crashing his mower into a fence and getting smashed. An angry crowd chases Gnomeo into the street.

It appears that Gnomeo has gotten crushed in the street, but actually what they see is a broken teacup that has fallen out of a truck. With Gnomeo missing and taken for dead, the war between the houses escalates, with the purchase of an upscale tractor mower. Juliet’s father glues her to a pedestal at the top of a fountain so she can stay “safe” at home.

I love the part where Gnomeo converses with a statue of William Shakespeare, asking him how his story ends. Shakespeare found it both suitable and satisfactory that they both die in the end. Gnomeo is determined on a better fate. He returns just in time and, although both gardens are ruined by the upscale tractor mower that has gone into “destruction” mode, the two families decide to end their feud and forgive one another.

The movie ends with a wedding. The flamingo finds his long-lost love. Tybalt even gets glued together and is seen dancing at the wedding.

A few parts that parents may find objectionable include a garden gnome in a revealing bathing suit that shows his entire backside, a joke about a squirrel losing his “nuts”, and a flashback scene in which the flamingo is showing how he lost his true love due to the separation of the couple who owned their house. In my opinion these are trivial issues that don’t take away from the overall charm of the movie. Parents may want to discuss the fact that Gnomeo and Juliet sneak out to court without the permission of their parents.

The message of the movie is a Christian one of love and forgiveness. Courtship and matrimony are also shown in a positive light.

Tangled (2010)

Should I see it?

Yes.

Short Review: One of the joys of being a father of a small girl is the privilege of indulging her girly side: attending her tea parties, complementing her when she wears a new outfit and taking her to see fun, light feminine films like this one.

Disney, the once monopolistic empire of animation, has fallen under the shadow of Pixar over the past couple of decades.  While Disney as a corporation controls Pixar, the Disney brand still suffers from the comparison.  While Disney has produced some more conventional looking films like Bolt and Meet the Robinsons, the productions made to replicate their majestic, classic works such as Bambi, Snow White, Cinderella and Pinocchio have been faded, forgettable efforts such as Mulan, Lilo and Stich.

With this adaptation of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale Rapunzel, it appears Disney is attempting once again to recreate the success of their early 1990's revival (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and The Lion King).  While this won't most likely have the lasting power of The Lion King or The Little Mermaid, this is still a wonderful, enjoyable movie.

I should stop and alert you that this does not follow the actual fairy tale.  Rapunzel is a German tale and my Kraut brethren have a tendency to pump their stories with plenty of unpleasant details.  If you don't recall how the actual story goes, here is a summary:

A infertile couple who live next to a witch find plants on her land that help them conceive.  The witch catches the husband stealing the plant one day.  She agrees to spare the man's life if he hands over their daughter following her birth.  The father reluctantly agrees.

Rapunzel is born and given to the witch as promised.  The witch hides her away in a tall tower with only a small door high on top for an entrance.  The witch gains entry by standing under the door and calling "Rapunzel!  Rapunzel, let down your golden hair!"  The girl then drops her long hair and the witch uses it to be carried up into her room.

One day a handsome prince happens by and hears the witch calling to the girl.  That night the prince calls up to her and she pulls him up into her room.  The two quickly fall in love and continue their nightly, secret encounters.  Before long, Rapunzel admits to the witch that her dress has become too tight through the stomach (I guess that's one way of describing it).  The witch is infuriated and cuts off Rapunzel's hair and banishes her to the forest to die alone.  Apparently, the Germans were hardliners against single-motherhood.

The prince calls up, not knowing the witch is waiting in ambush.  The witch lowers the hair and the prince is pulled up to the room.  To his surprise, he finds the old woman instead of his love.  The witch pushes him out of the tower and he falls to the wild plants below and is blinded by the thorns.  He wanders the forest blind and alone.  Apparently, the Germans were hardliners against dead-beat dads.

The prince, alone in the woods, hears the sound of Rapunzel singing by a brook.  He finds her and his condition saddens the girl.  She cries and her tears heal his blinded eyes.  The two, reunited and healthy, return to his kingdom and get married and have children of their own.

Is it me or does the ending seem a little inorganic?  Sounds like someone wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to end their story.

