Critics’ reviews

A Bug's Life (1998)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 74: 7 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of A Bug's Life

74
Positive
7
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics like it, and nobody dislikes it. The praise gathers around Pixar’s animation: a vivid, crowded insect world admired for its small details and its set-piece action, which more than one review finds even more impressive than Toy Story’s. The comedy and the oddball circus troupe are warmly received, and Hopper is the character most often singled out, with the Radio Times naming Kevin Spacey’s performance in particular. The Guardian also notes Randy Newman’s jaunty, bittersweet score.

The reservations are mild and mostly comparative. Several critics find it less clever and original than Pixar’s best, and a few call the plot predictable or the opening slow. Antz hangs over nearly every review: most prefer this film, though Variety judges it the less sophisticated of the two, and Eye for Film thinks arriving second leaves it less memorable. The spread is narrow, from four stars down to Den of Geek’s three, which admires the disc’s transfer more than the film.

The Guardian
27 August 1999 · **** · Rob Mackie
89*

The critic calls it a clear win over Antz and a class act. They praise its colorful animation, comic characters, and Randy Newman’s jaunty, bittersweet score.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Tom Hutchinson
80

The critic finds the computer-animated effects even more wondrous than those in Toy Story, despite less-beguiling characters. Kevin Spacey’s portrayal of Hopper is singled out for praise.

Read the full review →
Total Film
5 February 1999 · ★★★★ · Total Film
80

The critic finds the film spirited, funny and thoroughly charming, though it starts slowly and lacks Toy Story’s crossover appeal. They praise Pixar’s vivid digital world, especially its attention to tiny visual details and spectacular insect action.

Read the full review →
Variety
29 November 1998 · Todd McCarthy
78*

McCarthy finds the film entertaining and recommends it for family audiences, while noting it is less sophisticated than Antz. He praises its imaginative design, spirited storytelling, and gorgeous computer-animated visuals.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
20 November 1998 · Kenneth Turan
75*

Turan finds the film entertaining, though not as good as Toy Story, and recommends it over Antz. He singles out Pixar’s unfettered imagination, especially its wacky humor and visual surprises.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
70*

Newman finds the film charming and entertaining, though less clever and original than Pixar’s best work. He singles out its imaginative characters, lively animated action and comedy for praise.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
25 November 1998 · Janet Maslin
64*

The page is identified as a film review, but its text is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. The headline says an ant sets out to save the hill, but the page provides no accessible detail about what the critic praises or faults.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· DA
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is not available in the accessible text. The description characterizes the film’s genre blend, without revealing what the critic praises or faults.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
70*

The critic finds the film inventive and humorous, though following Antz leaves it feeling less memorable. The quirky circus insects and broad appeal earn praise, with Hopper singled out as a possible standout.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
17 December 2010 · ★★★ · Mark Pickavance
60

Pickavance considers the film successful and worthwhile, though its plot is predictable. He especially praises the Blu-ray’s flawless visual transfer and rich color.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate