Each year we seem to get movies in pairs: Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak and now two ant movies. I'm not sure how this happens: it seems very strange to go up against each other with such similar ideas since the similar release dates basically beg for the two movies to be compared. This is the case for the current competing releases: Antz and A Bug's Life

Antz gets a jump on the competition, coming out earlier in the year. It is the story of Z-4195 (Woody Allen), an ant who dreams about being different when he's the middle child of ten million. This film is voiced by an impressive array of stars: Woody Allen, Gene Hackman, Sharon Stone, Dan Ackroyd, Anne Bancroft, Jane Curtin, Sylvester Stallone, Christopher Walken. Some criticism has been levelled at Antz for this: the suggestion is that voices in animated films should not be so readily distinguishable. The problem is not so much that the voices are readily distinguishable but rather the casting: Woody Allen, a 63 year old man is playing the role of a young ant and because his voice is so recognisable, we instantly know this. This is only a minor drawback. The benefit of having the very funny Woody Allen playing a neurotic ant outweighs the problem that he's too old for the role.

A Bug's Life also uses famous voices, although less recognisable ones. This means that it must stand on its own rather than trade on the casting of roles. The story in A Bug's Life again focuses on an ant colony and a single ant who rails against the system.

As I see it, there are two fundamental differences between Antz and A Bug's Life: the story and the animation.

In Antz the enemy is from within. General Mandible (Gene Hackman) wants to build a better colony by not very nice means. In A Bug's Life, the enemy is the grasshopper, an evil creature picking on the poor ants. For my money, the first story-line is more satisfying. We have good ants and bad ants, and even the good ants aren't perfect: Z is selfish and self-absorbed; Bala (Sharon Stone) is arrogant. On the other hand, the bad ants aren't completely bad: General Mandible has a noble goal of building a better colony, Colonel Cutter (Christopher Walken) wants to do what is right. This ambiguity makes for a more realistic set of characters with whom the audience can identify.

In A Bug's Life there is a definite line between good guys and bad guys: the ants are good, the grasshoppers are evil. There is no motivation for why the grasshoppers pick on the ants; they just do because they can. This black and white view of the world, simplifying everything down to two very distinct sides is much less satisfying.

Both movies have a moral or message which can be summarised as think for yourself, question the accepted order of things and if we all work together, we can accomplish anything. This message is more powerful in the ambiguous, realistic setting of Antz, than in the black and white movie environment of A Bug's Life.

The other difference is the animation. They are both very impressive films, each with amazing scenes that not too long ago would have been unthinkable. Antz, however, is the more impressive of the two. Some of this has to do with colouring: Antz looks rich and warm with its extensive use of red-browns; A Bug's Life consists of pastels and is very pretty but less stunning. Also, the sheer number of ants in the inside shots of Antz is just breathtaking: I believe the creators developed one thousand individual ants to populate the backgrounds.

A final minor point is that the ants in Antz have six appendages (two arms and four legs) while in A Bug's Life they are more humanised with two arms and two legs.

A Bug's Life, however, has one very original idea which is the highlight of the movie: the bloopers during the credits. Here the bugs are treated as human actors, flubbing their lines, falling over props, boom mikes being in shot. In fact, a couple of weeks into the release of A Bug's Life, Pixar released a new set of bloopers in an attempt to get people back to see the film again. Some PR person claimed that they had too many such bloopers, all of which were too good to leave out so they decided this was the best option, rather than marketing ploy. I'm not convinced: it's not like the movie was incredibly long or that the credits couldn't have taken a few more bloopers.

Overall, both movies are worth a look (although the evil grasshoppers might be a tad scary for very young children). In an ideal world two such fun films wouldn't be competing with each other. They are, however, and Antz wins.

Antz Rating: D
A Bug's Life Rating: CR