In this friendlier version Rapunzel's parents are the royalty and she is their princess.  One day a "drop of sunlight" falls to earth and it raises a magical flower.  The conniving Mother Gothel finds the mystical flower and uses its properties to keep herself youthful for years. When Rapunzel is born, her mother suffers from the pains of birth and is near death.  The king's men find the sun flower and use its powers to spare the life of the queen.  Its application also provides the newborn Rapunzel with magical hair.

Mother Gothel, wanting her youthful elixir, steals Rapunzel (so she can sing her spell to make her hair give her youth) and hides the girl in a tower and pretends to be her mother.  Each year the royal couple hold a light show in memorial of their missing daughter.  Annually, Rapunzel watches the beautiful light show outside her tower window, not knowing it is intended for her.  Her dream is to one day see the light show up close.

Rapunzel's isolation is interrupted when a handsome thief who goes by the pseudonym Flynn Ryder finds the tower.  The two travel to the kingdom to see the light show.  The problem?  The local authorities, Flynn's criminal competition and the evil Mother are giving chase.

As you can see, this version has taken some broad liberties from the original source, but it works very well.  The script by Dan Fogelman (Cars) is remarkably tight and cleverly laid out.  Fogelman perfectly meshes all of the conventions of the fairytale with all of the requirements of a Disney production (the strong father/daughter relationship, the comical animal familiars (represented by a horse and a chameleon), the musical routines, etc.)  His dialog is sharp and he has his scenes cut down to the essentials.  Great work.

The production as a whole is quite fun and uplifting.  Children, in particular girls, will enjoy watching the movie.  It is a solid pick for family viewing.  The sunny disposition of the movie is infectious and a great change of pace from the usual schlock thrown out at the kids these days.  There is a wonderful absence of sexual innuendo, scatological humor or political references which have become so commonplace in "family films".  This is a straight-forward piece of entertainment that delivers.

Two cautions for Christians is the hint of paganism in the tale.  As mentioned, this has its roots in the old Teutonic tale which was derived from an Iranian myth.  The inclusion of mysticism in pretty much unavoidable.  I didn't find these elements to be too intrusive.  They are there but it isn't anything that can't be resolved by quickly resolved with a brief explanation to your youngster.

The other issue is how Flynn's thievery is handled.   He is supposed to be the romantic rouge character and this is used for humor throughout the film.  He is a mockery of the type.  However, the film never takes a strong position on his stealing.  It is just something he does.  There is no moral judgment made which means it provides passive support for it.  This is something that should be addressed for the little viewers. 

I highly recommend this movie.  If Disney keeps on this path, they may just get their groove back.

Click on the fire hazard to view the trailer

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

For Your Viewing Enjoyment...Or Not

We spent considerable time watching movies this past holiday season, either in the theater or at home. I don't have time to write individual critiques and some might find it interesting to learn what my family watches.

A couple of caveats: with the exception of DD#2 who is 16, my "children" are adults. My antennae are not quite so finely tuned to the occasional swear word (although overuse of the "f-bomb" bothers me) or sexual situation.

Plot holes to big to ignore, however, are another story...

Avatar: DD#1 summed this movie up nicely--Pocahontas with aliens. Only Pocahontas had better songs.

The graphics were stunning. The acting, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver when she was being a diva of a xenobiologist, was serviceable considering the characters were little more than one-dimensional. At one point during his impassioned soliloquy, I fully expected the hero to yell, "They may take our planet, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM!"

How bad was the story and the acting? When the xenobiologist dies, I didn't cry. Throughout the entire movie, while I marveled at the vision and the special effects, I kept thinking, "Imagine what Ursula K. LeGuin (whose father, Alfred Krober, earned the first Ph.D. in anthropology in the U.S. and founded the department of anthropology at Cal) could do with this!" I rather wish James Cameron had decided to forgo the story all together and just made a film about Pandora and the indigenous population, the Na'vi. An xenopological study, as it were. Ms. LeGuin did that with one of her books, which included a cassette tape of the "natives" playing their songs.

The rest of the family was able to overlook the lack of story and was blown away by the effects. We had several discussions on the importance of story and plot, believability, and internal consistency in fantasy and science fiction.

