A Bug’s Life has become the Jan Brady of Pixar. Three years after Toy Story, the bar was set astronomically high for the company’s second feature-length outing with Disney—and while the film about the little ant that could raked in just $10 million less than its predecessor’s worldwide box office total of $373 million, it never seemed to step out of the shadow of its big brother. But to write the film off as a “sophomore slump” would be doing a disservice to the storytelling and pioneering digital animation of the Bug’s Life team.
The success of A Bug’s Life is most evident in the film’s climax, in which inventor ant Flick (Dave Foley) and Princess Atta (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) rally their colony to rise against the evil grasshopper gang led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey, unfortunately). Originally inspired by Aesop’s The Ant And The Grasshopper, the Pixar crew molded the simple fable into an epic that concurrently celebrates the powers of the individual and banding together. In many ways, the image of the colony locking their arms together as a united front against an oppressor is more relevant to U.S. audiences today than it was in 1998. And the revolt that ensues weaves together moments that progress multiple storylines in a way that most Disney animation hadn’t up until then.
Technologically, there were a lot of lessons learned and advances made during the creation of Toy Story that made the Bug’s Life team’s job easier. (Pixar actually chose bugs as the central figures because—like toys—they had hard and smooth exteriors, which were easier to render.) But there was still an impressive amount of innovation required to bring Flick and his cavalry of circus performers to life. John Lasseter (the director, unfortunately) was fascinated with the way sunlight shone through leaves, almost like a stained-glass ceiling. To replicate the effect, the Pixar animators implemented a technique called subsurface scattering for the first time. And animating a group of 800 ants was no easy task. The film features an end credit “blooper” in which Dr. Flora (Edie McClurg) accidentally knocks over a cardboard cutout she thinks is a real ant, but in reality the animators knew the insects would appear lifeless if they were ever still.
They also knew it wasn’t practical to design each ant individually, nor was it acceptable for the ants to move in unison. To solve the problem, a software was developed to take a cluster of ants, duplicate them, and then randomly place them into group scenes. The ants were then customized so no two appeared alike. And, yes, the large rain droplets in the climax look woefully archaic in 2020, but the wave of rain water careening around the corner and rushing along the gorge toward Ant Island remains one of Pixar’s most realistic effects. A Bug’s Life continued to be at the forefront of innovation even after release: In 1999, it became the first film to be digitally transferred frame-by-frame for DVD, retaining its original widescreen format.
Sandwiched in between the revered Toy Story and Toy Story 2, A Bug’s Life has been referred to as the “forgotten” Pixar film. It’s never touted on film posters, and it’s literally being erased from Disney’s California Adventure theme park to make room for Marvel experiences, one of its rides repurposed as an Inside Out ride and relocated to the newly opened Pixar Pier, which features no Bug’s Life attractions. It’s a sad fate for the film that solidified Pixar as more than a one-hit wonder. Once a treasured possession, A Bug’s Life has been cast aside for what’s shiny and new. There’s a certain cowboy doll who may know the feeling.
246 Comments
And than petty asshole and founder of Quibi Jeffery Katzenburg made his own animated ant movie after being fired from Disney just to beat A Bug’s Life to the box office.
A spite movie!
“Excuse me, I’d like to make this ant movie.”“Certainly. May I ask why?”“…For spite.”“Spite?”“That’s right. I had a pretty bitter breakup from Disney.”“I don’t think you can make a CGI movie about ants for spite.”“What do you mean?”“Well, if the plot was interesting or you had an original story of some kind, then we could do it for you, but I’m afraid spite doesn’t fit into any of our conditions for funding an animated movie.”
To be fair, Dreamwork’s follow-up animated movie had an antagonist who looked exactly like the than CEO of the Walt Disney Company and was basically named “Fuckwad” and that resulted in a multi-million dollar franchise.
“Ok then, I’d like to make the movie because I believe in the script.”“But I know that’s not true. You already told me you wanted to do it out of spite.”
Don’t say revenge, don’t say revenge, don’t say revenge . . .
“Revenge?”
D’oh!
Junior executive summarily fired, project greenlitRevenge is a powerful motivator.
Arguably Dreamworks’ second spite movie, depending on what you think the real motivation was for putting Mouse Hunt in their early release slate.
I don’t know what you mean; I remember that movie competing with the Flubber remake, and unlike Antz they couldn’t be more different.
There was trade/critic speculation at the time that Katzenberg deliberately picked the script about a nuisance mouse for Dreamworks’ first “family” film as a shot at Disney, with a title that spoke to the upstart studio’s larger ambitions. They also used a close approximation of Mickey’s silhouette in some of the earliest promotional materials (the mouse was holding two cocktail olives by his head, you see.)Of course, the leads of Mouse Hunt are greedy, unsympathetic weasels, and younger viewers would be cheering for the cute animal anyhow, so I dunno how much water the theory holds.
And yet, it’s got nothing on Shrek. Now, THERE’S a spite movie.
A movie where Woody Allen Ant holds Danny Glover Ant’s decapitated head as he dies. One weird-ass movie.
You must not have gotten the AVClub style guide. It’s “…Woody Allen (unfortunately)…”
I just bought Noted Pervert Creep Woody Allen’s Bananas on Blu-Ray last week.
Then you sir are also a pervert! Away with you!
It’s even more unfortunate because his issues were well known for a few years when he was cast. In a kids film, no less. Ew. Spacey and Lassiter at least weren’t yet publicly known creeps at the time. Still unfortunate all around.
They absolutely have to point out that they disapprove of this person, or else we’ll think they approve of this person!
Finally someone who understands how the Internet work. I approve of your comment!
These are not words you hear often.
Now there’s an unfortunate voice cast.What child doesn’t enjoy the dulcet tones of Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, and Sylvester Stallone?
I don’t think it was trying to be kiddie fodder; they seemed to be aiming for something more adult in its concerns and its tone than Disney.
But it was still a cartoon, and in America, that will forever mean “kid’s movie.” Even if it’s a terrifically ugly cartoon about Woody Allen Ant dealing with his neuroses.
