 |
| "Antz" & A "Bug's Life" are significant insect-animated films, both released in 1998 by animation studios Pixar and DreamWorks |
Now and again Hollywood will throw the viewing audience the same bone twice and then use differing titles as to not confuse us. Sometimes these films are damn-near identical and other times the story lines are merely suspiciously similar, but enough to make us feel as though we're watching the same film again. No other time was this dubious decision more frequent then from the years of 1997, '98 & '99. The chosen paired-films below were released not just around similar times, but months apart! Strange, no?
Why they're similar: both are natural disaster movies, which have an uncontrollable and imminent volcano eruption as their central conflict. Both main protagonists, Pierce Brosnan (Dante's Peak) and Tommy Lee Jones (Volcano) are equally annoying and can only be described as charisma black holes.
The lesser of two evils: "Dante's Peak" takes place within a small town setting, which rests just under a dormant volcano, so already it was always going to feel like a better movie. Whilst "Volcano" is set in downtown LA, which is just lazy story telling in itself and speaking of lazy, who names a disaster movie, "Volcano"? These generic-ass bullshit titles need to stop.
Antz vs A Bug's Life (1998)
Why they're similar: although they both have different designs of what an ant looks like, the main protagonist in each film is a male ant who just wants to help his fellow colony, but always ends up getting into trouble. The main thesis behind both animated classics is that the colony as a whole soon eventually realise that they are the means of production, thus that it is They who should be in charge; much to the dismay of the main villains.
 |
| General Mandible |
The lesser of two evils: "A Bug's Life" possesses humour that is more slapstick, whilst "Antz" is more intellectual through its darker colour schemes, un-shied away violence and is generally the more adult themed of the two. You could even go as far as to say that "Antz" could be compared to Nazi Germany (bit excessive, I know, but hear me out). The main antagonist, General Mandible (voiced by Gene Hackman) plans to kill a huge proportion of the ant colony of which he personally deems as "weak". It's got fascism written all over it!
Armageddon vs Deep Impact (1998)
Why they're similar: they're not similar, they're the same. N.A.S.A. (bloody Americans) are alerted that an asteroid is going to impact Earth. Yep, that is the crux of both these films, which were released pretty much around the same time and have been compared and contrasted ever since.
The lesser of two evils: whilst "Armageddon" director Michael Bay is at fault for releasing this 'flag-waving drivel', he is not alone for its unanimous failure. First of all, the title at the beginning explodes for some God unbeknownst reason. Secondly, the film sinks through its piss poor acting by all involved, apart from everyone's fuggly (favourite ugly) supporting actor Steve Buscemi. Finally, the film is rife in cheesy one-liners i.e. "He's got space dementia"... What?!
"Deep Impact" on the other hand spends the majority of its time character-developing on Earth and shows a more realistic version of how people would be reacting to the high possibility of the end of the world, with "Armageddon", spending 90 per cent of its screen time in space. Bay's logic then, "Space = Job One".
Granted "Armageddon" is more entertaining and action packed, but "Deep Impact" just swings it as it's more well-written, however neither are Shakespeare. Plus, Aerosmith - I Don't Want to Miss a Thing just reminds me of school discos and the scramble to find a girl who would remotely stand there and sway with you for an awkward 4 whole minutes. Jesus.
The Matrix vs The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
Why they're similar: these films offer theories to the existence of our world, what reality is and that everything that surrounds us is computer simulated of which is controlled by a higher power.
The lesser of two evils: honestly, both films are great, but obviously "The Matrix" is the more well known and I wouldn't be surprised if some, if not most people haven't even heard of "The Thirteenth Floor".
With a budget of $63 million for "The Matrix" and a lowly $16 million for "The Thirteenth Floor", it is unexpectedly the latter that has stood the test of time visually. Upon release, "The Matrix" without a doubt stunned audiences with its CGI, but what once was ambitious at the time, is now obvious, whilst the more subtle used effects in "The Thirteenth Floor" are still stunning.
However, "The Matrix" is the far superior film because it is a complex, modern adaptation of Plato's allergy of The Cave. Its philosophical theme of whether the world we see could be an illusion completely out-shadows The Thirteenth Floor's safe approach of basing the story development on a murder-mystery plot. "The Matrix" also has an abundance of excellently choreographed fight-scenes, which is one of the reasons I've seen it countless times, whilst I've only viewed "The Thirteenth Floor" with its limited conflicts, but captivating noir-esque element the solitary time.
I like both films plenty and found that "The Thirteenth Floor" asks some unique questions such as, can consciousness emerge digitally? And if so, would we have ethical obligations to digital forms of consciousness? But there is a reason why "The Matrix" is one of the greatest films ever made, because it clearly asks one of the greatest question of all time, "What is real?"
No comments:
Post a Comment