"An epic of miniature proportions" ... that's the problem

Rating: 7/10 (1 January 2000)

So far as appearances are concerned, "A Bug's Life" is superb. The art direction stylises the world of rural insects subtly but surely; and, although I can't help thinking it was a mistake to include any evidence of HUMAN civilisation, that was beautifully done, too. And I applaud the courageous decision to avoid pointless sophistication when designing the insects themselves: they have exactly the robotic design one would expect of creatures with exoskeletons, they move with a minimum of squash and stretch, yet they are not at all lacking in humanity. Any aspect of the visuals I have forgotten to mention probably deserves praise, too. (With the possible exception of the ladybug design.)
That aside, this is a ninety-six minute film that wants to be three hours in length. Compression has wrenched it out of shape. It's a mess; and the computer-generated equivalent of fine camera-work and competent performances can't save it. With a film that tries to do so many contradictory things with its allotted time it's difficult to know where to begin.
Take Flik, the social misfit who makes good. Many of the crimes for which the colony rejects him are, in fact, serious ones: he DOES lie to them, he DOES wreak real havoc, he IS dangerous. This shouldn't stop him from being a sympathetic hero, of course. But it ought to give us pause. If his failings are real, which they are, and integral to the plot, which they are, they ought to have more than a few seconds of screen time devoted to them. Ideally, they ought to be resolved.
Or take the civilisation-versus-barbarians theme, which the film's climax retrospectively underlines, but which is hardly even mentioned beforehand. Or take the relationship between Flik and the princess, which is never defined, which changes from scene to scene, but which, we are led to believe, is a central part of the story. What IS the story, anyway? It's hard to see for all the sub-plots. Or for all the characters. I don't object to crowding the world with so many characters and then paying attention to each of them in turn, but it takes a lot more than 96 minutes to do this kind of thing properly.
Despite trying to do too many things at once and doing none of them well, "A Bug's Life" has some thrilling moments. It's because of them that I'm reluctant to dismiss the film as a turkey -- well, let's be fair, a chicken -- in peacock's feathers. It's not that the film is positively BAD: it's just that it fails (visuals aside) to be positively good, as it's so obviously trying to be.
One last note: I know people liked the "bloopers" at the end, but having seen "Toy Story 2", I think they were a mistake. The gag suited the Toy Story world better. Toys are MEANT to be part of games of make-believe: they are "acting" almost all the time, so treating them as actors in the end credits doesn't jar. It sure jars in "A Bug's Life", though.