So I saw the movie. It was pretty good. Not as good as The Incredibles, but much, much better than Cars.
I did find a few things a little too silly, though. Particularly
Remy being able to control Linguini's movements by pulling his hair. I mean, okay, a rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef, that I can deal with. A rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef who then meets a kid whose hair is apparently intimately connected with his nervous system? Not so much.
The attempts to give the movie some kind of message felt really forced to me, too; but I've felt that way about pretty much every Disney and Pixar movie ever.
I was really impressed with the graphical quality of pretty much all of the non-human/rat stuff. Not that those were poorly done, it's just that they're obviously and purposefully cartoony, whereas everything else was very realistic-looking. Several times I briefly thought I was looking at a camera shot rather than a 3D rendering.
Another thing I remember that bothered me a bit: Did it seem to anybody else that Collette's head was essentially Mirage's with a palette swap?
Also, this isn't a criticism, but at first I thought Ego was voiced by Ian McKellan. Which was funny, because between that and the character's dramatic dialogue I kept thinking of him as Magneto.
The short was good. I wish animated shorts in general would make a comeback; it's a nice way of increasing the viewing time without padding the movie.
Previews sucked. No Reservations (a chef-based romantic comedy evidently so devoid of humor that they couldn't even find something funny to put into the trailer), Daddy Day Camp (ugh), Mr. Bean's Vacation (UGGGGH), Bee Movie (in which one of the "jokes" is where Seinfeld compares Tivo to "Hivo", which is a "terrible disease", so I'm not sure what the comparison is except that they're spelled the same), and Underdog (which I might actually have considered seeing if it had been animated instead of this horrid live-action crap with CGI animating the dog's mouth).
I saw it as an metaphor for the struggle against institutionalized discrimination that minorities seeking acceptance and success often face, with a secondary moral about finding joy in what you can do very well rather than going to special lengths to be something you're not.
And of course, the criticism of criticism they slid in towards the end.
But the moral was not quite as overt as what can be found in other films, and Pixar had enough restraint to stop themselves from summing up their entire film in one quote, though you kind of thought they would when they open with, "Anyone can cook."
I think that allows the audience to determine for themselves if the film is about finding success on an individual basis and simply never giving up, or if it's kind of a response to the Incredibles's apparent support of the remarkable few and disdain for the mediocre many who seek to bring those among us who shine too brightly down to the same level as everyone else.
Thought it's not so much a criticism of the prior message as it is an addendum.
"Not everyone can be great, but great people can come from anywhere."
So why we're not all equal, we are not placed on a lower level simply by how we are born.
Hooraydiation on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
So I saw the movie. It was pretty good. Not as good as The Incredibles, but much, much better than Cars.
I did find a few things a little too silly, though. Particularly
Remy being able to control Linguini's movements by pulling his hair. I mean, okay, a rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef, that I can deal with. A rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef who then meets a kid whose hair is apparently intimately connected with his nervous system? Not so much.
But Cars that can talk and have somehow built a whole world (with equivalent technology, which brings weird ideas of evolution and progress to the forefront) without hands is okay?
I liked the moral for Ratatouille a lot more than the "moral" for Cars. Ratatouille was about friends, family and doing what you love. Cars was something like "stop at every small town 10 minutes off the interstate or you're a terrible person."
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I liked the moral for Ratatouille a lot more than the "moral" for Cars. Ratatouille was about friends, family and doing what you love. Cars was something like "stop at every small town 10 minutes off the interstate or you're a terrible person."
So I saw the movie. It was pretty good. Not as good as The Incredibles, but much, much better than Cars.
I did find a few things a little too silly, though. Particularly
Remy being able to control Linguini's movements by pulling his hair. I mean, okay, a rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef, that I can deal with. A rat with aspirations to be a gourmet chef who then meets a kid whose hair is apparently intimately connected with his nervous system? Not so much.
But Cars that can talk and have somehow built a whole world (with equivalent technology, which brings weird ideas of evolution and progress to the forefront) without hands is okay?
In the context of a movie about self-animated cars, yeah, that was fine.
In the context of a movie about a rat who wants to cook, the thing with Linguini was completely besides the point and rather ridiculous.
