How do you spell "ratatouille?"

Just finished watching "Ratatouille" with the family, one in a long line of presumably excellent film that I have yet to see--and as the pattern goes, the film was wonderful.

What makes the case of "Rat." (you understand the necessity of abbreviations here) so confusing is my general love for Pixar films. Both "Toy Story" films are forever enshrined in my top 20 films, while "Monsters Inc." and "The Incredibles" are both in their own right fantastically produced animated films. And though "Rat." cannot quite capture my imagination by the throat like the original "Toy Story" did, I still must admit that I found myself mesmerized by what I like to call the "Pixar Touch"--a brilliant and seamless combination of laughs, cries, and suspense, all linked by some of the most gorgeous animations that the motion picture will ever produce. And all the while, this seemingly impossible hodgepodge of genres is pulled off with absolute lack of effort.

We all know the plot of "Rat." A rat who can cook, a human who can't, and the unlikely bond that develops between the two couple of misfits. The comedy of the film has an undeniable influence of Lubitsch and the famous "Lubitsch Touch," that light, effortless sophistication that coats every frame. The comedy of "Rat." never tries too hard for our laughs. Instead, the characters interact with each other and the environment, creating humor that is both physical and verbal. And, like Lubitsch, it is just plain sweet. Add to it

But anyway, this is a Pixar film, and the visuals are the key. The rat's fur, human's hair, facial expressions, the simmer of sauces in the kitchen--these are undoubtedly some of the more gorgeous snapshots that has ever been seen in FILM, not strictly the animated genre. And not just the typical beauty, but some very subtle attentions to detail that director Brad Bird is smart enough to exploit, such as the many brilliant uses of pictorial lighting in the film.

Like this shot. While not exactly pictorial, as the lighting is not exaggerated enough to be unrealistic, look at the absolute attention to detail--how the light wraps around the body of Remy, with a heavier concentration on his belly and a lesser amount on his sides. Or how the lighter pigments of Remy's ears create a brighter light than the darker pigments of his fur. This is top notch artistry, people, recognize it for what it is!

And, a note on actors: "Rat." features, among other actors, Ian Holm, Peter O'Toole, Brad Garrett, and Janeane Garofalo. Suffice to say, these are not the first actors which immediately come to mind when thinking of casting for an animated feature. And that is a very, very good thing!

We prosper in an "Aladdin"-inspired universe. Robin Williams' rendition of the Genie was so off-the-wall, so unpredictable, and so ROBIN WILLIAMS that it has inspired an entire generation of films where the biggest stars with the biggest name recognition are chosen for a voice acting part. Not because they necessarily fit into the role in which they are cast, but merely because they are movie stars, and movie stars sell movie tickets.

Pixar seems to be the only animated studio today that sees the problem with this, casting actual ACTORS, not STARS in their animated roles, realizing that the right actor is out there for the right animated role, just like in real-life movies. Just as Francis Ford Coppola knew that Al Pacino was the perfect Michael Corleone, John Lasseter knew that Tim Allen was the perfect Buzz Lightyear. Again, not the first actors that come to mind, yet they were perfect for their roles and the films gained an enormous advantage because of it.