On the March Hare scale: 2.5 out of 5 Golden Tickets. Go for the razzle dazzle, so spend the bucks to see it in 3D IMAX. Go to the bathroom before the film starts; it's a long one. Definitely not for younger children or those who are sensitive to loud sounds and violent action.

The Princess and the Frog: Hubs was off with the older kids, so I took DD#2 to this one. I've been curious about Disney's "return to classic animation" since Hubs & I went to Disneyland this summer and saw the trailers.

I was impressed. The Disney magic is definitely there and the twist on the old story is clever and well-done.

Set in 1920's New Orleans, there is food and music and lush scenery everywhere. The heroine is Tiana, a young African-American (Creole?) girl whose mother sews for a white family. The daughter of the white family, Charlotte (or Lottie), loves princesses and the movie opens with Tiana and Lottie listening raptly while Tiana's mother reads the story of the frog prince while she finishes the latest princess gown for Lottie.

Historically accurate relationships between blacks and whites are ignored. Lottie's father, The Colonel, treats Tiana's mother respectfully. On the trolley home, Tiana and her mother sit in the middle of the car. They live in a modest home and there is a hard-working dad who comes in just after they do. Dad is proud of his daughter's precocious cooking skills and invites the neighbors over when she makes gumbo. His dream is to open a restaurant, called "Tiana's Place", and he shares that with his daughter. And while she may wish upon a star, like Lottie does, her parents remind her that success takes hard work.

Work she does, two jobs as a waitress, carefully saving her tips in coffee cans so she can put a payment down on the old sugar mill that she wants to convert to a restaurant. Meanwhile, Lottie is looking forward to the arrival of a Prince and the chance to become a "real" princess.

The Prince loves jazz and parties and hates to work.

There is voodoo, a gator whose ambition is to play jazz with Louis Armstrong, a Cajun firefly, an old blind "Mama" in bijou with mysterious powers. There is music--I especially liked the zydeco number. But while there is black magic and white magic afoot, the message about working hard to achieve your dreams and the satisfaction it brings is always present. Along with messages about the importance of love and family. No fairy godmother magically resolves our heroine's problems: she does the heavy lifting herself, with help from her friends. Oh--the Prince learns a few lessons, too. But DS#2 would definitely categorize this as a "girl film" based on the system he set up when he was four or five.

There was plenty of wit and humor in the dialog to keep the adults in the audience entertained. DD#2 enjoyed it as well.

On the March Hare scale: 4.5 out of 5 Golden Tickets

Sherlock Holmes: Honestly, with eye candy like Robert Downey, Jr., and Jude Law as Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson, even if this movie was horrid, I'd still want to see it.

I read my first Sherlock Holmes story when I was ten and was hooked immediately. I've read the canon as well as some of the "undiscovered" stories, like The Seven Percent Solution. I don't have quite the same familiarity with the movie version, although I've seen several.

But I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this version. Robert Downey, Jr., is definitely too short and stocky and Jude Law is too thin, but they captured the essence of their characters. The movie takes place after Holmes and Watson have become a team; in fact, Watson is moving out as he plans to marry his Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). And Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) shows up with barely an introduction--you have to listen as clues about who she is and her importance to Holmes are dropped throughout the movie. (Unless, of course, you've read the stories.)

But this story is not based on any of the stories of the canon, although it uses details from many of them. Someone is killing prostitutes and Sherlock Holmes is on the trail, which leads to a secret society and Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). He is convicted and before his death, he asks to see Holmes. He tells Holmes that three more will die. The next day Blackwood is hanged and Dr. Watson pronounces him dead.

The next day, the groundskeeper of the cemetery swears he saw Lord Blackwood walk out of his grave. Holmes and Watson are called in to investigate. As the investigation continues, we also see the relationship between Holmes and Watson and how dependent Holmes is on Watson to keep him grounded and how Watson relishes the excitement Holmes brings to his otherwise conventional life.

Dr. Watson walks with a limp, keeping with his injury in the Afghan wars. Holmes has no use for social graces or conventions; he seems to enjoy insulting everyone he works with, even Watson. True to form, Holmes's knowledge is eclectic, encompassing esoteric poisons, botany, chemistry, biology, and music. He is a master of observation and of disguise. He smokes a pipe, though not a meerschaum, and he wears hats, though not a deerstalker cap. Watson is no intellectual slouch, either, having learned much while accompanying Holmes on his "adventures."