I liked the moral for Ratatouille a lot more than the "moral" for Cars. Ratatouille was about friends, family and doing what you love. Cars was something like "stop at every small town 10 minutes off the interstate or you're a terrible person."
I liked the moral for Ratatouille a lot more than the "moral" for Cars. Ratatouille was about friends, family and doing what you love. Cars was something like "stop at every small town 10 minutes off the interstate or you're a terrible person."
That the moral of Cars isn't just poor compared to the other films, it's also blatantly derivative.
Though for all I know, Pixar's intent was to make a spiritual remake of Doc Hollywood.
I actually haven't seen Cars yet because of the Doc Hollywood link and the difficulty I have accepting Owen Wilson as a voice actor. To me, it actually seemed like Pixar phoning it in. Also, Larry the Cable Guy, ugh.
But most people seem to have liked Cars, so maybe I should give it a shot now.
Hooraydiation on
0
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
I wish Disney still invested money in slick 2d films. I guess The Emperor's New Groove was the end of an era.
Give Lasseter some time to bring 2D back from the grave. Remember, before he was put in charge of everything they had already shut down the whole 2D department. It's gonna take some time to get it back up and running again.
Isn't it up and running already? Disney's working on The Frog Princess.
I was actually kind of hoping that their 2D department would stay gone for a while, then maybe they would actually market the Studio Ghibli releases, and Miyazaki's movies might get some play over here.
In the context of a movie about a rat who wants to cook, the thing with Linguini was completely besides the point and rather ridiculous.
Really? Are you really going to argue this? Should they have just had the rat slice open his skull and prod portions of his brain to get his arms to move?
In the context of a movie about a rat who wants to cook, the thing with Linguini was completely besides the point and rather ridiculous.
Really? Are you really going to argue this? Should they have just had the rat slice open his skull and prod portions of his brain to get his arms to move?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do.
It isn't as if somebody else made an issue out of my making a simple observation and that I'm just responding to it, or anything like that.
Target Practice on
0
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
In the context of a movie about a rat who wants to cook, the thing with Linguini was completely besides the point and rather ridiculous.
Really? Are you really going to argue this? Should they have just had the rat slice open his skull and prod portions of his brain to get his arms to move?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do.
It isn't as if somebody else made an issue out of my making a simple observation and that I'm just responding to it, or anything like that.
I wasn't asking literally if you were going to argue about it, I was asking if you really believed that the hair-pulling thing was just too unbelievable for a movie about a talking rat who wants to be a chef. It seems like a perfectly "cartoony" and acceptable way for a... cartoon... to have a rat cooking on a human scale.
It's not really a talking rat. I mean, he can't talk to humans.
But the hair pulling is integral to a large portion of the film's humor and emphasizes the fact that Remy, not Linguini, is the chef. You can't do without it.
Ratatouille was fantastic. Best Pixar movie by far. It can't come to DVD fast enough.
As to the hair-pulling, when I first saw it, I was, like, O_o for a couple minutes. Then I shrugged and accepted it and it didn't bother me. It was the basis for some of the film's funniest scenes, so it worked in the end.
Also: Wall-E. I am so there.
Also-also: Lifted was hilarious.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
I think I'm gonna take the kids to see this tomorrow. Hopefully, my youngest won't flip out and cause my wife to miss half the movie .
Good luck with that. ;-)
I'll probably go tomorrow, too. Matinees are the only time I don't notice the huge vacuum being created in my wallet when I go to the theater. I mean, it's still there, just not as "whooooooshy."
I think I'm gonna take the kids to see this tomorrow. Hopefully, my youngest won't flip out and cause my wife to miss half the movie .
Good luck with that. ;-)
I'll probably go tomorrow, too. Matinees are the only time I don't notice the huge vacuum being created in my wallet when I go to the theater. I mean, it's still there, just not as "whooooooshy."
Yeah, I figure if we hit the earliest showing, they're the most likely to be ok with chilling out, and won't be tired and cranky. Plus, I know my 3 year old will love it, since she loves The Iron Giant and The Incredibles.
Vincent Grayson on
0
Vargas PrimeKing of NothingJust a ShowRegistered Userregular
That the moral of Cars isn't just poor compared to the other films, it's also blatantly derivative.
