A Bug's Life

Year Of Release: 1998

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 91mns

Age Rating: U (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review


Hello, welcome to this, my second review in a series of reviews on Pixar films. A series that is proving to be a lot more intrusive upon my free time than I first thought. This review will be looking at 'A Bug's Life', a film that can proudly hold the title of 'nobody's favourite Pixar film' before glumly trudging off to wave the trophy aloft the podium of 'most forgettable Pixar film'.

Pictured: 'A Bug's Life' is allowed to

stand on the podium as they accept 

their participation award.

As I've grown older and (perhaps disagreeably) wiser, I have come to regard 'A Bug's Life' as the middle child of three. Pixar's first creation had been around for 3 years upon the arrival of 'A Bug's Life' and so the same people who had cooed over 'Toy Story' as it learned to use the potty nary glanced towards 'A Bug's Life', as it competently cocked it's bare buttocks over the toilet on it's first attempt. This being because they were too busy packing their firstborn's lunchbox as they prepared to head off to big boy school. To compound 'A Bug's Life'[s]' ultimate fate, Pixar, being the ever procreative parents that they are, had barely christened their second child before announcing the upcoming arrival of their third. An arrival that promised to be much the same as their first - a sequel if you will! This announcement in turn sent the relatives into a wild tizzy of joy, so much so that they completely overlooked the fact that 'A Bug's Life', was busy in the garden making friends with the neighbour's Pitbull.

Now, I like 'A Bug's Life', however I am more than happy to concede that it is by no means Pixar's finest work. For a start they seem to have taken a step back from the animation quality of their previous work, which I found odd as for me the steps forward that they made in the industry with each subsequent film was an aspect of Pixar that I admire. For them to have released a film in which their characters reflected light off of their carapaces like arthropodan lighthouses must have meant that they were under some kind of time constraints. It was almost as if Pixar had caught wind of another intellectual property that followed a very similar storyline being in production... Anyway I don't care too much whether Pixar copied DreamWorks or vice versa as the latter mentioned company could not hold a candle to the animation quality of even Pixar's worst work. 

'A Bug's Life' makes rude gestures

 to the other films as his parents

 pick him up in their Rolls Royce.

My main point that I want to get across is that I just don't feel like Pixar tried overly hard with 'A Bug's Life', which is annoying as much like that one snotty nosed brat we all knew who could breeze through exams 'without even revising', Pixar did not do a bad enough job to warrant any kind of negative reaction. It holds fairly strong critical acclaim on most sites and whilst I don't necessarily think that it deserves to rot in a stinking pit of shame, I also don't think it deserves a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The film does keep to Pixar's high standard of charm and wit and the characters are memorable. They are however, in my opinion, some of the least relatable characters that have come out of the production house so far, with (the main character) Flik's idea of sorting out his cock-ups involve begging another group of insects to do it for him under false pretences.

Overall 'A Bug's Life' doesn't hold up as well as other Pixar properties but is still nonetheless a strong film. The Pixar standard of a strong story and an excellent script help this film float effortlessly above the moist bog in which you can find the deformed carcasses of less fortunate animated affairs such as 'Minions'. I must say though that although Pixar had a lot of shortcomings with this film - they certainly managed their objective of making the most curvaceous ant in cinema history with the Princess!
Scoring

Final Score: 14

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q- When will the quality of your illustrations improve?
A- I believe the phrase in these situations goes along the following lines; You can't polish a turd.

Q- If you could be any celebrity for the day who would you be?
A- John Malkovich. 

Toy Story

Year Of Release: 1995

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 77mns

Age Rating: PG (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review

I don't know what the first DVD that I owned was but if I had to take a guess it would probably have been something like Scooby Doo and the Cyber Chase. However, for the sake of this review let us pretend that, even from a young age, I was showing signs of amounting to a well rounded individual who's opinions were actually valid, and say that the first DVD I owned was Toy Story. Now that we have successfully swept my early ineptitude aside you can read this review with the knowledge that, much like the average millennial around election time, fact and my opinion are one in the same.

Pixar prepare to open the new land

 bridge that their 

profits helped build.

Toy Story is a good film. It's story was, to my knowledge, a fairly original concept upon it's release. Which is funny when you bear in mind that the film plays heavily off of the childhood fantasy of one's toys being sentient. Pixar took a running jump off a cliff with this film, should Toy Story have failed it would have more than likely ended their aeronautical career a little over two decades ago. Luckily enough, their exceptional screenplay, fleshed out characters and overall marketable plot made enough money to cushion their fall, cure world hunger and throw them into Disney's good books in one go. This good fortune meant that their initial leap of faith was more comparable to Scrooge McDuck's than it was Tommen Baratheon's. 