I thought the director, Guy Ritchie, did a terrific job recreating Victorian London through the judicious use of CGI as well as capturing the spirit of Sherlock Holmes without slavishly recreating him. Purists may disagree.

Hubs enjoyed it--there was plenty of action and he was able to follow it, although he is not as familiar with the Holmes-verse as I am. DD#2 also enjoyed it; DS#2 was the only one who thought it was just "okay."

I wish Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Downey, and Mr. Law return for another romp. (I hope Ms. McAdams does, too.) However, I don't think Sherlock Holmes will bring the kind of revenue or buzz to encourage a second one. Plus, Mr. Downey is in the midst of a multi-series, Iron Man, and he may not be eager to commit to another. Too bad--I enjoyed the clever story and the witty dialog.

On the March Hare scale: 4 out of 5 Golden Tickets.

Julie & Julia: DD#2 and I came home and later that night ordered this movie from the Comcast On Demand menu. The movie is based on the experiences of Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a mid-level government employee dealing with the aftermath of 9/11, and Julia Child (an amazing Meryl Streep), the wife of a diplomat assigned to Paris who finds herself at loose ends. Their stories intersect when Julie decides she is going to write a blog as she cooks her way through all the recipes in Julia Child's, Mastering the Art of French Cooking. As Julie blogs, the movie cuts to Julia Child's life in France (and beyond). After taking classes in hat making and bridge, Paul Child (Stanley Tucci) asks Julia what she likes to do. She replies, "I like food. I like to eat!" Her first day at the famed Cordon Bleu was less than successful. The class, Julia carefully explains, is too basic. She wants the more difficult class. That class, she is told, is for professional cooks, is all men, and is very expensive. No problem to Julia, who finds herself in the class, but behind in some very basic skills. Undeterred, Julia practices and perseveres.

Julie, too, perseveres. Her blog begins to gain readers other than her mother. Suddenly this isn't just a small thing she is doing--her goal and her blog are dominating her life, causing stress instead of relieving it.

Both Julie and Julia have supportive husbands. There are several small scenes where Julia and Paul show their shared grief over their inability to have children. Julie and Eric Powell (Eric Messina) have a rockier relationship--Julie is a drama queen and a bit neurotic and Eric puts up with her histronics patiently (for the most part).

Meryl Streep does an amazing job capturing Julia Child's voice and her physical presence. DD#2 commented how annoying it was and I told her that was how I remembered it. She was also a pioneer: the first woman to graduate from the Cordon Bleu, writing a cookbook making French cooking accessible to American women (which took eight years and while living in a different city, then country from her co-authors), then bringing cooking instruction--live!--to American T.V.

Amy Grant makes Julie Powell cute and endearing and plays some of her foibles for laughs. There is a gratuitous slam against "Republicans" by Julie's boss (as well as a scene where Paul Child is questioned by a Congressional committee about his time while serving in the OSS in China during WWII); otherwise this movie is really about food, finding your passion, and the amazing places that can lead.

This movie is also available on DVD.

On the March Hare scale: 4.5 out of 5. Made me want to get my own copy of Mastering the Art of French Cooking and trying out the recipes. But then I had a drink and came to my senses. :)

crossposted at The Mad Tea Party

Movie Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

It's Susan Murphy's (Reese Witherspoon) wedding day and she is about to marry up-and-coming Modesto news anchor, Dexter Dietl (Paul Rudd). During the preparations, Susan and Dexter have a moment alone and Dexter confesses that they are not going to Paris for their honeymoon. Dexter has a chance for a job in Fresno, which could be his stepping stone to a larger market. Susan is disappointed, but as part of "Team Dietl," she'll accept the change in plans.

Dexter heads back to the church. Meanwhile, a meteor crashes nearby and Susan is irradiated. At the altar, she begins to glow green and grow. And grow, crashing through the ceiling of the church.