Though for all I know, Pixar's intent was to make a spiritual remake of Doc Hollywood.
I actually haven't seen Cars yet because of the Doc Hollywood link and the difficulty I have accepting Owen Wilson as a voice actor. To me, it actually seemed like Pixar phoning it in. Also, Larry the Cable Guy, ugh.
But most people seem to have liked Cars, so maybe I should give it a shot now.
The movie overall was quite enjoyable; I recommend you see it. Not a huge fan of either Owen Wilson or Larry the Cable Guy but I liked the voice acting. I just disliked the part where the girl is complaining about the interstate and how people don't want to go out of their way to visit small towns.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The movie overall was quite enjoyable; I recommend you see it. Not a huge fan of either Owen Wilson or Larry the Cable Guy but I liked the voice acting. I just disliked the part where the girl is complaining about the interstate and how people don't want to go out of their way to visit small towns.
Agreed, the moral was obnoxious. Larry was endearing, though, and Wilson's acting was pretty spot-on. And there were a ton of clever bits - I loved the insects, for example:
They were VW bugs. With little wings. And when they skittered about on the window, they left tiny little tire tracks in the grime.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That the moral of Cars isn't just poor compared to the other films, it's also blatantly derivative.
Though for all I know, Pixar's intent was to make a spiritual remake of Doc Hollywood.
I actually haven't seen Cars yet because of the Doc Hollywood link and the difficulty I have accepting Owen Wilson as a voice actor. To me, it actually seemed like Pixar phoning it in. Also, Larry the Cable Guy, ugh.
But most people seem to have liked Cars, so maybe I should give it a shot now.
The movie overall was quite enjoyable; I recommend you see it. Not a huge fan of either Owen Wilson or Larry the Cable Guy but I liked the voice acting. I just disliked the part where the girl is complaining about the interstate and how people don't want to go out of their way to visit small towns.
I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, but from what I hear Iron Giant was an okay flick.
I've seen neither Cars nor Iron Giant. I should add that to my NetFlix queue now...
That the moral of Cars isn't just poor compared to the other films, it's also blatantly derivative.
Though for all I know, Pixar's intent was to make a spiritual remake of Doc Hollywood.
I actually haven't seen Cars yet because of the Doc Hollywood link and the difficulty I have accepting Owen Wilson as a voice actor. To me, it actually seemed like Pixar phoning it in. Also, Larry the Cable Guy, ugh.
But most people seem to have liked Cars, so maybe I should give it a shot now.
The movie overall was quite enjoyable; I recommend you see it. Not a huge fan of either Owen Wilson or Larry the Cable Guy but I liked the voice acting. I just disliked the part where the girl is complaining about the interstate and how people don't want to go out of their way to visit small towns.
I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, but from what I hear Iron Giant was an okay flick.
I've seen neither Cars nor Iron Giant. I should add that to my NetFlix queue now...
Iron Giant is pretty good.
Cars was the weakest of the Pixar films. It was one joke (OMG the cars are like people!) that was stretched into a full movie.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Agreed, the moral was obnoxious. Larry was endearing, though, and Wilson's acting was pretty spot-on. And there were a ton of clever bits - I loved the insects, for example:
They were VW bugs. With little wings. And when they skittered about on the window, they left tiny little tire tracks in the grime.
I was also pretty amused when I noticed that the green "bad guy" car was sponsored by Hostile Takeover Bank.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
I'm convinced that Pixar are THE masters of their craft. Seriously.
They manange to pack perfection into every frame of animation, every page of dialogue... I'm always blown away the first time I watch a Pixar movie.
Is there any real competition? Some people might have put Dreamworks on the same level after Shrek, but certainly not after Shrek 3.
Shark Tale was a cinematic masterpiece.
It raised being abject swill to an art form.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You can never go wrong when Will Smith is being hip.
You know what would've made Pursuit of Happyness a better film? More scenes of Will Smith being hip. When that firm told him it was an unpaid internship in the beginning, he should've been all, "I will break your shit off if you don't hand out some bling, knowhatimsayin?" They would've laughed and gone, "Oh Will!" even though that wasn't his character's name and given him a job earning six figures.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I just watched Ratatouille, and while I found it to be a fun film, it's nowhere near Pixar's best.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
I just watched Ratatouille, and while I found it to be a fun film, it's nowhere near Pixar's best.
