Here?s the film:
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/cs/honda/051303/
Here’s the snopes entry about it:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp
That was quite beautiful. I’m so out of it that it didn’t occur to me to think it was computer effects. It’s a bit of a shame they couldn’t have got it all in one take, I did notice the interruption quite a bit. I guess I would have to see the film that the two film makers who are apparently trying to sue Honda made. People have been doing things like this forever. This result was very elegant though. Definitely a work of art to me—not just the motion but the shapes and arrangement of the various pieces.
When we saw that for the first time, we all sat there with jaws gaping… brilliant!
That was the 606th take. 
I didn’t use the right language there. It said in the article that they had to use two separate shots—I guess the action really stops at the half way point and then a new sequence starts. One person said it was because the building wasn’t long enough and one said it was a form of damage limitation. I guess if they got one half right, they wouldn’t have to keep trying to get that half again. I did notice where the two shots were put together and it would have been neat had it been feasible to do it in one shot. But I realize that it wouldn’t have been. It is a wonder they could do it at all. I don’t think I could have set something up that many times. I may be confused about this.
Ah, you are correct! The article is self conflicting in places…
I just hate those self conflictings… 