(Dreamworks’ MO early on seemed to be “Family films, but with a few wildly out-of-place gags/plot points that show that we’re not playing by Diz-nee’s puritanical rules.” Just fumbling towards some kind of relevance.)
I really can’t argue with any of that.
When the commercials and trailer was played, kid-me recognized Stallone immediately. I don’t even know how long I had been watching Rocky movies, but I was a fan. This was definitely though let’s get as many recognizable names as possible, Gene Hackman is an ant. Christopher Walken is inspired casting as an insect though.
Yeah, I was thrilled that an animated movie had so many movie-star voices.Years later, when we had to deal with the likes of celebrity-paycheck cartoons like Shark Tale, I regretted this feeling.
Shark Tale was absolutely hot garbage.
It was definitely among the worst of this trend, which began with Shrek and continued through most of DreamWorks’ animated output, as well as that of other animated films of the mid-2000s.What also bothers me is that Pixar briefly tried to jump in on this; of all the Pixar movies, Cars is the only one that announced its voice cast in the trailer. (“Paul Newman! Owen Wilson! Bonnie Hunt! Larry the Cable Guy!”)
I wish I had more stars to give – this made me laugh out loud.
Also Jennifer Lopez is in there voicing an ant and I feel like I should remember that more, but her part is pretty forgettable.
“Antrian! ANTRIAN!! Hey, oh, where is you, Antrian…?”
Honestly, I loved Antz when it came out. (Being 11 probably helped.)
To this day, Antz is the only Woody Allen movie I’ve seen from beginning to end. From what I hear of his other movies, that might be a good thing.
This is probably the real reason A Bug’s Life has been so forgotten. It ends up seeming like just another in the chain of double-released movies on the same subject that was a feature of the 1990s (Volcano and Dante’s Peak, Armageddon and Deep Impact).
Strangely enough, Dreamworks distributed Deep Impact and Disney distributed Armageddon.
Braveheart and Rob Roy.
Babe and GordyJurassic Park and CarnosaurTerminator 2 and Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey
I had friends who never forgave me for pushing for BaTBJ over T2.To this day, I do not understand people who like BaTBJ. “Station” is the original “Streets Ahead” or “Fetch” only not a joke on the character. Making it Chekov’s Gun made me want to slap a baby.
Man, you still seem bitter about this. Relax and draw comfort from the meaning of life — that every rose has its thorn, every night has its dawn, and every cowboy sings a sad, sad song.
All we are is dust in the wind, dude.
That’s beautiful, man.
What does BaTBJ mean?
Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey.
HOT TAKE: Antz, despite feeling like a knockoff with a WTF cast, is a better movie
Won’t argue the merits, but I think this scene gives a more realistic view into what life must have been like for many insects:
Agreed- i’ve always thought so. More listenable soundtrack, too.
Agreed, Antz was definitely the better film.
I preferred Antz as well, notwithstanding their antz had six legs, unlike the ants in Bug’s Life.
REALITY: One of these movies is a beautiful butterfly.It ain’t Antz
I’d make a case for saying that Armageddon is the most memorable out of the (implied) six films you mention. Though I get that isn’t the point you’re making with regards to A Bug’s Life.
I’ll defend the awesome ludicrousness of Volcano forever, but yeah, Armageddon is just a good popcorn flick/cable rewatch.
Because it fully embraced its silliness. The drilling crew is introduced with Bruce Willis firing a shotgun at Ben Affleck on an active offshore drilling rig for hooking up with his daughter. Someone should cut that scene with the back half of Deepwater Horizon.
If you asked me to name my favorite movie characters, Rockhound would be very high on the list.
I know this will never happen, but I really wanted someone to cut Armageddon and Deep Impact together.
You can have Tea Leoni’s story about discovering the government’s plan deal with an incoming asteroid, while mixing in the goofiness of hiring Bruce Willis’s crew.
Tonally it’d be all over the place, but you’d have a silly popcorn movie with a touch of added human drama (the beach scene from Deep Impact is pretty good).
Or, you could have the Armageddon crew devolve into fighting on the surface of the asteroid while everyone on earth is screaming at them to get their shit together and finish the job, but it’s too late and the asteroid slams into the earth while everyone in Washington’s last thought is why they sent a bunch of weirdo goofballs to save the world.
Yeah, Deep Impact also had a space crew trying to blow up the rock, but I guess the budget gave it short shrift.
Ahh the disaster movie glut of the 90’s. Not unlike the extremem sports movie glut int he 80’s with movies like Rad, Thrashin’ and the like 200 skiing movies.
The disaster movie glut continued well into the mid 00’s with things like The Day after Tomorrow, 2012, and that Poseidon Adventure remake. Thankfully it’s slowed down a bit now.
You only get forgotten if you’re the lesser of the two. Just ask The Illusionist after The Prestige came out.
That will always make me think of my favourite Jessica Biel joke from ‘BoJack Horseman’:Mr. Peanutbutter: People can watch great films like ‘The Prestige’ or ‘The Illusionist’. Whichever one you were in.Jessica Biel: Do you know which one I was in?MPB: Do you?JB: …
I think they are both good movies, but The Prestige is undoubtedly the one that was more memorable.
My favorite take on similar releases will always be The Abyss, Deep Star Six, and Leviathan in 1989. The triple threat of under sea films with wildly varying degrees of quality.
Yeah, after seeing Antz first I was like “seen enough big bugz now, thx”
Plus, no sequels. UP might be the only other one.
A lot don’t have sequels: Ratatouille, Wall-E, The Good Dinosaur, Brave, Coco, Inside Out (though that is the one most likely to get a sequel, I’d wager).
I might be in the minority, but I think Antz is the better film.Pixar’s animation sh!ts all over Dreamworks, but the story is more interesting for me. Also Woody Allen and Sly Stallone being worker buddies is funny.
