A Bug's Life stemmed from the discussion over lunch of the fable of the ants and the grasshopper. However, instead of the resolution in the original story, one of the people in the discussion said if they were the grasshopper, they'd go back to the ant hill and "kick ass." The Pixar people took this basic idea and expanded it into an entire movie.	Even though many people think that the plot for A Bug's Life was taken from Antz, it's really the other way around. One of the big guys at Dreamworks, one who had previously worked with John Lasseter, paid a visit to Disney after Pixar had started work on A Bug's Life and "created" Antz. They rushed it through production and released it first.
	G, and rightly so. This film has almost nothing objectionable in it, except for perhaps the gruesome death of Hopper. Besides that, the film is friendly to people of all ages. Little kids love it. And lots of adults and teenagers find it to be a charming film.	Antz is rated PG. I would have rated it PG-13. This film is geared more toward adults and doesn't attempt to be as kid-friendly as A Bug's Life. One ant get decapitated. Others get burnt to a crisp. Lots of soldiers are eaten and killed in other nasty ways by termites. There's even some cursing and sexual connotations. It disturbs me that a lot of people consider it a kid's film.
	This is a typical Disney plot. A clumsy, well-meaning hero sets out to prove himself to his peers. He messes up big-time and meanwhile falls for a girl thought to be out of his league. His mistake is found out and he becomes downtrodden. A sidekick says, "I believe in you," and he goes on to save the day. It's been done, but it's still a classic.	Even though the plot of Antz is similar in some respects, there are many more differences than similarities. The enemy is different and the whole film is a symbol for totalitarianism. Also, there is mention of a place called "Insectopia," a place of paradise for all bugs. There's no place like that in A Bug's Life. It's a slightly more original plot even though it's also pretty predictable.
	Alright, Flik isn't your usual fearless hero that you see in a lot of movies. However, he has a lot of other characteristics that qualify him to be the good guy. He's creative, clever, moral, and caring. That's more than enough for Flik to defeat Hopper and win over Princess Atta.	Z is even less likely to be the hero of a story. He's whiney, complaining, and neurotic. It seems to me that he won the day through a bunch of dumb luck.
	Somehow, the Pixar people managed to make grasshoppers seem scary. And not in that icky, gross way some people experience in Biology class. Kevin Spacey did an excellent job with Hopper. He uses sarcasm and tone of voice to make himself seem really intimidating. Trust me, he's not a guy you want to get into a tangle with. Not if you're a bug, anyway.	The main bad guy in Antz is of a much different nature. First of all, he's an ant himself. His objective isn't to control the colony into giving him food. Rather, he wants to "wipe out the weak elements of the colony." His name is General Mandible, and he's a lot like Hitler with six legs. His goal is to kill off most of the colony to create a "superrace" of soldier ants.
	There's a smorgasbord of different insects for this movie. Not just the ants, but the circus bugs. There are even more in the city with bit parts. There were snails, various types of beetles, roaches, flies, daddy long legs, and countless others. In the main characters, there was a lot of personality variety as well, from the bumbling Flik to the caring Rosie to the incomprehendable Tuck and Roll.	There was far less bug variety in this movie. In fact, seeing ant after ant after ant got to be kind of boring. The characters seem a little stiff compared to the personalities of the bugs in A Bug's Life. This movie's characters are far more forgettable.
	Almost every single character in this movie makes a change for the better. Flik proves himself. Dot realizes that being little isn't so bad. Atta becomes confident about her leading abilities. Heimlich becomes a butterfly, an obese one. Francis gets in touch with his feminine side. Even one of the supposed "bad bugs," Molt, joins the circus bugs as the strong man. There are lots more but I get tired of typing.	Only a few ants in this movie reached a curve. Bala, Z, Cutter, and maybe Weaver actually change. There's not much self-realization at all.
	There was a lot of slapstick in this movie, mainly for the kids in the audience. However, there were tons of more adult jokes that not all kids would get. To really appreciate the movie, you have to enjoy both.	I saw absolutely no slapstick in this one. There was a lot of satire and adult wit, tough. A lot of it made me smile. I didn't find any inside jokes like the ones in A Bug's Life. Maybe they were there, just over my head.
	The animation in this movie is suberb! I would even call it the best I've ever seen. The way the characters move really looks as if they were alive. They express things with their bodies and hands. The hand expression is great since many bugs have more than two. The faces are very expressive as well. I had a lot of fun just reading the expressions on the characters' faces. Everything was so perfectly synchronized that I could read their lips.	The animation in Antz was less than perfect. The flood looked artificial to me. The movement somehow didn't seem as sharp as in the other flick. Also, the faces and bodies weren't as expressive. On average, each character in this movie had about 1,000 less controls than the average character in A Bug's Life. It shows, too. Not to say the animation in Antz isn't good. It's just not great.
	Most of the voices came from primetime sitcoms. The voice of Flik, Dave Foley, can be heard on Newsradio. Atta's voice comes from Elaine on Seifeld. Molt, Hopper's brother, was voiced by Richard Kind from Spin City. Even though they aren't as well-known, the voices in this film are more colorful and enjoyable.	There were lots of big-screen stars in this one. Syvester Stallone voiced Weaver. Z was done by Woody Allen. Sharon Stone played Princess Bala. Needless to say, these are bigger stars than the ones in A Bug's Life. However, I could care less about their status in Hollywood as long as act well.
	Probably the most creative parts of this movie were the recycling of man-made objets and the end credits. For bugs, cookie boxes can become circus wagons, umbrellas can serve as circus tents, a pile of garbage under a trailer can be a major metropolis. The end credits were great. The people who left at the words "The End" really missed a treat. They played fake bloopers! To keep from ruining it for you, I won't diverge anymore information than I have.	This movie didn't have any clever reusage of human objects or ingenius end credits. However, the adaptation of human sayings into the ant state of mind made me smile. For example, Z mentioned curling up into a "larval position."
	Even though they weren't as true-to-life, I like the take on bugs in this movie better. Aphids are cute. Instead of preying on smaller insects, praying mantises perform magic. The plants and scenery in some places could have fooled me, though.	The ants in this movie are more realistic, except for their faces. they have the right color and number of appendages. The size and scale of each insect is more reaistic, too.
	This movie says that the group is more powerful than the individual, but you can only stand together is you believe in yourself.	This film focuses on the power of the individual and the faults of totalitarianism. It's very different from ABL.

So which one is better? Is it A Bug's Life because of the colorful characters, superb animation, and creativity? Maybe it's Antz for its unique message, great realism, and adult wit. It's really all just a matter of taste. I like A Bug's Life better, but maybe you dissagree. Either way, I hope you got something out of my comparison of the two films.