I don't want to focus too heavily on what this film does well. Oily Ponces in braces and dickie bows have been smothering this film in praise since before I had learned that defecating in my underwear was a no-no in most social circles. So to finish off this review I will leave you with a small list of things that I have disliked about this film since I was an ankle biter and the reasons why my young critical mind held such opinions.

• Sid - not only is his character design similar to Megamind if he had a belt strapped around his head from birth but he strongly reminded me of a twat that once bit my nan.
• Buzz Lightyear and Woody's relationship - Yes, it is one of the most thrilling bromances that animated cinema has ever provided, with sexual tension that you couldn't crack through with a jackhammer. However I have always found the start of their blossoming  bromance rather grating. Both parties show equally annoying and over the top traits (not present in the subsequent sequels) that stick out like a sore thumb from the rest of Pixar's subtle character development.
• No one notices toys dropping through a car's sunroof - This is a petty one however the whole final sequence, no matter how pant-wettingly thrilling, has always baffled me. Not Andy nor his mum pay any kind of attention to a firework going off  less than 100 meters behind their car. Nor do they notice two dolls - larger than their heads - fall through their sunroof.

Scoring

  

Final Score: 18

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q. Have you ever cried at a film?

A. Yes, The Seventh Son was a challenging viewing experience for both me and my childhood.

Q. Who is your favourite god?

A. Cardea - Goddess of thresholds and door hinges. This woman had her priorities on straight.

23 Years of Pixar

A toy cowboy towards the end 

of the third and final act.

Pixar have been churning out classic children's cinema for nearly quarter of a century now. Yes, that is a long time! Doesn't that just make you feel oh so old and nostalgic. And yes, to those few that are reading this and those fewer still who would stand to correct me, I know that Pixar have been making films since 1986. I however flat out refuse to sit and gaily sing songs around the campfire with those that believe that what Pixar were producing pre 1995 was akin to the second coming of Christ. This is because unlike those that do I prefer to go to bed after the campfire songs are done, whereas they prefer to sit in a circle, merrily producing jets of spunk whilst quoting Citizen Kane. I say this, as no matter how monolithic or important these films were in their time or how important they were in helping to create the cinematic experience as it stands today, they seem nothing but quaint in their antiquity when compared to todays standards. It is for this reason why I choose to ignore the first 9 years of Pixar's independence from Lucasfilm, instead focusing on 1995's Toy Story as their first real contribution to their true target audience. This being the film that changed the animation industry forever whist simultaneously changing the way every child swung open their bedroom door in a desperate bid to catch their toys midway through a mass re-enactment of the Jonestown Massacre. (ooh how edgy)

In all seriousness Pixar studios have played a very large part in my childhood. Growing up I remember watching their first three feature length films; Toy Story (1995), A Bug's Life (1998) and Toy Story 2 (1999) again and again. They were fun, well animated and different to other children's films at the time. They were like the cool uncle to Disney's overbearing, no sex before marriage, traditionalist father figure. They would throw in reference after reference, small little Easter Eggs crammed into every nook and cranny with countless hours of brainstormed backstories to each and every character. And whilst its true that toddlers who weren't born in a McDonalds car park won't understand these more adult references before they hit puberty - this is the beauty of it. The films have no age bracket, parents are just as likely to enjoy these films as their little winners are. Unlike Disney's happy-go-lucky filmscapes, Pixar believe that you are mature enough to hear some hard layered truths about growing up (see Toy Story 1, 2 & 3) and the human condition in general (Inside Out, Finding Nemo and Up to name a few).

Balding man celebrates his prowess

in weaving cohesive narratives.

This isn't to say that I dislike Disney films either, I quite enjoy them however it's a clinical sort of enjoyment. It's been strung through so many focus groups and boards meetings to make sure it's groomed to their family friendly image that it almost reeks of Barbicide, like a hipster at a beard show. It's the Disney charm, whilst you watch the film you are captivated by the story and you love the characters, when you leave the characters are what stay with you. Pixar, by contrast, have a near unparalleled mastery of storytelling at this point second only perhaps to the proverbial sweaty balding man explaining to the police why he was within 200ft of a school. Their successes so far have always outweighed their shortcomings in every one of their projects, even their weakest films (in terms of critical reception) are some of the highest grossing animated films of all-time.

Now, if you've read this far, I will tell you why I have written this self indulgent nonsense. Over the next few days I will be releasing a series of concise reviews on each of Pixar's feature length productions. 'Well isn't that just a posh way of saying that you're going half arse a review?', I hear you cry. Yes... yes it is.

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q: Is 'filmscape' even a word?

A: Ah, a fine question! I wrestled with this conundrum for many a moon until I googled it and turns out it's a Malaysian production company. So yes, it's a proper noun!

Q: So doesn't that just mean that, in the context you used it at least, it's a nonce word?

A: You're the nonce, shut up.