Really? Which do you find to be better? I just saw the movie a little while ago, and I found it to be more enjoyable than any other Pixar film. The Incredibles comes real close, but I would say Ratatouille wins out.
Speaking of Cars, it's the only Pixar film I haven't seen, and I don't imagine that will change any time soon. It's probably not nearly as bad as I imagine, but I just can't bring myself to watch it.
I haven't seen it yet (scheduling issues), but I'm eagerly anticipating it.
However, I did want to say this: I keep noticing people worrying about Disney messing things up, etc. As some people have kinda mentioned but not really: the animation branch of Disney, as it used to be, no longer exists. The recent "buyout" of Pixar was really the exact opposite: Pixar basically came in and took over Disney's animation department. So don't be worried about Disney ruining a Pixar movie, or any animation ever again. Instead, expect Disney's animation movies to actually start to kick ass again.
I mean, if anyone doubts that, just read this interview with Brad Bird (yes, he was just the director, but I think it's clear his sentiments are echoed throughout all of Pixar, which is probably partially why they keep asking him back): http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/bradbird.php
Also, re. the not-realistic-humans-but-realistic-backgrounds, just check out the making-of videos on the Incredibles DVD. They go through great lengths to explain how they had to make the humans non-realistic, because the brain simply doesn't accept it otherwise (can't remember the name of that effect off the top of my head). What I found really interesting was the details they worked even harder on, like the subtle refraction of the skin, that helps make the characters look much more realistic but without crossing over that threshhold that makes the brain reject the image as fake. (Look at the Final Fantasy movie for when you *do* cross over this line, imho).
Edit: since everyone else was weighing in as well: I liked Cars well enough (I'm still awestruck over the amazing backgrounds) but frankly it was a bit too simplistic to me compared to Pixar's previous endeavors, for reasons I'm still not sure of. (And I'm not counting Incredibles here, because frankly that was just on a whole different level altogether--it was the first and so far only Pixar movie for me that rose above a kids-movie-that's-also-adult-friendly level to be a plain great dramatic film. It frankly made a far better dramatic film than any others around that time frame, and certainly was a far better Fantastic 4 interpretation than the actual F4 movie itself, IMHO. But then, after reading that first interview I linked above, I can see why.)
Mathew Burrack on
"Let's take a look at the scores! The girls are at the square root of Pi, while the boys are still at a crudely drawn picture of a duck. Clearly, it's anybody's game!"
Mathew, the words you are looking for is 'The Uncanny Valley'
Basically it's when some is extremely realistic, but is just slightly off. Maybe the reflection of light off of skin is wrong, or the hair, or texture. There are a thousand little details that happen in real life that it's hard to replicate them all in animation.
When the brain sees it, it doesn't necessarily know what the problem is, it just knows something is wrong. And it freaks out because of it and doesn't like it.
Posts
I guess it was easier to switch styles (and eventually just fucking keep Pixar) than to get talented writers.
I did find a few things a little too silly, though. Particularly
The attempts to give the movie some kind of message felt really forced to me, too; but I've felt that way about pretty much every Disney and Pixar movie ever.
I was really impressed with the graphical quality of pretty much all of the non-human/rat stuff. Not that those were poorly done, it's just that they're obviously and purposefully cartoony, whereas everything else was very realistic-looking. Several times I briefly thought I was looking at a camera shot rather than a 3D rendering.
Another thing I remember that bothered me a bit: Did it seem to anybody else that Collette's head was essentially Mirage's with a palette swap?
Also, this isn't a criticism, but at first I thought Ego was voiced by Ian McKellan. Which was funny, because between that and the character's dramatic dialogue I kept thinking of him as Magneto.
The short was good. I wish animated shorts in general would make a comeback; it's a nice way of increasing the viewing time without padding the movie.
