When watching A Bug's Life for the first time in a long while, I couldn't help but see the comparisons with last year's Happy Feet. As far as the main storyline goes, they are very similar, an outcast doing what he can to fit in while also attempting to be special. It just goes to show you how much better that film could have been without its liberal diatribe conclusion. A lot of people disagree with me when I say that I really like Pixar's sophomore effort. Sure it doesn't manage to capture the splendor of Toy Story, nor is the animation out of this world. However, the story is top-notch and the characters are wonderful to spend time with. With plenty of laughs and a moral center to boot, I could watch this one just as much as the studio's other classics.
There is a lot about finding strength from within to conquer all odds here. Between our lead Flick needing to keep his self-esteem up to save his colony, the colony needing to open their eyes onto a new way of living for the future, and the circus bugs finding that they are more than just untalented sideshow freaks, everyone evolves into a better bug by the end of the story. Even the villain Hopper is fully fleshed and menacing for the right reasons. He is not doing it to be mean, but instead understands the fact that the ants outnumber him 100 to 1. He needs them to fear him in order to not have to worry about them finding out the truth. It is very much a circle of life, but not one that can't evolve with the ages.
When thinking about the animation, it is actually quite good. Compared to Antz, the rival film of the time, this is much more realistic and less cartoony. The water is rendered nicely, as is the foliage. You don't have to look much further than the ants' eyes to see how much detail went into the production. The reflections and moistness, despite the smooth exterior, shows the realism. All the bugs are finely crafted too. The flies in the city and the crazy mix of creatures recruited to save the ants are never skimped on, whether for a small role or a more expanded one. It is also in the city that we see the workmanship on the environments. While Ant Island is nice, it is just the outdoors. Bug City contains plenty of garbage doubling as buildings and clubs. It is a great showing of humor and inventiveness to see what the animators used for everything. From the ice cube trays as circus stands, the animal crackers box as circus wagoncomplete with full nutrition guide on the sideand crazy compilation of boxes to create a Times Square of billboards and facades, everything is done right.
As far as much of the humor, you have to credit the acting talent for wonderful delivery and inspired role choices. No one could do a male ladybug better than Dennis Leary with his acerbic wit. I dare you to think of someone better. Our leads are great too with Dave Foley as Flick and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Princess Atta, as well as the always-fantastic Kevin Spacey as Hopper. Spacey not only steals many scenes from the movie, but also takes center stage in the bloopers during the credits. Yes, A Bug's Life was the originator of animated outtakes from Pixar, a tradition that has continued on. With many tongue-in-cheek bug jokes laced throughout, you also have to give props to the huge supporting cast. Full of "those guy actors," it is people like Richard Kind, Brad Garrett, and the late Joe Ranft as Heimlich the worm who bring the biggest laughs.
Overall, it may be the simplest story brought to screen by Pixar, one that has been told in one form or the other numerous times over the years, but it is inspired enough and fresh enough to deliver an enjoyable experience. There are joyous moments, sad times, and even action packed scenes of suspense with birds coming in to join the fun. Complete with a couple of my favorite Pixar characters, Tuck and Roll, there isn't too much bad that I can think of saying about it.

Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.
This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.
Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.
Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.
Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!
It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.