Honestly the animation in A Bug’s Life isn’t even that much better. Yes it’s better but the difference isn’t really that pronounced, especially if you’re picking one to watch today and not time travelling back to 1998 to catch them when the animation was state of the art. Antz is just a better movie overall. The story and characters are more interesting, the voice acting is better, and it had some jokes for the adults in the audience as opposed to A Bug’s Life which was squarely for kids.
Antz is better than A Bug’s Life. And that’s one of the reasons why everyone has forgotten A Bug’s Life. No one likes to admit the fact that DreamWorks showed up Pixar.
Nah. Especially not from a design perspective. Like, put the technology aside: Antz literally was a film whose entire producing and design staff said “You know what we want to do? A movie where literally every single character including the extras are beige, and they all live in a beige world, except for one part on a picnic blanket where we gruesomely kill a new character for no reason: that’ll get audiences’ attention!” Jesus, even the Road Warrior knew to give people distinctive costumes.
Meanwhile, Bug’s Life tries to tell it’s fairly similar “individuals vs working together with colony insects” story, and it actually remembers that grass, sky, birds, and other insects and arthropods exist, and that tiny eyes on cartoon characters don’t work for a reason, and that, hey, it’s a cartoon, ants can be blue, why not.
That’s before noting that the real hero of Antz is Christopher Walken’s character, and that Antz became the proto-Shark’s Tale, a film that decided poorly directed “A-list” talent was an adequate substitute for actual voice acting.
That’s before noting that the real hero of Antz is Christopher Walken’s characterHuh?
Walken’s character has an actual arc. He wants to save the Princess, he does, learns he’s been a tool for a cruel man, and defies him once he does, and is the one that actually pulls most of the other characters out of the hole at the end, and saves the “actual” protagonist. Z is just Woody Allen, doesn’t really grow or change, and other than telling everyone to make the ant ladder, mostly just screws up the whole time.
It’s similar to the “Last Crusade would turned out the same if Indiana Jones hadn’t been in it” argument, but I’m not that invested in it. It’s mostly a joke… about the Antz movie, lol.
Everything you said is correct. But I’d still watch Antz over A Bug’s Life any day.
Starring Woody Allen (unfortunately)!
And it worked. Look closely, and you’ll see he’s standing on the buried remains of A Bug’s Life, raising his arms in victory, because Antz is the better movie!
I think a lot of people today confuse the two and when they Bug’s Life wasn’t great, they’re really thinking about Antz.
Antz was better.
I like Antz and Bugs Life about the same( problematic cast and crew aside), Antz has a great score
Antz is the better film, full stop.
One has an awesome scene of giant monster termites fighting an army of soldier Ants sent to die for political reasons, the other has a LADYBUG THAT’S A BOY(bug)!!!! I actually like both, the giant bird is genius, but Antz always reflected the horrors of the insect world in a way that was both funny and satisfied my desire to watch insects battle to the death.
I always theorized that the surge of bug-movies in the early feature length CGI era was attributable to technical limitations that limited studios to CGI movies about rigid things like robots, toys, or bugs. Anything with a greater range of motion plummeted into the uncanny valley.
You look at human/mammal CGI around the time, like the people in toy story…yeesh.
That was part of the reason why but Katzenberg’s pettiness certainly was a factor. He was doing shit like that even when he was at Disney. Like when he plastered the Genie all over the marketing for Aladdin, even though Robin Williams specifically asked Disney not to, because Robin Williams was doing voicework for Ferngully.
The conflicting film was Toys, not Ferngully. Robin should’ve been glad for *anything* to distract from how bad Ferngully was. (And yes, I say that knowing what Toys is like.)
No, as the video I posted goes into, it was because of Toys that Robin didn’t want the Genie to headline the promotional material for Aladdin. He didn’t want Aladdin to canibalize part of the audience for Toys, which was his passion project, and he didn’t want his character merchandised. Katzenberg reneged on the deal when Robin did voicework for Ferngully and tried to sabotage production on Ferngully in any way he could.
Oh, ok. I misunderstood what “because” was applying to.
anyone else get a copy of the dvd when they bought a iMac? And that was a selling point – I love this movie. It’s funny as hell, it’s a remake of Seven Samurai AND Magnificent Seven, and there’s some exceptional voice work. Julia Louis-Dreyfus response to Dave Foleys “I was only trying to help!” is perfect: “well… ya didn’t…”
Dennis Leary as a ladybug. Perfect.
No, but I got a digital copy of Weezer’s “Buddy Holly” music video when my dad bought Windows 95.
David Hyde Pierce is also great in this. “I’m the only stick! With! Eyeballs!”I’ve seen it a ton recently because of my kid. The animation is certainly crude compared to modern Pixar, but the movie holds up well.
It’s really interesting to look back at Pixar’s evolution. I owned a VHS copy of their original shorts (it came out shortly after Toy Story and was called Tiny Toy Stories), but they’re all on Disney+ now, and MAN … it’s really something. Watch Tin Toy (which features a terrifying animated baby), then Toy Story (where the humans look just a little off), then Toy Story 2 where they animated Al’s facial hair and then on to the almost photorealistic Toy Story 4 … it’s really something. So yeah, A Bug’s Life isn’t quite as polished as later movies, but it was still several leaps forward in terms of computer animation at the time.
I actually just watched Toy Story 4 a week ago, and yeah there were some scenes/shots (especially in the antique store) that definitely did not look like animation. It was kind of astonishing.I also am just realizing now that I don’t think I ever actually saw A Bug’s Life. I should rectify that.
It holds up pretty well and it’s cute. Kevin Spacey is its biggest flaw, but he’s basically an unredeemable villain, so it’s less problematic than it could be.
So, Se7en is still okay on that principle as John Doe is a monster but not The Usual Suspects as Verbal Kint is somewhat sympathetic?
I mean, I’m not here to tell anyone what they can and can’t watch; the movies have been made and nobody has time to go back and digitally remove him and replace him with Christopher Plummer. But in my opinion, yes – plus, he’s barely in Se7en.
I would love to see ‘A Bug’s Life’ remade with a live-action Plummer spliced into the animation.