The men in the black helicopters are not far behind. Susan is captured and taken to a secret facility where she meets other "monsters": a blob (Seth Rogen), a mad scientist who is a cockroach (Hugh Laurie), the "missing link" (Will Arnett), and Insectasaurus--a giant caterpillar. And their guard, General W.R. Monger (Kiefer Sutherland), gruff and officious. There is no hope of escape; no hope of returning to "normal"--which is what Susan desperately wants.

Meanwhile, an alien is trying to recover the mysterious substance from the meteor that made Susan big. Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) at first sends down his evil robot to do his dirty work. General Monger realizes this job requires the talents of his "monsters" and takes them to the fight, which happens to be on the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101), just south of Candlestick Park.

The ensuing fight takes place all over San Francisco, including a scene where the Golden Gate Bridge is demolished. Eventually, the alien robot is also destroyed. As a reward, Susan and her new friends are allowed to visit her family in Modesto, where she learns a few things about Dexter.

Meanwhile, Gallaxhar decides to retrieve the substance himself--which means he has to kidnap Susan. And so he does. However, her friends decide they have to rescue her. General Monger drops them off on the spaceship and promises to return.

Gallaxhar is using the substance to make clones of himself so he can take over the Earth. So our brave "monsters" not only have to rescue Susan, but also thwart Gallaxhar's plan.

Hubs and I paid an extra $3.00 to watch this movie in 3D. The effects were pretty awesome: the movie starts with a guy playing with a paddle ball that had me ducking in my seat. And the writers pay homage to several B-monster movies, including the aforementioned scene at the Golden Gate Bridge.

The attention to detail is amazing. Strands of hair and fur move, the backgrounds are realistic, including just the right amount of fog on the Bayshore Freeway, the buildings in downtown San Francisco, the streets of Modesto. The story is okay: believe in yourself, don't judge people by their appearances (even generals).

But this is not a story for younger kids. One toddler spent the entire time crying (and mom was trying to explain that they couldn't leave older brother, who was enjoying the movie, alone). I'm not sure if younger children would handle the 2D version better. I discussed this with my sister-in-law who has a five-year-old and a 2.5-year old. The five-y.o. would probably enjoy it, especially in 2D, because he loves Shrek and Monsters Inc. The 2.5-y.o. wouldn't be able to sit still for it. Some children will be scared by this.

For a DreamWorks movie, it wasn't bad. For once, the actors personalities didn't overwhelm the animated characters. And the storyline wasn't completely left behind for the special effects.

On the March Hare scale: 3.5 out of 5 Golden Tickets

(crossposted on The Mad Tea Party)

Movie Review: Ratatouille

RATATOUILLE
(This review was posted at Happy Catholic right after we saw it in the theater. Having now watched it twice at home on DVD and enjoying it more each time, I am posting it here.)

When "Fin" came up on the screen, I suppressed an impulse to applaud. No need. The audience around me, without my reservations, burst into applause anyway.

We watched Ratatouille under unusual circumstances. It was a 4:00 movie but the theater was full. Perhaps the rest of the audience, like us, had tried in vain to get into an earlier showing only to find it sold out. More unusually, in a movie marketed to children, this audience was three-fourths adults, adults of all ages. In fact, we ourselves were part of that demographic. Hannah, 18, had rearranged a date in order to make the movie with us. We were at the 4:00 movie specifically because Rose, 17, would not be able to make it over the weekend due to work schedules. Such is the power Pixar can induce in those who have learned that they have that most special of talents, the ability to make a good general audience movie that pleases everyone on many levels. Obviously they did not fail to please this time. I thought that nothing could equal The Incredibles, Brad Bird's most recent offering, but he has matched that, if not surpassed it.

Noncooks think it's silly to invest two hours' work in two minutes' enjoyment; but if cooking is evanescent, so is the ballet.

Julia Child

Remy, the rat, has a love and appreciation for good food that is not shared by the rest of his family who see nothing wrong with eating garbage in all stages of decomposition. Circumstances team him up with Lingune, a hapless plongeur (dishwasher and kitchen assistant), who is trying hard to hold onto his job. Together the two begin to amaze diners at the Parisian restaurant of the late chef, Auguste Gusteau. Conflict arises not only from Remy's need to be hidden and yet guide Linguine, but from the animosity of the head chef, Linguine's romantic interest in the the kitchen's one female chef, the need for the restaurant to regain their five star rating which depends upon the approbation of food critic Anton Ego, and Remy's desire to be understood by his family while being able to express his art.

