First off, I don't like posting twice daily. However, if you look at the time of the post, the last post was just after midnight before I went to bed, nearly 23 hours ago. Thus, it's been technically one day since the last post, so HA! :)
I just saw this movie for the first time. Man, is it good! I heard a review for the movie that had little good to say about it and I was worried it wasn't going to be good. However, it turns out that like most Christian movie reviewers, they completely missed the point. I swear, christian reviewers would give the worlds best ice creme 1 star because the font used on the packaging wasn't right and the overall color was a bit yellow for their liking. Nevermind the fact that the remaining 97% of the product (99.72% of what actually matters) was exceptional. They miss the ocean for a cup of water. Or as Jesus said, "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." (My reference here is that for most christian movies, you have to swallow a camel, (put up with poor story, horrible acting, and bad camera work) just to be sure you are free from gnats (anything rated more than PG). Link at end of post.
Anywho, back to the story. In the movie, we have Remy the rat, who can cook creatively. Remy decides one day that he's not going to settle for the typical rat life. He leaves behind friends and family to be what he's supposed to be. Then we have Linguini the human, who can physically cook, but is as creative as a slug. He runs into Remy, and through some cartoon magic, the two pair up and begin making some amazing dishes. However, when asked about his skills, the fear of being rejected by his peers gets in the way and he begins to take credit for his "skills". Remy at this point, leaves Linguini on his own. Suddenly, Linguini doesn't know how to cook anymore. Linguini is quickly reminded of where his skill truely comes from and brings Remy back on board. If you haven't seen an important, and very biblical lesson yet, then you are blind.
Lastly, in the movie we have the ghost of Gusteau who first gets Remy interested in cooking. He also guides him as he learns, and gives him a verbal kick in the pants when things are down. Gusteau was a famous cook that had died a few years ago. Yet, all he can do is give suggestions and advice. The final choice is up to Remy himself. Gusteau was ultimately the source of all the cooking.
I feel like a combination of Remy and Linguini. As Remy, I am not satisfied with "normal" life and I have to do more. I can't join the rat race (pun unintended) like everyone else. God has so much more for me. It's who He's made me! Secondly, I feel like Linguini as I have been given a gift. Rather, gifts. I know I have skill, but I have to remember where those skills really come from. I know that I can loose them as easily as they came to me.
I think what this movie does so well is it captures, in a tangible way, another mystery of God. God is a creative God and I believe he inspires his children to be creative as well. Often in subtle ways. Like Gusteau, he inspires people to be skillful at something, and he encourages them when they're down. Yet at the same time, he is like Remy and gives us the skills. We must be ever-mindful of their source. In the end, Linguini is running a successful restaurant with Remy as the head chef. Linguini does not advertise the source of the cooking so as not to scare people, but neither will he deny the true source if asked. Hmm......it all sounds so familier.
So, that is my review of the movie. I bring it up because I relate to the movie a lot, and I think it is a well executed movie. Highly recommened.
And as promised, the link is.....
http://www.independentchristianfilms.com/news/article_2007-07-30.asp
(read with caution, and do not let the sun go down on your anger)
3 comments:
I'm not exactly sure what your issue is with Botkin's review.
It seems that he has lauded that technical aspect and has positive words for Pixar's work in the past as well.
I will have to see the movie myself (and will) to see whether his assessment of the father/child relationship being central and "rancid" (his word) is accurate, but he is right that this is a tired, subtle theme that has existed in entertainment productions from sitcoms to feature movies for some time.
Apparently something Botkin said made you angry--and I'd encourage you to go back and read it again without superimposing any ideas you have about Botkin and VF and look at what he *says*.
I for one tire quickly of the rampant criticism of one another within the church (and yes, including that pointed at Vision Forum and that pointed from Vision Forum). For all my own disagreements with them they're out there doing something they believe and not getting bogged down in the stone throwing war.
Thanks, though, for the review. We had planned on seeing it anyway and will certainly do so.
It was that he seemed to miss the point of the movie completely. Some of the points he made about the story were incorrect which made me wonder if he was talking about the same movie that I had just seen. For example, this is a quote from the review. "[Remy] doesn’t have to work or even apply himself to achieve his inexplicable cooking skills." The first 20mins or so outlines how he's been sneaking out on his own to practice cooking. He's not even a good cook when he starts, just a very dedicated one. He definately honed his skills through work.
I understand differing opinions and coming to different conclusions when given the same information. Scientists have been doing that for years. But to degrade a movie for not understanding what I thought was an easy to follow plot doesn't make sence to me.
As far as the story being overdone, I can't remember ever seeing a movie like this. He calls it a film that "Revolve around a son or daughter’s desire to escape from overbearing parental authority and are merely seeking independence". Or "The single-minded pursuit of a selfish dream for that dream’s own sake". Did he miss the point that is father was a thief and lived in a sewer? Or that Remy had a gift that he wanted to persue, partly for his own sake, but mainly for the sake of others. He wanted to cook! It wasn't for reviews, it was for the people.
Again, I can understand his points on the overall movie. I disagree, but it's his opinion. He calls the characters "whiny" and "unmotivated" and the plot weak. If he chooses to think that, that's on him. However, to so miss what the movie was about is what got me on a rant.
P.S. I read the review at least a month ago BEFORE seeing the movie. I had no pre-concieved ideas about Botkin upon reading the review. I actually expected the review to be pretty good and accurate since he's obviously a film buff.
Maybe all that happened was I missed a joke, but it sounded like the reviewer ticked you off as opposed to just thinking he missed the point of the movie.
Anyhoo--thanks for the interaction. We're praying for you over there!
Post a Comment