Previews sucked. No Reservations (a chef-based romantic comedy evidently so devoid of humor that they couldn't even find something funny to put into the trailer), Daddy Day Camp (ugh), Mr. Bean's Vacation (UGGGGH), Bee Movie (in which one of the "jokes" is where Seinfeld compares Tivo to "Hivo", which is a "terrible disease", so I'm not sure what the comparison is except that they're spelled the same), and Underdog (which I might actually have considered seeing if it had been animated instead of this horrid live-action crap with CGI animating the dog's mouth).
I saw it as an metaphor for the struggle against institutionalized discrimination that minorities seeking acceptance and success often face, with a secondary moral about finding joy in what you can do very well rather than going to special lengths to be something you're not.
And of course, the criticism of criticism they slid in towards the end.
But the moral was not quite as overt as what can be found in other films, and Pixar had enough restraint to stop themselves from summing up their entire film in one quote, though you kind of thought they would when they open with, "Anyone can cook."
I think that allows the audience to determine for themselves if the film is about finding success on an individual basis and simply never giving up, or if it's kind of a response to the Incredibles's apparent support of the remarkable few and disdain for the mediocre many who seek to bring those among us who shine too brightly down to the same level as everyone else.
Thought it's not so much a criticism of the prior message as it is an addendum.
"Not everyone can be great, but great people can come from anywhere."
So why we're not all equal, we are not placed on a lower level simply by how we are born.
But Cars that can talk and have somehow built a whole world (with equivalent technology, which brings weird ideas of evolution and progress to the forefront) without hands is okay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Hollywood
In the context of a movie about a rat who wants to cook, the thing with Linguini was completely besides the point and rather ridiculous.
Interesting, but how is that relevant?
That the moral of Cars isn't just poor compared to the other films, it's also blatantly derivative.
Though for all I know, Pixar's intent was to make a spiritual remake of Doc Hollywood.
I actually haven't seen Cars yet because of the Doc Hollywood link and the difficulty I have accepting Owen Wilson as a voice actor. To me, it actually seemed like Pixar phoning it in. Also, Larry the Cable Guy, ugh.
But most people seem to have liked Cars, so maybe I should give it a shot now.
Isn't it up and running already? Disney's working on The Frog Princess.
I was actually kind of hoping that their 2D department would stay gone for a while, then maybe they would actually market the Studio Ghibli releases, and Miyazaki's movies might get some play over here.
Really? Are you really going to argue this? Should they have just had the rat slice open his skull and prod portions of his brain to get his arms to move?
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
Yes, that is exactly what I'm going to do.
It isn't as if somebody else made an issue out of my making a simple observation and that I'm just responding to it, or anything like that.
I wasn't asking literally if you were going to argue about it, I was asking if you really believed that the hair-pulling thing was just too unbelievable for a movie about a talking rat who wants to be a chef. It seems like a perfectly "cartoony" and acceptable way for a... cartoon... to have a rat cooking on a human scale.
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
But the hair pulling is integral to a large portion of the film's humor and emphasizes the fact that Remy, not Linguini, is the chef. You can't do without it.
As to the hair-pulling, when I first saw it, I was, like, O_o for a couple minutes. Then I shrugged and accepted it and it didn't bother me. It was the basis for some of the film's funniest scenes, so it worked in the end.
Also: Wall-E. I am so there.
Also-also: Lifted was hilarious.
Good luck with that. ;-)
I'll probably go tomorrow, too. Matinees are the only time I don't notice the huge vacuum being created in my wallet when I go to the theater. I mean, it's still there, just not as "whooooooshy."
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
Yeah, I figure if we hit the earliest showing, they're the most likely to be ok with chilling out, and won't be tired and cranky. Plus, I know my 3 year old will love it, since she loves The Iron Giant and The Incredibles.
Yeah... saw the preview for this online last week. It comes out on my birthday next year, so that'll be a nice present.
sketchyblargh / Steam! / Tumblr Prime
The movie overall was quite enjoyable; I recommend you see it. Not a huge fan of either Owen Wilson or Larry the Cable Guy but I liked the voice acting. I just disliked the part where the girl is complaining about the interstate and how people don't want to go out of their way to visit small towns.
Agreed, the moral was obnoxious. Larry was endearing, though, and Wilson's acting was pretty spot-on. And there were a ton of clever bits - I loved the insects, for example:
I'm not a fan of Vin Diesel, but from what I hear Iron Giant was an okay flick.