This is a far from simple set of conflicts, especially for a children's movie, and yet my desire to avoid spoilers leaves the list incomplete. Suffice it to say that the story is told simply and well enough to be thoroughly enjoyed by children while carrying complex food for thought that adults may well ponder long after the movie is finished. As well, this movie is a complete delight for anyone who has an interest in the food world. I will say more about that below, but if you are a "foodie," don't miss this movie. There are many subtle jokes that will delight you.

This movie didn't have the fast paced jokes we have come to expect since Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, or The Incredibles. There was a lot of verbal, situational, and physical humor but much of this, while appreciated, didn't result in laughs. However, when the laughs came they were big. Interestingly, when I noticed this, I noticed that the audience was silent the rest of the time. Everyone, including the children, some of whom were quite small, was engrossed by the story and giving it their complete attention. As die-hard movie fans who have attended many movies with large audiences of children, we know how unusual that is. Other than during Finding Nemo and The Incredibles (during which one young boy was so caught up in the movie he was shouting advice to the heroes), the only other time I have seen that was during Two Brothers.

There was a deft blending of living by "real world" rules with fantasy. It is fantastic enough that Remy and Linguine will work together, however, it is made clear that Remy cannot talk except to other rats. This is made clear in several scenes where we hear Remy's expostulations and then are switched to a human's point of view to hear only a rat squeaking. Remy's father constantly reminds him that to become close to humans is to live in danger of being killed as vermin. Yet at the end of the movie when the question of running the kitchen in a moment of extreme crisis must be resolved, a scene evolves that forcibly called to mind the Disney classic, Cinderella.

As always, the technical elements are handled perfectly. Voice work is flawless and not dominated by the big name stars we have come to expect. I followed the advice I read in a review and avoided knowing who was doing which voice so that I would not be playing "spot the voice" through the movie and I pass that same advice to you. Upon finding out who did voice work we were surprised that much of the time we never would have guessed, especially for John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers) who has done a voice for every Pixar feature to the extent that it was a joke used in the credit scenes for Cars.

As one would expect, the animation is amazing. Remy scuttles up pipes and underfoot in the kitchen looking very like a real small animal, frightened in an unfamiliar world. When the rat colony is on the move, one automatically feels a bit of natural revulsion at the prospect of that many rats in an enclosed area. Unlike the early Pixar days of Toy Story, human movement is now mimicked on such a good level that we watch an entire kitchen of chefs moving deftly and are never jolted out of the movie's "reality" by motions that don't seem right. The scenes of Paris are so evocative of the real "City of Lights" that, as some critics have mentioned, I wished for more outside scenes. All this was done with "100% real animation" we are reminded in the end credits with wicked humor, with "no motion capture or other shortcuts" used in making the film. (To learn more about the debate raging in the animation industry about what constitutes "real animation," go here.)

A Few Themes
Warning: SPOILERS, please read this after seeing the movie

"I dare say it is rather hard to be a rat," she mused. "Nobody likes you. People jump and run away and scream out, `Oh, a horrid rat!' I shouldn't like people to scream and jump and say, `Oh, a horrid Sara!' the moment they saw me. And set traps for me, and pretend they were dinner. It's so different to be a sparrow. But nobody asked this rat if he wanted to be a rat when he was made. Nobody said, `Wouldn't you rather be a sparrow?'"

A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett

ART AND OUTCASTS
First and foremost, there is the concept of being naturally drawn outside of one's accepted environment in order to express one's art. Obviously, this is shown in the concept of a rat cooking, which is continually being offset by showing Remy's concern with cleanliness around any sort of food preparation. We also see it in Collette's description of the chefs' backgrounds. She tells Linguine that people think of haute cuisine as snobbish but that the cooks are more like "pirates" who have found a way to express their inner creativity through cooking. (Anthony Bourdain was thanked in the credits and we see his influence in this. As a side note, read his Kitchen Confidential Updated Ed: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly for more about this.)

