ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: "Ratatouille" is Tasty, "Die Hard" is Solid, "Sicko" is Socko, "Evening" Falls Comments

Critical Consensus: "Ratatouille" is Tasty, "Die Hard" is Solid, "Sicko" is Socko, "Evening" Falls

by RT Staff | June 28, 2007

Summary

This week at the movies we have hungry, hungry rats ("Ratatouille," starring Patton Oswalt and Brad Garrett), a world-weary hero (Bruce Willis in "Live Free or Die Hard"), a provocateur extraordinaire ("Sicko," the new doc from Michael Moore), and a rare midsummer tearjerker ("Evening," starring Meryl Streep and Claire Danes). What do the critics have to say? Back to Article

(1-18 of 18 posts) | Reply

Sputnik99 writes:
on Jun 28 2007 05:10 PM

Looks like a good week to see a movie. Which to choose, which to choose...?

(Reply to this)

CannibalPenguins writes:
on Jun 28 2007 05:32 PM

Ratatouille is better than Cars and The Incredibles, but nowhere near as good as Finding Nemo.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 28 2007 06:23 PM

Ratatouille looks great as does Live Free or Die Hard. You were saying, PG-13 haters?

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Jun 28 2007 06:57 PM

I'll be seeing Ratatouille tomorrow. Can't wait for it!

(Reply to this)

SplendidIsolation writes:
on Jun 28 2007 08:17 PM

I`m gonna catch Sicko.

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Jun 28 2007 08:51 PM

Ratatouille looks horrible, i duno what all the hype is about............the concept itself is a bad idea........

(Reply to this)

BrokenDreamer writes:
on Jun 28 2007 09:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#871763)
[b]Reason for Hype[/b]
The hype comes from people who have actually seen the film, not someone who saw the TV spots. I saw this film and loved it, immediately wishing that I could view the film a second time after the sneak preview I attended. But I guess its cool if you want to judge a film on how the trailers "look" and not listen to the people who actually saw it and enjoyed it. It was the quality and entertainment of this film that created this hype.

(By the way, your statement is kind of ironic. Usually a film creates hype by wowing people with an incredible trailer while the film ultimately disappoints. You are suggesting that your lack of interest based on the trailer is enough to counter the hype based on those who viewed the film. Think about it.)

(Reply to this)

screwhead100 writes:
on Jun 28 2007 10:04 PM

ya i see what you mean.........the trailer was god awful to me.........i shouldnt judge a movie based on a trailer though.........its not everyday a movie with a bad trailer really ends up being a great movie........

point taken though

(Reply to this)

jerseycajun writes:
on Jun 28 2007 10:21 PM

[b]With rare exception...[/b]
...nearly all of Pixar's trailers have been underwhelming compared to the final result. It seems that making a great movie requires different skills from making a great trailer. But if it came down to a choice, I'd rather have that pairing, than the reverse.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 29 2007 12:17 AM

Yes another Micheal, cant see my feet, Moore propaganda film that the liberals are going to praise like jesus. I love how he does not talk about the downside of socialized healthcare, like the substandard doctors, and medicine that is a result.

(Reply to this)

Basilides in Alexandria writes:
on Jun 29 2007 02:36 AM

I can't wait for SICKO.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jun 29 2007 05:53 AM

I didn't like Cars, but I loved the Incredibles. I'm looking forward to the Rats.

(Reply to this)

selke99 writes:
on Jun 29 2007 07:16 AM

[b]A post that will change the world...[/b]
I cannot freakin wait to see Ratatouille.

(Reply to this)

skasforfags writes:
on Jun 29 2007 09:19 AM

It does look like a fantastic weekend for movies, and I've got both days off. But, someone explain what " 'Sicko' is Socko" means.

(Reply to this)

bmg615 writes:
on Jun 29 2007 11:18 AM

[b]Michael Moore is not a documentarian!![/b]
I am a Democrat and I thoroughly enjoy Michael Moore's films, but I will be the first to admit that they are in no way documentaries.

A documentary presents facts and situations objectively and in a completely unbiased manner. Moore has a very strong point of view with regards to every subject he creates a film about. He uses filmmaking to manipulate people into making them agree with his views. This makes his films propoganda. I know that "propoganda" is what his detractors call his films, but that is truly what they are. Just because a film is non-fiction does not mean it's a documentary.

I am a huge Michael Moore fan. I see all his films on opening weekend and I've yet to see one I haven't loved, but I never go into his films expecting to see a documentary. I go in expecting to watch a well-made, humorous, and occassionally touching propoganda film that will help fuel my liberal fire. And that's okay, as long as I don't sucker myself into believing that his films are objective and unbiased and that the world is as black-and-white as he makes it out to be.

Sicko is another great Michael Moore movie. Just don't call it a documentary.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Jun 29 2007 11:31 AM

In reply to this comment (#871771)
If something is socko it means that it's quite impressive.

(Reply to this)

aknddon3 writes:
on Jun 29 2007 12:05 PM

Moore is a hack, he lies to people to interview them and once he does he attacks them, he is a typical liberal scum.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 29 2007 01:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#871771)
I think it means he found it down wrestler Mick Foley's pants and is now going to shove it down everyone's throats until they tap out :)

(Reply to this)