filipemanuelneto

This was DreamWorks' first digitally animated production, but despite that, it didn't leave us with an interesting legacy and almost no one remembers it. Its release came shortly after the success of Pixar's "Toy Story," and was soon forgotten when they released "A Bug's Life," a less adult, family-friendly film that in many ways is a direct competitor. After a few years, everything was forgotten with the release of "Shrek", which consolidated DreamWorks as one of the great animation studios of our time. So it was a film that came out at the wrong time and could have had more impact later.

The script introduces us to Z, a worker ant who feels dissatisfied with his life in an anthill where there seems to be a Chinese-style communist regime: the will and value of each one are nullified to the detriment of the collective interest, of what each person can do for the State. This greatly bothers Z, who yearns for American individualism and the opportunity to decide his life without care for the needs of his community. In the midst of all this, he falls in love with Princess Bala in a typical romance condemned by social differences and becomes an unlikely war hero after he survives a war by doing the only thing he knew how to do: hide. Of course, there is a great villain: the general of the ant army, eager to transform the kingdom into a fascist military dictatorship, dethroning the monarchy and taking power for himself.

The way I summarized the plot seems bizarre, but it's exactly how I see it: using ants and an anthill as the setting, the film basically makes a thesis in defense of American individualist capitalism, severely condemning both fascism and dictatorships as well as far-left political models. The way in which the queen and princess become helpless hostages can also be seen as a mild criticism of European monarchies, where sovereigns are deprived of the powers they would be entitled to use in other circumstances. The hero is an individualist eager to decide his destiny for himself, and who does not seem at all concerned with the society in which he lives, to the point of wanting to leave for another utopian place, the "land of milk and honey" that immigrants usually wish to find. Basically, it is a film with strong sociopolitical criticism and defense of the American way of life.

With a powerful cast of actors who lent their voices to the various characters, it is a work of great technical refinement on the most varied levels. Woody Allen provides Z's voice in an impeccable way, giving him good modulation and personality, and Sharon Stone gives Bala a sensual and dense voice, but one that doesn't seem malicious. Sylvester Stallone also does a very interesting job, but Christopher Walken and Gene Hackman deserve special praise for the way they voiced their two characters. In the meantime, we will still be able to hear excellent contributions from Dan Aykroyd, Anne Bancroft, Danny Glover and Jenifer Lopez. The soundtrack is deeply beautiful and gives the film the ideal atmosphere at every moment. As for the visuals, there's nothing to complain about: it's a DreamWorks film, they're one of the best when it comes to computer animation, and they didn't leave their credits in other people's hands.

I've seen a few of Mel Brooks' films and the biggest conclusion I can draw is that he was an incredible person and an inconsistent filmmaker, who gave us both remarkable films and lesser ones. This is one of those that we could put in the middle of the table, between the best and the worst: it has a lot of humor, a high dose of politically incorrect satire, a lot of desire to criticize wrong things (for example, racism and Nazism), but it also leaves us with an adolescent aftertaste, with many moments of sexual or scatological humor that only please idiotic teenagers.

Brooks directs, plays one of the characters and still has time to secure the script written. If I had a few more minutes to spare, I think I would have gotten behind one of the cameras or composed part of the soundtrack! He breathes and lives what he does, with love and devotion, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do everything alone, even if he manages with pride. He's a better director and screenwriter than he is an actor, and that shows here. In fact, as far as the cast is concerned, only Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little leave on a positive note... and with the right to applause, especially Wilder, always impeccable acting alongside his colleagues and bringing out the best in each of them. The plot is neither original nor particularly interesting, it serves as a pretext for the comedy scenes that unfold. There are good moments, others that are forgettable, and everything regarding the production values, although good, is confusing due to the film's plot also being confusing like a rollercoaster. Still, it's funny.

Although this film is not really original in its premise, it seemed to me to be able to work satisfactorily for the most part. The theme of this psychological horror production is a wave of suicides among teenagers that quickly causes several victims in a small town in the Eastern USA. The place is small, almost everyone knows each other and attends the same evangelical church, and there is enormous religious fanaticism. Thus, eyes turn to a strange family that has no religion, and that comes to be seen as the origin of all evil, and hated by everyone.

It seems impossible to me to analyze this film without talking about suicide or faith imposed by fear. These are realities that are part of our daily lives. I've even met people who have tried to kill themselves, or who are so incredibly fanatical that it's hard to believe. Among evangelical Christians, moreover, it is not difficult to find people who, with a hypocritical bliss on their faces, hide even from God their most unspeakable and unrepentant errors and vices: alcoholism, gambling, prostitution, adultery, promiscuous sex... I have even met some pastors and pastors' families who are worse than the worst sinners in their flock!

Directed by Phedon Papamichael, twice nominated for an Oscar for his work as a cinematographer, this film is, unsurprisingly, an excellent example that it is possible to produce a visually and aesthetically elegant film without a very big budget. The production values are very cheap, but they work well and give the film everything it needs. I particularly liked the house where everything happens, near the end. It is a suitably dark and elegant mansion. The soundtrack and sound effects add value to the film and make everything even more interesting.

Without any particularly notable names in the cast, the film chooses to offer us a set of actors capable of giving us credibility and verisimilitude, taking advantage of the fact that we do not recognize their faces or associate them with any other work in an obvious way. Elizabeth Rice and Thomas Deker are the most important and the ones with the most time to prove themselves, and they both made the most of the opportunity. The same can be said of Adam Goldberg and Kelly Blatz, in the role of two fearsome antagonists, and of Margo Harshman, who brings us a very dark and striking character near the end.

However, what made me most satisfied with the film was the well-constructed plot that avoids falling into obvious clichés or seeking very simple and predictable solutions. The final part is very good and there are a series of small twists that promise to bring to the most seasoned viewers, like me, a certain breath of fresh air. Dramatic tension and suspense are built slowly, thanks to some rather disturbing but not overly graphic deaths and a persistent sense of lurking threat. The climax is excellent and very well crafted.