Antz (1998)

Antz is a very confused film, despite being rather straightforward in concept. In this movie, intent and execution are made enemies of one another, with the film usually managing to create an effect opposite of the one intended.

The opening scene is meant to provide humor but is firstly not funny, but more importantly, kind of a bummer. Plenty of therapy scenes are made interesting but in this case, it just displays Z's neuroticism in a vain effort to create quirky comedy.

The dialogue remains too self-aware of the human world, meant to create connection between the ant world and ours. Instead, it distorts the ant world and smashes it into human shape. Speaking of things which appear to have been smashed, that brings us to the character designs.

The design functions poorly both in adapting ant and human attributes. In fact, some of the character models are deeply ugly. The characters possess qualities that are more alien than ant. The film also displays a high level of confidence in its models and animation, a grave miscalculation, most apparent in the dancing scene. There are way too many close-up shots of the ants; the audience may feel as though they are being forced to pick insect noses.

And the (partially) good cast actually makes it even weirder. Our characters had already achieved uncanniness; adding familiar voices on top of that had a compounding effect. The reviewer was not expecting Christopher Walkant.

The ant gimmick is meant to add freshness and novelty to the overall story. Despite this, as mentioned above, the film is content to simply play out scenes which feel well-trod and unoriginal. You've seen this movie; they just weren't ants that time.

Despite external insistence, the film is structured and animated like a children's film, not like adult animation. This clashes with the clearly adult dialogue, crises, and stakes.

The film was also a rush job due to acrimony between Disney and Dreamworks. Its release date was pushed up in competition with Disney films (particularly A Bug's Life). The panic pace with which the film was produced to meet this deadline is quite apparent in the visuals. Colors are muted and boring, including in the above-ground sections of the film. The lighting, even in direct sunlight, is dim and produces blurry edges around the characters that almost make them glow. The reviewer suspects the abnormally low runtime is also partially to be blamed on rushed production but this remains only speculation. But again, intent becomes the enemy: the desire to preempt Disney created an inferior film.

The film tries to tell human drama with ants and fails miserably. It feels like Dreamworks may have been shooting for an "adult Toy Story". The calculation appears to have been that a neurotic character, light social commentary, and mature human drama could get them over the line. What they really ended up creating is much simpler. When the reviewer explained the movie to a close friend at Pine Bluff Video, the listener paused, smiled and remarked with clarity, "So it's just another Woody Allen movie?"

Despite Antz not being a Woody Allen directorial effort, it certainly feels like one. The ending even tacitly admits this, summarizing the film's structure openly, confirming the suspicions of the reviewer's friend.

There was a real effort to capitalize on the newfound charm of digital animation and gear it toward adult audiences. Antz sought to create lovable, relatable, and funny characters to be enjoyed primarily by adults. That was the intended result. Instead, the reviewer is now trying to find their magnifying glass as well as alignment with the sun. Antz is too mature for kids, not mature enough for adults, and too self-wallowing to allow for any real adventure. Above all, it is a painfully boring take on a bug's life. Much better examples can be found elsewhere.