Too bad producers and casting directors never seem to know that.
Iron Giant is pretty good.
Cars was the weakest of the Pixar films. It was one joke (OMG the cars are like people!) that was stretched into a full movie.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I was also pretty amused when I noticed that the green "bad guy" car was sponsored by Hostile Takeover Bank.
They manange to pack perfection into every frame of animation, every page of dialogue... I'm always blown away the first time I watch a Pixar movie.
Is there any real competition? Some people might have put Dreamworks on the same level after Shrek, but certainly not after Shrek 3.
Shark Tale was a cinematic masterpiece.
It raised being abject swill to an art form.
You can never go wrong when Will Smith is being hip.
You know what would've made Pursuit of Happyness a better film? More scenes of Will Smith being hip. When that firm told him it was an unpaid internship in the beginning, he should've been all, "I will break your shit off if you don't hand out some bling, knowhatimsayin?" They would've laughed and gone, "Oh Will!" even though that wasn't his character's name and given him a job earning six figures.
Smith can be decent though, with the right director. Well, shit, that's just about any actor on earth, come to think of it.
His kid stole the show because of the chemistry between him and his dad. I thought bother did excellent.
Anyone else a big Don Cheadle fan? I am.
About a billion times better than the Cars short, which as I recall was dancing musical instruments.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Really? Which do you find to be better? I just saw the movie a little while ago, and I found it to be more enjoyable than any other Pixar film. The Incredibles comes real close, but I would say Ratatouille wins out.
Speaking of Cars, it's the only Pixar film I haven't seen, and I don't imagine that will change any time soon. It's probably not nearly as bad as I imagine, but I just can't bring myself to watch it.
However, I did want to say this: I keep noticing people worrying about Disney messing things up, etc. As some people have kinda mentioned but not really: the animation branch of Disney, as it used to be, no longer exists. The recent "buyout" of Pixar was really the exact opposite: Pixar basically came in and took over Disney's animation department. So don't be worried about Disney ruining a Pixar movie, or any animation ever again. Instead, expect Disney's animation movies to actually start to kick ass again.
I mean, if anyone doubts that, just read this interview with Brad Bird (yes, he was just the director, but I think it's clear his sentiments are echoed throughout all of Pixar, which is probably partially why they keep asking him back): http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/bradbird.php
Also, re. the not-realistic-humans-but-realistic-backgrounds, just check out the making-of videos on the Incredibles DVD. They go through great lengths to explain how they had to make the humans non-realistic, because the brain simply doesn't accept it otherwise (can't remember the name of that effect off the top of my head). What I found really interesting was the details they worked even harder on, like the subtle refraction of the skin, that helps make the characters look much more realistic but without crossing over that threshhold that makes the brain reject the image as fake. (Look at the Final Fantasy movie for when you *do* cross over this line, imho).
Oh, and some info on the new 2D project from The-New-Disney: http://www.darlingdimples.com/?p=90
OK, enough link dumping for now
Edit: since everyone else was weighing in as well: I liked Cars well enough (I'm still awestruck over the amazing backgrounds) but frankly it was a bit too simplistic to me compared to Pixar's previous endeavors, for reasons I'm still not sure of. (And I'm not counting Incredibles here, because frankly that was just on a whole different level altogether--it was the first and so far only Pixar movie for me that rose above a kids-movie-that's-also-adult-friendly level to be a plain great dramatic film. It frankly made a far better dramatic film than any others around that time frame, and certainly was a far better Fantastic 4 interpretation than the actual F4 movie itself, IMHO. But then, after reading that first interview I linked above, I can see why.)
Basically it's when some is extremely realistic, but is just slightly off. Maybe the reflection of light off of skin is wrong, or the hair, or texture. There are a thousand little details that happen in real life that it's hard to replicate them all in animation.
When the brain sees it, it doesn't necessarily know what the problem is, it just knows something is wrong. And it freaks out because of it and doesn't like it.
Here's an example.
http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/3745
Long story short, the brain sees something that is almost real, and things that are not human but look human set off alarms in the brain.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.