The idea of being societal outcasts is carried on more subtly, in details about the rat colony. Remy's father's name is Django, evocative of famous jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt. Having just heard an admirer discuss him, I also strongly associated him with gypsies. It is quite easy to see the association between Django's warnings about outsiders to Remy, their nomadic lifestyle, the constant assertions about "not stealing" and gypsies.

HOW WE LIVE
There is a strong theme of criticism in how people approach food, which can be naturally extended to other areas of life and society (such as the movie industry, perhaps?). One group, represented by the rats, view food as fuel. They are uncritical about what they eat and pay only enough attention to make sure they are not poisoned before they unthinkingly stuff themselves with whatever is available. Tellingly, the dastardly head chef's evil scheme is hawking Auguste Gusteau's good name after his death on a line of frozen foods. The opposite group, represented by critic Anton Ego (The Grim Eater), loves food so much that they will not eat anything that is not perfect. This elevates food far beyond its proper place in the scheme of things. Clearly Remy shows us that savoring pure, fresh ingredients and thoughtfully combining them is more satisfying than either of the other approaches. On a side note, we wondered how many people watched this movie and then went home to frozen dinners. Certainly, as I was flavoring the hamburgers while Tom fired up the grill, I found my thoughts drawn back to the movements we saw the chefs' making in the restaurant kitchen.

This approach is further emphasized by the cookbook Gusteau wrote, "Anyone Can Cook." The theme is emphasized over and over again, with the point being made in the final analysis, that not everyone need be a great chef to do so. Seeing the line of everyday people in front of Anton Ego's bistro underscores that theme and it is comforting to me that this emphasis was probably reinforced repeatedly to the Pixar team by their chef consultant, Thomas Keller, who is one of our country's finest chefs himself.

SEE IT WITH A FOODIE YOU LOVE
The Pixar team's thoroughness in understanding their subject, as has been noted before, extends to investigating the food world. This local food critic was not the only one pleased by the attention to detail. I couldn't wait to call my mother and share some of the details that no one else in the family caught. Poor Rose. I was continually poking her and whispering information that she just didn't care about. fact that Thomas Keller of The French Laundry had a voice credit ... no one cared. The five star French restaurant that was credited? No one cared.

Most of all, the most evocative food moment was one that explained a question I began wondering halfway through the movie. Why call it Ratatouille? Other than a clever play on the "rat" connection there seemed no reason to name the movie after that peasant vegetable stew. Until the supreme moment of revelation, which was done so perfectly that it brought howls of laughter ... and more whispering in Rose's ear from me. Later on, I asked, "Did anyone get that reference to Proust and the madeleine?" They all looked at me blankly. I felt just as I did when I took Hannah to see Beauty and the Beast, her first movie in the theater, and was the only member of the audience laughing because Lumiere was channeling Maurice Chevalier.

That moment of revelation in the movie's title refocused and redefined the entire movie in a new way around food, identity, and self.

Many years had elapsed during which nothing of Combray, save what was comprised in the theatre and the drama of my going to bed there, had any existence for me, when one day in winter, on my return home, my mother, seeing that I was cold, offered me some tea, a thing I did not ordinarily take. I declined at first, and then, for no particular reason, changed my mind. She sent for one of those squat, plump little cakes called "petites madeleines," which look as though they had been moulded in the fluted valve of a scallop shell. And soon, mechanically, dispirited after a dreary day with the prospect of a depressing morrow, I raised to my lips a spoonful of the tea in which I had soaked a morsel of the cake. No sooner had the warm liquid mixed with the crumbs touched my palate than a shudder ran through me and I stopped, intent upon the extraordinary thing that was happening to me. An exquisite pleasure had invaded my senses, something isolated, detached, with no suggestion of its origin. And at once the vicissitudes of life had become indifferent to me, its disasters innocuous, its brevity illusory - this new sensation having had on me the effect which love has of filling me with a precious essence; or rather this essence was not in me it was me. I had ceased now to feel mediocre, contingent, mortal. Whence could it have come to me, this all-powerful joy? I sensed that it was connected with the taste of the tea and the cake, but that it infinitely transcended those savours, could, no, indeed, be of the same nature. Whence did it come? What did it mean? How could I seize and apprehend it? ...