Verbal’s a monster, you just don’t know it until the last two minutes of the film. Beware the unreliable narrator.
But you also don’t know how much of a monster he really is, and how much of that was just made up.
True, but I think it’s reasonable to assume things went down more or less as told except it was Verbal/ Keyser doing the ugly shit ascribed to Keaton.
“These twink actors are forgetting their place!”“Cut! Ah, Kevin, you’re doing it again.”
Fun fact: I labored for years under the impression that the villain was played by Dennis Hopper.. because, well. Hopper.
It’s understandable.
One of the film’s early shots – RC in the gutter at night, with the water and lighting – was just incredible and seemed to be there entirely to show off and make a statement on how far they’ve come.
I don’t think Pixar can still get humans right. They all look a little plastic. I get they’re aiming for a cartoon style, but Disney’s main animation studio is well above Pixar on facial animations these days.
Eh… I mean, yes, they’re all a bit cartoony, but the hair, skin, clothing and other textures are WORLDS better than they used to be. And they are, after all, cartoons. I guess we’ll see how they look in Soul, the next Pixar feature. Both Moana and Frozen II were gorgeous to look at, but I’m not sure the humans looked better or more realistic, just different.
Continuing to make them a little cartoony is the way to go. Any attempt to go full realistic with people is always disconcerting.
totally – they made a decision sometime before Incredibles to ignore photo-realism and just go for expressionism. Works much better.
Yeah, my mind was successively blown by the quality of the animation with each new Pixar movie, even by stuff that now looks quite dated by comparison. I was a bit shocked the first time I re-watched Toy Story after a long time away — the humans and the dog are more than a bit off, they’re pretty awful. But the first time around, the fluidity of the camera work, the richness of detail, the lighting — it was all incredible.
The humans looked a bit off even at the time. It was acknowledged even in the promo material that a) humans are hard to animate well, but b) it was also a stylistic choice that they be a bit stiff like action figures to not compete against the live-ness of the toys.
“swish swish, clang clang…” so brilliant
My first thought, exactly. I got an iMac for Christmas, which came with A Bug’s Life, which I hadn’t seen. I probably watched it 100 times, as the only other DVD I had was The Matrix, which I’d gotten at the same time, and because The Matrix was a much darker film visually, the iMac had some brightness issues showing it anytime other than night with the lights off.
I’d say it’s more a remake of Three Amigos, in that it has a guy mistaking actors for the warriors they pretend to be, and the actors think they’re being hired for a gig, and the music is by Randy Newman. The same plot (minus Newman songs) was then used a third time for Galaxy Quest.
It’s basically a version of Three Amigos that leans back towards Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven.
The Three Amigos connection is even stronger with the Randy Newman songs
And ¡Three Amigos!!
And Galaxy Quest. Which was pretty amazing because it wouldn’t be made until next year! But seriously, the idea of imposters/actors being mistaken for the real thing is a very well used trope.
This is my absolute favorite Pixar film!PT Flea and the Flaming Death scene always puts me in hysterics! “You’re all fired!” and the crowd “Burn him again!”
I was thinking about that DVD as I read this article. I used to show it to people on my shiny 1999 iMac because the graphics were so amazing.
it’s a remake of Seven Samurai AND Magnificent SevenOof the level of nerdrage this raises in me is incalculable.
why? I know both movies well, and Bugs Life references both very cleverly, with a large dose of Three Amigos too. So, why the rage?
Because Magnificent Seven is a remake/westernization of Seven Samurai, so while the animated movie references beats from both, it is (clears throat for pedantry) only a remake of Seven Samurai. Fight me.
if they reference specific moments from Magnificant Seven that aren’t in Seven Samurai, then it’s not just a remake of Seven Samurai.Nice try, really good. But i think you where aiming for the horse.
Since Magnificent Seven doesn’t exist without Seven Samurai, putting them on equal footing as inspirations/sources is silliness.
This scene was so ahead of its time:
There’s some personal growth and darkest-before-the-dawn despair here but Bug’s Life doesn’t go for the emotional complexity/manipulation of other Pixar movies, and it’s not surprising that as that complexity became their big hook — cartoons that make you feel, man — Bug’s Life has been downplayed. But that’s what makes it great! Instead of tuning heartstrings for maximum pluck, the movie is just about telling a damn good adventure story with another excellent voice cast. Nothing wrong with that.
I dont think it’s upper-tier Pixar but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a solid double down the line, I will take those all the live-long day too. It’s consistently funny (those twin pill bugs always kill me) and Denis Leary is a goddamn delightful masterstroke of casting.
I saw this in the theater. I liked it a lot, but this is one I never really revisited. I remember the lowest point where the bugs are exposed as circus insects and Flik has to leave was pretty depressing.Oh, I also quite liked the Bug’s Life video game.
The A Bug’s Life videogame was the first one I had for my PSOne. I remember liking it a lot more than the movie itself.
I loved that game! The Gameboy port was pretty fun, too, IIRC.
“Pixar actually chose bugs as the central figures because—like toys—they had hard and smooth exteriors, which were easier to render.”So does this mean there was no way the studio could have conceivably done Monsters Inc. or Finding Nemo as their first feature film without the technological advancements that would follow? Cause they had all the ideas for their first seven or eight films brainstormed before Toy Story, correct?
I think it was a process of “this gave them confidence and inspiration to do that.” Toy Story focused on plastic characters because it was easier to animate things than people, and because they’d already done one or two shorts that featured animated toys. The success of that film inspired them to reach a little further with the second, and they had developed better animation tools, which enabled A Bug’s Life. They did Finding Nemo when someone realized that undersea animation was a perfect fit for the current state of animating light and surfaces, etc. To a very real extent they were creating the art form in the process of exploring it, so Pixar’s early history tells a very incremental, step-by-step story.
