Download Film Junk Podcast for July 2nd, 2007

Well it was definitely a big week for movie releases and we’ve got an equally big show to match here on this week’s Film Junk Podcast. Tune in to hear four full reviews including Live Free or Die Hard, Ratatouille, Sicko and The Condemned, along with our Top 5 Action Movie Villains and Traditional Animation vs CGI in our Versus segment. It might even be more movies than you can handle… aw who am I kidding, of course it’s not. Hook yourself up with the MP3 below and let the Creedence play on.


powered by ODEO

» Download the MP3 (28 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Vote for us on Digg!

Subscribe to the podcast feed:
RSS iTunes Odeo My Yahoo!



  • I’m sure Ratatoille is not a kids movie. Only adults can appreciate a person stuttering because he is ashamed that a talking rat is cooking the food he is taking credit for.

    A camera on a trolley is revolutionary? Just because it’s animation. As usual people praise the movie, but had it been live-action it would have been nothing special.

    From your review it seems like you’re praising it for almost being good enough to be live-action? What the fuck is that? That’s the exact same thing as saying “Kevin Smith did a pretty good job in Die Hard”.

  • I don’t know, maybe it sounds like a weak argument but you really have to see it to understand. The cinematography in this movie would be amazing whether it was CG or live action, but it’s more impressive for a CG movie because very few CG movies have had this kind of creativity and visual style. Either way, it sounds like you have your mind made up about this movie as it is, so I’m not sure we could convince you otherwise.

  • Goon

    the reason that its worth noting is that Pixar have progressed so far in animation that now they’re a lot more free to take on more interesting camera angles and truely direct. drew at movie patron for example, compared the camera moves to that of “Children of Men” in places.

  • Henrik,

    No offense, but it seems like it simply comes down to you being compeletely biased and close minded. You haven’t even seen it! I’m no huge fan of Pixar, but it doesn’t mean i’m going to write off every fucking movie they do before I even see it. This movie was good. Plain and simple. The story was interesting, the characters quirky, and the animation wasn’t treated like a cartoon.

    “From your review it seems like you’re praising it for almost being good enough to be live-action? What the fuck is that?”

    Yes, what’s wrong with that? An animated film that doesn’t fall to the expected conventions of a cartoon, both technically and story wise.

    The CG is simply a tool to tell this story. Just like it’s a tool to tell the new Star Wars films, or Jurassic Park, or….TMNT!!!!! The technical achievements are simply one aspect of this film, and the story and characters are what made this a four star movie.

    I wonder how many good movies you’ve missed out on because of your stubborness? Poor Henrik.

  • Henrik

    The point I’m making is that you praise this movie for almost being good enough to be live-action. I assume that means that this story and these characters nearly could cut it had it been a live-action movie. That means that every single live-action movie coming out this year is better than this movie, and the only reason it stands out is because of the CGI.

    Which is, incidentally, the problem I have had with people praising Pixar’s earlier efforts. None of them could cut it had they not been animated. It’s just not enough for me.

  • “I assume that means that this story and these characters nearly could cut it had it been a live-action movie.”

    Where the hell do you get that from? The only truth do that statement is ‘I assume’. At no point did i say anything remotely close to what you’re stating. I was simply pointing out that this film didn’t rely on as many cartoony gags and characters as most CG movies do.

    “The point I’m making is that you praise this movie for almost being good enough to be live-action.”

    I praise the movie for good characters, a good story, a great look and a fun time. What’s wrong with that? And in regards to your sarcastic comment:

    “I’m sure Ratatoille is not a kids movie. Only adults can appreciate a person stuttering because he is ashamed that a talking rat is cooking the food he is taking credit for.”

    What the hell is TMNT?? It’s a talking rat and four teenage turtles.

    And while we’re on the topic, the amazing look of Ratatouille is exactly what makes TMNT feel ‘budget’.

  • Henrik

    I never argued that TMNT wasn’t for kids though. Obviously it’s for kids! That doesn’t mean it wasn’t an awesome movie with cool ninja action and endearing characters that I like.

    As for feeling budget… By your logic we should critisize any movie that isn’t a summer blockbuster ‘budget’ because some other movie came out that looked more lavish.

    You did say in the review that Ratatouille was almost good enough to be live-action. That’s where I got it from.

    “I praise the movie for good characters, a good story, a great look and a fun time. ”

    Sure, for a CG movie. Because you pointed out that it was almost good enough to be live-action, effectively saying it’s not as good as any live-action movie. But you’re not rating it as a CG movie, you’re rating it as a movie on equal terms with live-action. It’s the same rating system.

  • Goon

    henrik, just shut the fuck up with the nitpicking and see the movie

  • “You did say in the review that Ratatouille was almost good enough to be live-action.”

    Again I bring up the point that it didn’t resort to typical cartoon cliche’s. And as far as the comparison to live action…i seem to recall comparing it to a quirky indie film. That has NOTHING to do with whether or not it’s a cartoon or live action. It has to do with the fact that the story was quality.

    Classic Henrik. Not just giving your opinion on the film (which you actually don’t have, seeing as you haven’t seen it) but rather trying to tell me that my opinion is wrong.

    Sorry, but I don’t quite understand your point with all of this. Maybe you should chime in once you’ve seen the film so that you have something substantial and relevant to argue about, rather then just the wording of my review?

    Just a thought. :p

  • Henrik I think I see what your point is, but you’re misunderstanding our review. No one is saying that all live action films are inherently better than CG films, and that Ratatouille just barely approaches being as good as the worst live action movie ever made (whatever you deem that to be).

    What we were saying is that the medium of computer animation hasn’t yet matured to the point where we see many of the same cinematic techniques in a CG flick that you would see in a well-directed, artistic live action film. That doesn’t make CG films worse than live action… it’s just something no one has really bothered with until now. Heck there are tons of shitty ass live action films that have no sense of style or visual storytelling either. What makes Ratatouille special is that it has now crossed over that barrier. (In my opinion Monster House was pretty close to crossing this threshold too.)

  • I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, I’m just pointing out things that validate how I feel about the issue personally. This was just a way to try and explain why I don’t feel Pixar makes very good movies, and the issues I have with the praise that they have gotten in the past (which your review mirrored exactly. It pushed my buttons.)

  • Goon

    it just seems silly of you to talk about how something validates your opinion considering you havent seen whats being discussed to even have an idea what Jay was talking about.

  • Ratatoille just opened here, and I wonder if I go and see it and think it’s shit will you pay for my ticket?

  • Hi webmaster!