And suddenly the memory revealed itself. The taste was that of the little piece of madeleine which on Sunday mornings at Combray (because on those mornings I did not go out before mass), when I went to say good morning to her in her bedroom , my aunt Léonie used to give me, dipping it first in her own cup of tea or tisane. The sight of the little madeleine had recalled nothing to my mind before I tasted it; perhaps because I had so often seen such things in the meantime, without tasting them, on the trays in pastry-cooks' windows, that their image had dissociated itself from those Combray days to take its place among others more recent; perhaps because of those memories, so long abandoned and put out of mind, nothing now survived, everything was scattered; the shapes of things, including that of the little scallop-shell of pastry, so richly sensual under its severe, religious folds, were either obliterated or had been so long dormant as to have lost the power of expansion which would have allowed them to resume their place in my consciousness. But when from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, taste and smell alone, more fragile but more enduring, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, remain poised a long time, like souls, remembering, waiting, hoping, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unflinchingly, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection.

And as soon as I had recognized the taste of the piece of madeleine soaked in her decoction of lime-blossom which my aunt used to give me (although I did not yet know and must long postpone the discovery of why this memory made me so happy) immediately the old grey house upon the street, where her room was, rose up like a stage set to attach itself to the little pavilion opening on to the garden which had been built out behind it for my parents (the isolated segment which until that moment had been all that I could see); and with the house the town, from morning to night and in all weathers, the Square where I used to be sent before lunch, the streets along which I used to run errands, the country roads we took when it was fine. And as in the game wherein the Japanese amuse themselves by filling a porcelain bowl with water and steeping in it little pieces of paper which until then are without character or form, but, the moment they become wet, stretch and twist and take on colour and distinctive shape, become flowers or houses or people, solid and recognizable, so in that moment all the flowers in our garden and in M. Swann's park, and the water-lilies on the Vivonne and the good folk of the village and their little dwellings and the parish church and the whole of Combray and its surroundings, taking shape and solidity, sprang into being, town and gardens alike, from my cup of tea.

Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust

My Top Ten Favorite Films for 2007

1. Into Great Silence - I predict that it will be a spiritual classic and be loved by audiences for many years to come. Into Great Silence answers the most frequently googled question, "Who is God?" as well as "How can I find Him?" It also answers, "How can I find true happiness?" All this is explained using minimal dialogue, but just by watching the way these monks live their lives. This is a must - see movie for everyone! The DVD is now out.

2. Bella is a beautiful film that has had a powerful impact on our culture! As a result of this film, lives have been saved. Bella was responsible for the birth of seven babies. And, this was all possible through a grassroots effort -- promoted by the culture of life.

3. Amazing Grace is a movie which emphasizes character, Christian values, and yes, even virtues – something that you rarely see in Hollywood films nowadays.

4. Ratatouille - Like a great recipe, this film has all the right ingredients – humor, drama, romance – which, blended together, offer a delicious and delightful treat.

5. Juno is a film I would like to watch again to laugh again, to cry again, to listen to the music again, and to analyze just a bit more. I enjoyed it that much and I think you will, too.

6. The Bridge to Terebithia is a a beautiful reality-based story, which focuses primarily on the friendship between a boy and girl whose lively and vivid imaginations take them on an exciting adventure into a shared fantasy world.

7. The Ultimate Gift is an excellent movie with a straightforward spiritual message that will tug at your heartstrings. There is a wonderful pro-life message included in this values - oriented film, which is an added treat.

8. Spiderman III To me, this is the best of the trilogy. The powerful themes that run through the film are good vs. evil, friendship, forgiveness, and healing. It was indeed a deeply spiritual film.

9. Meet the Robinsons is an animated film adapted from William Joyce's children's book, A Day With Wilbur Robinson," about a futuristic family, with a time-travel plot and a comical villain. To me, it resembled a slightly more whimsical and wacky animated version of "Back to the Future."

10. Miss Potter is the charming and enchanting tale of Beatrix Potter (Rene Zellweger), a beautiful and creative woman who delighted generations of children with her books. It is well-crafted and contains lovely music, great whimsical animation, as well as some humorous escapades. The scenery of the English countryside is beautiful and the acting is superb.

Cross - posted at Catholic Fire.