There are some featurettes on this, and it’s pretty neat the way they incrementally developed their technology. For Finding Nemo they developed a process for animating light in water, and for Monsters Inc they developed a process for animating hair (hence the striking difference between, say, the dog’s matted-looking fur in Toy Story 2 and Violet’s hair in The Incredibles). My personal favorite is that they made “Geri’s Game,” the short about an old man playing chess, to test a new process for animating skin and (more importantly) a new approach to character design. The humans in Toy Story are kind of waxy and mannequin-like, and the animators found that more “cartoony,” stylized designs made them look (ironically) more human.
Pixar’s techniques even improved with the same character in a sequel. They gave Sully 5,000,000 hairs in Monsters University, competing with Dreamworks animating Fiona’s fabulous mane in Shrek Forever After.
This wasn’t a very thoughtful think piece. “A Bug’s life is often forgotten, but it’s actually pretty good.”
I will always hate this movie because ants have six legs, not four. It’s just wrong. Why would you give a few of the bugs (like the grasshoppers, dung beetle, and walking stick) the correct number of legs, but then short the others?
Not only is this the most-overlooked Pixar film, it’s probably the one the studio regrets not pushing harder: those 2 roly-poly bugs are basically the Minions 12 years ahead of time.
Upa, upa, upa, HEY!
This “wtf” laugh when Flik is explaining everything to Tuck and Roll kills every damn time (1:34 if the timestamp doesn’t work)
It’s now quite amusing to hear Kevin Spacey give a lecture about how one or two little attacks won’t do much but a ton all at once will kill you, given how well he’d learn that lesson himself.
Method acting 101.
In a movie filled with some great voice acting (John Ratzenberger is particularly good here), Kevin Spacey’s comes off sounding like a celebrity just cashing a pay check. I always thought his performances sounded too much like an actor reading lines, and this is particularly apparent here.
I always thought he sounded like he was Tim Allen doing that grunt noise.
Our old buddy Nathan Rabin once pointed out that Kevin Spacey goes on so much about the acting process, that that’s exactly what it looks like he’s doing in every movie; acting. There’s never a moment where you see him fully inhabit and disappear into a character. You’re always aware it’s Kevin Spacey acting for the camera.
Isolating just his voice highlights this problem even more. If I had to guess, he tried to play Hopper as a disinterested sociopath (which is in Spacey’s wheelhouse) but he just came off as wooden.
Makes him perfectly cast as Jack Vincennes in L.A. Confidential. He’s acting the Hollywood big shot
I remember reading this a long time back (ya know, when the original staff were still around at the AVC) and it didn’t make an impression on me then. Reading it now, and thinking back on the movies Spacey’s been in (lead or support, doesn’t matter), it really is crazy how it does seem like he doesn’t inhabit the roles he’s playing. He is literally, “just acting”. Granted, his dead-eye stare does still work for me in Se7en and The usual Suspects, but it flat out fails in American Beauty. Side note: AB has not stood the test of time. I still can’t believe that I got done driving 8 hours back from Chicago and instead of going home, I went to the cinema and saw that dreck. The writer that’s doing The Popcorn Champions should take as his next series all the best movie Oscar winners and review them with how time has treated them. I would especially love to read a re-evaluation of the last 25 years.
I feel ya. I was already on the outs with American Beauty before Kevin Spacey’s allegations came to light, and considering he literally tries to fuck a teenager in that movie, let’s just say that knowing that has not improved the film in my eyes.
I actually did a list of Best Picture winners versus losers back in college, and way more films we now consider classics are in the losers category. Psycho, Brokeback Mountain, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Citizen Kane, etc etc. I remember my friends being super upset that Black Panther lost, and I told them “Dude, I get it, but trust me you want that film to lose if you still want to enjoy it later.”
Ratings for the Academy Awards have been dwindling for over a decade now that the formula for winning an Oscar has been well-exposed (looking at you, Green Book), and considering what the movie landscape looks like this year due to the quarantine, it makes me wonder how much longer Oscar broadcasts can survive. I get the feeling if they take a mulligan just one year, people will realize they don’t miss it and it’ll never recover.
I came of age when my company/office/whatever would do pools on the primary Oscar categories, because we were young and loved films. The last time I watched an Oscar broadcast was maybe 2013, and it’s not like I lost interest, it’s that they weren’t -interesting-. And fuck. Green Book is the ‘10s winner of the Crash award for soon to be most reviled movie to win best picture. I’m still surprised that Casablanca won back in 1943. The competition was kinda stiff that year, but it amazes me how sometimes the voters get it right. Looking at 1944, however, and somehow Gaslight and Double Indemnity (!!!) got overlooked for a Bing Crosby musical called Going My Way. It wasn’t even a Crosby/Hope road movie. I almost feel like they should retroactively award a film for each year that it is now realized to be far superior to the one that did get the Oscar. A “Legacy Best Picture” if you will.
But then you get into weird nebulous territory like the Most Popular Film award that someone at the Academy proposed in relation to Black Panther. It just exposes the pageantry and how a lot of this is just marketing and studio politics. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close got nominated despite being a critical and commercial failure, but it fit the Oscar template they’ve milked since the dawn of the New Millennium, so audience interest be damned.
Crash winning was when I tapped out on the Oscars for good. I was at my college Oscar party and a collective “What the fuck?!” erupted throughout the room after the announcement. Brokeback Mountain may have its flaws, but it’s a hundred times the movie Crash is.
Eh, I’m not saying it should be a retroactive popularity vote, more like out of the nominations for that year should be re-evaluated on what their impact has been since that year. My perfect case example for this is 1944 (as I found out and mention above). It’d be a close tie for me as to what has had more of an effect on culture and film, be it Gaslight or Double Indemnity. God only knows it hasn’t been a Bing Crosby musical comedy. I like what you say about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. I find it hard to believe that I liked Everything is Illuminated, both book and film, but after ELIC, JFC I could not stand to read anything else from JSF. Pandering to the masses and throwing darts at post-its with random ideas on a wall and then putting them all together. He apparently teaches creative writing at NYU. I’ll say a prayer for all his students and light a million candles for their souls, because dear God his written sap could be made into maple syrup.
I still don’t understand why people look on losing Best Picture as a mark of shame, when it means that the film in question was still considered one of the 5-10 best of the year.
