During my first trip to Disney World when I was 7, my first stop at "Animal Kingdom" was the symbol of the park, "The Tree of Life". Entering inside the tree became a cool and enchanting experience for me, making it seem as if I was growing smaller and smaller the closer I walked towards it. Once I was inside, I was slightly disappointed that we were seeing a show based on a Pixar film that I wasn't too enthusiastic about when compared to my brother Jesse who was at the time obsessed with the movie. But I was interested in seeing it anyway. Never experiencing a 3-D film before, or being aware of its existence, I found myself petrified by the effects, and as soon as I saw Hopper emerge threatening the audience I thought I was going to be squashed like a bug for how huge he was. I never thought I would ever find myself cowering for my life to anything "Bug's Life" related. Afterward, I became afraid of 3-D films worrying that the rest of the films we see during our visit will be just as terrifying. Over time I did find it awesome for how scary it was, and during my vacation, before going to the 5th grade I would experience the film again, only this time I was more prepared for the surprises, which made the experience less scary and more fun. The last time I watched the film was when I was preparing my list of Disney villains by placing Hopper as my 20th favorite Disney villain from both the film he originated from and it's 3-D spin-off, and I still found it to be a little too scary for kids. Does my opinion still hold-up? ON WITH THE REVIEW!
Flik the ant, invites guests to learn how "tough it is to be a bug" through a stage show with various types of bugs and insects. The presentation doesn't go too well as their acts keep getting ruined by either a misunderstanding or a meddling Wevill (voiced by Jason Alexander). The show gets interrupted by Hopper, who takes control with the intent to exterminate the audience for what humans have done to bugs.
The first thing a person who's seen "A Bug's Life" may easily notice is the lack of characters from the original film. All we get are the film's protagonist and antagonist. We don't see any of the supporting characters from the film. Some of the new characters are funny and distinctive. Cheech Marin is lively as the egoistic Mexican redknee tarantula, and the Termite-ator who's puny and speaks in a hazy voice but is deadly and robotic as the character he's punned after is laughable. The only disappointment is Jason Alexander as the Weevil who keeps messing up the show for how forgettable his design, and personality is. I hear his distinct voice, and I see his character get into trouble, and yet he doesn't hog-up the screen or say anything funny or memorable when compared to the bugs who are supposed to have the spotlight. I get more laughs out of him as the gargoyle Hugo in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" than I do here. As entertaining as some of these new characters are, and how the personalities that Flik and Hopper had in the film are still true to their character, the film feels kind of naked without the rest of the gang. Can you imagine Flik interacting with Dot flying out of the screen greeting guests, instead of a random cute butterfly? Wouldn't it make more sense and be twice as funny seeing the Circus bugs perform a botched show than watching bugs we never met before? I think many would agree that the circus bugs were the best characters in the movie. It just feels odd that only two members from the cast are featured in this film.
Judging the film and experience from a technical standpoint, it's marvelous! Just like how the film "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience" kept the audience in a single setting to maintain the illusion that they are watching and experiencing a live show instead of a movie, "It's Tough to Be a Bug" uses the same strategy. It may sound strange that an animated 3-D film doesn't try to take the audience from one location to another, but it still manages to show so much within its limited environment through the various bugs we meet and the unpredictable surprises the film throws at you so it doesn't feel dull. The 3-D effects used in the film are the main factor of what makes the experience feel like you're seeing these bugs performing live on stage. It uses hidden air-jets, water sprayers, buzzers, and pokers to make the audience feel the experience rather than just simply watching things pop-front of your face. But the most impressive effects used for the film are the animatronics, particularly Hopper. Flik's animatronic is good as well, but when compared to Hopper's his is more animated for how much movement and expression he's given. All we see of Flik is half his body as he is looking at us upside-down. With Hopper you see everything. For all the praise I give the effects, there's really nothing within the film's 3-D gimmick that's different from the other films Disney has produced in the past. "Honey, I Shrunk the Audience" and "Muppet Vision 3-D" has already covered the effects that this film uses, which makes the 3-D experience feel average than an upgrade.
The only thing about the film that keeps it from being boringly safe is for how incredibly dark it is! There's nothing wrong giving the film a bit of edge, there needs to be some kind of thrill to draw audiences into the excitement, and if the film's only darkness came from Hopper trying to destroy the audience, it would be fine. But it isn't the only time in the movie where the audience's life is at stake. Before it, we have a giant spider throwing poison quills at the audience; a terminate trying to kill the audience with acid after demonstrating how deadly it is by flat-out murdering a heckling flea; and a stink bug passing gas on the audience with its strong foul smell. These moments are supposed to be funny, but they aren't because we know how deadly they are from their demonstration, so how is putting the audience in danger supposed to make us laugh? By the time Hopper enters the film after all this to make it intentionally scary it becomes overkill because the audience has been threatened three times before this moment, now they have to feel the sting of a wasp, and fear being attacked by animatronic black widow spiders dangling over their heads! And after all this intense chaos of being put in danger for most of the experience, the film ends with a cute and colorful short musical number that is trying desperately hard to make us forget the horrors we witnessed while containing a message of how important bugs are to the world to somehow justify this unpleasant experience.
OVERALL THOUGHTS
The film does the opposite of what it's supposed to teach. Instead of enlightening me to appreciate bugs in the film's bright and quirky way, it makes me want to squish as many as possible for how suspenseful the experience is. It's exactly the propaganda that Hopper claims of human's using to categorize bugs as monsters that this film says it's against. How can "A Bug's Life", one of Pixar's safely average films can backfire a well-intended message? Sure, the effects are cool, the animation is visually appealing, and there are a few jokes and characters that get a laugh. I'll even go out and admit personally that a dark part of me admires how unexpectedly scary it is. I mean who would ever think that Pixar can make an innocent film like "A Bug's Life" so frightening? But overall, the film still fails. It seems more focused with scaring kids than it is trying to teach, enchant, and inspire them, which consequently makes the film work against its message miserably.
No comments:
Post a Comment