His line delivery to Morgan Freeman in Seven was pretty awesome though. “Oh…he didn’t know.”But he’s terrible in Baby Driver, one of my favorite relatively recent films, and propped up by everyone else.
According to Jon Bernthal, Spacey was an abusive dick to the cast and crew behind-the-scenes, which makes it extra unfortunate that his final performance is so mediocre. Not that abuse like that is ever justified, but it makes me think: “Kevin, you haven’t had a hit in years because of shit like this. You need this movie more than it needs you.”
He’s lucky Bernthal didn’t crush his skull.
I’ll give Sacey “The Usual Suspects”. He was good in that. Total dbag afterwards.
That reminds me, it’s getting toward the time of year to start diligently checking the garden for tomato hornworms every morning. Heimlich the caterpillar was toned down a lot for plausibility. Those aren’t insect larvae. They’re miniaturized versions of that giant cone-shaped machine that ate entire planets in Star Trek.
I haven’t seen Bug’s in many years but, since they seem to put out 50% sequels, I’d be in on another one or two (unless I’m getting WALL-E 2, there’s not much else I’m eager for another dose of at the moment). I think the construct of a hidden “real” world with non-humans makes for a great canvas to tell fantastical stories without them feeling too goofy or needing to hit the human characters and writing perfectly. Given how far Pixar has come, either rebooting or extending Bug’s could work as well as Nemo/Dory (and better than things like Onward or another fricking Cars—I mean Soul looks beautiful l but it’s a story about a jazz musician’s midlife crisis?!).
I think The Good Dinosaur was Pixar’s last “inventive” film. It’s not a great movie, but it had some of the best photorealistic environments and very little dialogue.
I take it you haven’t seen Coco
Ahh. I forgot that was Pixar
The rushing water in that movie was incredible. It’s too bad about the rest of the movie.
Rattat2ouille.Up: Higher.Outside In.I’m sure they’re all on the way eventually. Another Bug’s Life, with better CGI, and stronger (read: emotional) storytelling would make for a huge improvement. I’m not the biggest Cars fan, but Cars 3 satisfied all this criteria and was better for it.
‘Up: And To The Left’.
Just watched this again recently and really enjoyed it.I took a class taught by one of the animators who worked on it years ago. He apparently was responsible for the rocks, and said, “I never want to see another rock ever again.”
Oh man, I feel really bad for that animator, Charles Brown.
Given the large amount of rocks in the world, I’m not sure he’s getting his wish.
Hopper’s demise in this film is one of the more gruesome Disney deaths I can think of. I don’t recall too many characters being devoured alive, ripped limb from limb (from limb from limb from limb from limb, in an insect’s case), even if it’s implied.
I just watched The Lion King (the original one, obvs) with my son, which I haven’t seen in at least 20 years. I’d forgotten that Scar gets mauled to death by his army of hyenas (who I assume eat him – they’re hyenas, after all). It’s not as gruesome as being dismembered, but I guess he’s a mammal so it gets some extra points. It’s definitely one of the more satisfying Disney villain comeuppances.
Oooooh yeah. I haven’t seen Lion King in a few years. I thought Scar just fell off a cliff or something, but I might be confusing that with Mustafa’s death.Also, an enterprising clickbait writer should take that ball and run with it — Most Satisfying Disney Villain Deaths.
Scar attempts to pounce on Simba and Simba uses Nala’s flip move from their earlier fooling around to throw him off Pride Rock. Scar is battered but not dead and comes to surrounded by the hyenas. He tries to play to their sympathies, but they heard him betray the hyena pack to the lions… so they devour him.
On the one hand, a compilation of Most Satisfying Disney Villain Deaths might be entertaining.On the other hand, I am NOT going to click through 37 slides, Herb! Don’t even think about it!!
Mustafa died from being shot twice after surviving Dr. Evil’s fire pit.Mufasa died from being trampled by a wildebeest stampede.
I miss a good Disney death. Tarzan’s villain takes the cake.
Still remember being genuinely shocked about that Tarzans Villains death. Like, audible gasp in the cinema shocked…
My favorite is when Cinderella rips both arms off her step-mother.
How about John Carter ripping through a Martian ape?
counterpoint: he deserved it
As I watched The Incredibles and seeing Syndrome get sucked into that jet engine, I remember thinking, “That’s something I didn’t expect from Pixar.”
Unequivocally killing the villain in the background as a callback to an earlier joke is just so perfectly mean. IIRC the other characters don’t even notice him dying.
I like how he commits two superhero/villain sins in one: he’s monologuing (talking about how he will get his hands on JackJack) and wearing a cape, and they both contribute to his death.
But it’s by baby birds! Fuzzy yellow peeping things! I’d totally forgotten that angle until I watched the clip in the article – that’s the kind of fun twist that Pixar brought to the table and Dreamworks tried (poorly) to emulate.
One of the ways Disney actually hews close to the old fairy tales is by providing brutal, very definitive deaths for the villains. (Though Disney’s never gone as far as having anyone dance in red-hot shoes until they die.)
Almost as forgotten as Dinosaur
A Bug’s Life is one of my favorite Pixar movies. It doesn’t get enough love
Well, at least Its Tough to Be a Bug still exists at Disney World… unless COVID prevents it from ever re-opening.
Between the recycled 3-d glasses, the confined space, and the water spray/mist, it’ll probably be down for a while even after the parks reopen. But I do like that one, too.
I imagine once they can figure out a good property that fits within a theater experience that has to do with Animal Kingdom themes they’ll rework it, probably retrofitting whatever new stuff they come up with at the Marvel show in California.
As an aside, I always thought they could make a spiritual successor to Honey, I Shrunk the Audience with something Ant Man related.
I learned the hard way not to take very young kids to that. Apparently it’s terrifying when you’ve never experienced something that immersive.
I experienced it back in January, and kids were screaming in terror.
I was not a very young kid the first time I experienced it, and I still didn’t like it. I get the point, and it’s cute, but at the end when all of the “bugs” come “running” across the floor (AND SEATS) to get out of the theater before the people, I freaked a little too.
It’s an OK time killer, nothing more. It seemed like a letdown at the time. “Magnificent Seven” rip offs were already old hat then (and the “Magnificent Seven” itself was already a rip off.) It had Jonathan Harris, so, points for that. Otherwise, pretty milquetoast.I used to be so excited about CGI. Now I long for a hand drawn animated film and live action movies with miniatures and practical effects. There’s no magic left. As for groundbreaking, I don’t know. Pixar deliberately chose bugs because they would look less jarringly off than human characters (which still don’t feel right) but I think the movie overall looks kind of washed out and dead. Yes, it nudged the medium forward but like Doug Trumbull observed of CGI, somebody writes a new algorithm and they make a big deal out of it yet these movies ultimately never really get better.
I like CGI fine, but while revisiting old favorites with the kids I miss that unique magic that hand drawn animation can achieve. Miyazaki films have been really astounding to watch again with them- it’s pretty crazy that American animation studios have virtually abandoned the style.
It’s one reason I really really loved Into the Spider-Verse. 3D rendering today is gorgeous from a fidelity standpoint, but it’s depressing that Pixar, DAS, Dreamworks, et al all look interchangeable with it. Spider-Verse, while not traditionally hand-drawn, didn’t look like the dozens of CG films that have come out in the last 20 years and reminded what an exhilarating, boundless format animation is when real chances are taken with it.
Yes, while I know it’s not exactly the same, I do appreciate CGI films that try to look like something other than the Pixar/Illumination/Dreamworks etc style. I think it would be amazing for Pixar to animate something feature length using a different CGI technique.
Totally agree, nowadays animated films all look the same, there’s no variety when it comes to character designs. Back in late 90’s-early 00’s it was fun and interesting to watch CGI movies because traditional animation was still the norm. Now every studio wants to replicate Pixar with mediocre results almost always, heck even Pixar itself feels pretty stale as of recently
W’s with all the “unfortunatly”, I know you’re righteous people, and I know there are bad propone (even criminals) that worked ir still work in the movies, but why don’t you just write about the movies? Looks kind of stupid to want to show your a very good people thats embarrased by the others sins.
But it’s a rock.
I always thought Dennis Hopper played the bad guy in this. Not that he didn’t have problems of his own.Which reminds me, if you’re going to put (unfortunately) after every actor or director whose been caught doing something wrong, you’re going to get real sick of that word. There is not one space on this world that has not had something bad happen on it, and there is not one person who lived to adulthood without feet of clay. Every great movie is made with at least one asshole, and you’re free to like the work while still hating the asshole.
I’ll give John Lasseter a pass on his work because much of it was so good. Kevin Spacey? Meh, guy always sounded like an actor reading lines. He delivers the worst performance, by far, in this film.
Meh, guy always sounded like an actor reading lines.This is the second time I’ve heard this argument and I’m not buying it anymore than the first. Every actor is just someone reading lines at then end of the day. Not every actor goes from See no Evil, Hear no Evil to Se7 in less than, well, seven years. Keven Spacey was doing something right, even if no one wants to admit it now.
They’re not talking about Spacey’s entire filmography, they’re talking about his performance in A Bug’s Life specifically.
I thought Spacey was pretty good in A Bug’s Life. My favorite line read is that sneering speech about the missing food: “Do I look stupid, to you? … If it was up there, would I be coming down here — to your level — looking for it?!?” I love how it drips with contempt.
It really comes across as virtue signalling. Spacey was revealed to be a terrible person in real life, so now let’s pretend we always thought he was a terrible actor too.
A Bug’s Life is one of my favorite Pixar movies. Yes, it hasn’t held up well in the looks department but there were so many great characters and inspired voice casting. Denis Leary for Ladybug? C’mon, that’s genius even by today’s standards. Tuck and Roll? Heimlich? I saw Antz and I can’t remember any of the characters, in fact I totally forgot Woody Allen was associated with this until I read this.
How is it unfortunate that Kevin Spacey was cast in a movie in 1998? Let alone as probably the most vicious villain in all of Pixar? It’s also not remotely unfortunate that Lasseter directed this or anything else.Anyway, this is a good movie.
Some people here need every pop culture conversation to be about their moral judgments.
The Good Dinosaur is the REAL forgotten Pixar flick. Most Pixar fans, when rattling off every film they can think of, will eventually get to Bug’s Life, because it was definitely the second. Nobody remembers Good Dinosaur. It’s a rare second-release-in-the-same-year for Pixar, and the first release was Inside Out, so I’m guessing that’s why nobody thinks about it much.
It’s also pretty bad; I get what they were going for but it just doesn’t work.Bug’s Life aside, I feel like of all the well-performing PIXAR movies, Ratatouille is the one that’s disappeared the most.
I think its badness is really overstated just because it’s Pixar. It’s certainly not one of the great Pixar films, but compared to a whole lot of other CGI animated films that come out from other studios, the effort and creativity are above average and it’s entertaining enough. The animation is frequently astonishing, if nothing else.
I dunno. I thought it was pretty awful by any standards. The animation of the environment was the only good thing about the movie. I don’t think it should’ve seen the light of day, but I guess they needed to get something out of it.
YMMV. For me, it’s not even my least favorite Pixar film.
Just out of curiosity, what is your least favorite Pixar film?
Toss up between Cars 2, Cars 3, and Brave. (Also note that least favorite does not equal dislike).
I’d guess everyone remembers Ratatouille but can’t tell you what happens in it.
For my money Ratatouille is the best Pixar movie
I don’t know which movie I’d put as Pixar’s best, but ‘Ratatouille’ is one I could put on and enjoy any time. There’s so much warmth to it, and for a medium that doesn’t make use of taste and smell, it conveys the power of food beautifully. It makes you feel the way good food and wine should.
And despite Patton Oswalt’s ubiquity as a voice actor to the point he stands out as Patton Oswalt-ing in a lot of roles (which is fine, I’m a fan!), man is he perfect as Remy. I wouldn’t want to imagine anyone else in that role.
It does all of those things in a way that as intoxicating as a more erudite film like sideways does, but with the typical grounded and charming Pixar way.But really what it has to say about creation, art, and criticism is so profound that rewatching it just makes me feel so lucky that such a special movie can exist. It deserves to stand next to Miyazaki’s best films in my mind.
As someone who’s done some semi-professional critical writing, the bit at the end where Ego talks about the work of a critic really hits home to me. It’s both a skewering and defence of the form, and also gets to the heart of how and why we engage with art and culture.
It’s definitely near or on my Pixar Mt. Rushmore. I *love* Ratatouille something fierce.
He’s a rat that becomes a chef. At the end, they kill him.
Yeah, the problem is The Good Dinosaur came out months after Inside Out, which blew away a lot of people (myself included), while this simply looked fine, and ended up being (again to folks like myself) fine. It’s more of a testament to Pixar that a movie that is pretty much solid is towards the bottom of the totem pole simply from how many times they’ve knocked it out of the park in the last quarter-century.
I’d argue that one of the reasons it’s fallen slightly by the wayside is that whilst Toy Story felt fresh and original, A Bugs Life was more obviously reminiscent of films which had come before, namely The Magnificent 7 and The 3 Amigos. More than many Pixar films, this is the one that makes me feel “sure, this is a great take on something I’ve seen before, but it is just something I’ve seen before”.
All you “Actually Antz was better” folks need to stop. Antz was on HBO 700 times a year between 1999 and 2004, and A Bug’s Life was not, so you remember it more. But Antz was absolutely worse, right down to the stupid “z” in the title.
Fun fact: the rescue scene in this movie is inspired by Castle in the Sky, as per Lasseter’s foreword in Miyazaki’s autobiography, Starting Point. You can kinda see it, too!
What is also interesting is that ‘A Bug’s Life’ is totally Pixar’s Castle in the Sky. A surprisingly good second movie by a legendary animation studio that is often forgotten because it lives in the shadow of groundbreaking first film
toy story: selling toys, Sid’s face is the stuff of nightmares, spawns multiple joyless cash grab sequels, absolutely no Richard Kindbug’s life: a utopian society destroys Fascist Kevin Spacey through collective action, ends the movie with the male protagonist happily supporting his literal Queen, Richard Kind steals the show as Moltin summation, a bug’s life is BETTER than toy story, like all Great Art it was ahead of it’s time and unappreciated no I will not be taking questions
Damn Richard Kind for getting me to bawl like a damn baby every time in Inside Out.
Bing Bong…
Holy shit y’all. No, Antz is NOT the better film. Not in any universe. Yikes.
What, you don’t want to spend 90 minutes with characters that look like this:As they trading sub-Must See TV innuendos and paper-thin pop culture references?(And did you notice the product placement)
Ha, that product placement is pretty great. Pepsi: full name, prominently displayed. Mountain Dew: Partial display of recognizable name logo. Slice: If you know what Slice is, you might recognize it.
Hell yeah, Slice. Who loves orange soda? BTU loves orange soda, I do, I do, I do-oooh.
I think the appearance of that 2-liter coincided with one of Pepsi’s last attempts to rebrand/relaunch Slice. I looked it up, Pepsi seemingly surrendered the trademark and now Slice has relaunched by a new company a sparkling water and juice blend, hawked by generic Instagram models.(Also dear God, that’s a lot of soda for one picnic, every bug in Central Park should’ve been swarming that blanket.)
It looks like Max Headroom got into a matter transporter accident with an ant.
I feel Dave Foley was a major problem. He isn’t that good an actor, and didn’t engage as Flik.
Not just one of the first digital-to-digital DVD transfers, A Bug’s Life was also re-composited and re-rendered for the 4×3 full-frame version. They put a hell of a lot of work into this movie, it’s great.
My favorite part of Seven Samurai was the beginning when they were all lousy circus performers
Praising a film that cribbed its entire plot from Seven Samurai for its story is…odd.
Antz came out at the same time. It was 5 times better than Pixar’s bug movie–as if that was such a tough mark to hit.
A big part of this movie was “inspired” by The Seven Samurai.
Good for Pixar. I still think The Ice Age flicks are the best.
I believe Antz, despite its origins, is by far the superior movie. It is funnier, (more) original and the depiction of ant “society” is much more ant-like (and the ants have six limbs as well). The conclusion where the army recognises its responsibility to the colony is beautiful and the final shot where we see the irrelevant scale of the colony relative to the city is brilliant. The casting is also brilliant – Gene Hackman, Christopher Walken, Sly Stallone all suit their characters perfectly and Woody Allen is pretty ideal for the role as well.
I still miss the days of Dave Foley being so big. I love his every stupid sitcom appearance afterwards, but in the 90’s he was actually headlining projects.
it’s literally being erased from Disney’s California Adventure theme park to make room for Marvel experiencesGee, you think it’d be a natural crossover to Ant-Man.
Well, the opening of TS 2 with the video game and the weird floating rocks was actually a mistake when rendering A Bug’s Life, so Pixar made lemonade and repurposed it.
After being taken completely by surprise by Toy Story I went to see Bug’s Life opening weekend. I thought it was amazing, but there was one lesson in being too clever for your own good. I was seated next to a four or five year old kid and his dad. The theater goes dark, and comes up on the short Geri’s Game, which begins with a beautiful shot of a city park. The kid taps his dad’s elbow and whispers, “Dad, where are the bugs?” The dad explains this is a short movie before the movie. The kid waits patiently through Geri’s Game, fade to black, then Bug’s Life begins with a beautiful shot of autumn trees and everything is luminous, then there are ripples and you realize that the beautiful trees were actually a reflection in a pond, a bravura opening. The kid tugs on his dad sleeve, and says much louder this time, “DAD, where are the BUGS?!?!”Just a lesson I filed away that you can achieve animation mastery, but if you name your kids movie Bug’s Life, you better give the kids some bugs.