Skip to main content

Ant-Man: No Small Success

               Ant-Man is the second and final Marvel movie of the year. There was some controversy and worry surrounding the film due to the last minute replacement of its original director Edgar Wright with Peyton Reed. The idea of Wright bringing his eccentric and enticing style to a Marvel film had us all excited and when Reed took over, many lost interest. But we didn’t need to worry as the film was in pretty safe hands after all.
                Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is a struggling ex-con having been imprisoned for a major heist he pulled. He’s a good guy but just misguided and his skill for breaking into extremely secure places catches the attention of Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who recruits him to be the next Ant-Man (he having been the first) using a suit that can shrink him down to the size of ant, with the power to control ants, and superhuman strength. Pym wants Lang to steal back the technology for the suit which was recreated and adjusted for weaponized use by his former protégé Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).
                Rudd really brings the comedy in this film. Marvel’s always been known for its humour but it’s largely just expressed in banter and quipping during action scenes. With Rudd the film just naturally settles into a more comedic tone. Which is why I was surprised when the film attempted to take more of a serious turn. This doesn’t hurt the film in a major way but it does keep it from being as constantly entertaining as say Guardians of the Galaxy. That being said, the film really does distance itself from typical superhero fare taking on more of the structure of a heist film. And despite a somewhat slow start, it eventually does that really well. Rudd is immensely likable as Scott; Douglas is fantastic really making a good argument for why Hank could’ve been the star, his character having a really fascinating background. Evangeline Lilly is fine as his somewhat estranged daughter, and Michael Peña as Scott’s partner in crime is really funny, stealing every moment he’s on screen. I wish that Cross was less explicitly evil. Stoll is a great actor and has fun where he can with the character, but when vaporizes sheep, that’s way too unsubtle. And his role does echo a little too familiarly the first Iron Man film. Same with Bobby Cannavale who plays the cop husband of Scott’s ex-wife (Judy Greer –this is a great year for Judy Greer!). He’s a good actor but is stuck playing a typical jerk.
                The effects in this movie are really good! You feel the impact and the scope every time Scott shrinks down and the focus on atmosphere, action, and sound when in that miniscule size is pretty remarkable. And it’s used to great comic effect. Particularly in the climactic scenes, there are some pretty funny contrasts between the well-executed minute action and its appearance in the full-sized world.
Ant-Man is probably the best heist film I’ve seen since the Ocean’s 11 remake. It manages to be yet another hit in Marvel’s run through some great characters, dazzling effects, and some unexpected Easter eggs to other Marvel films even if it does take some time to get going, doesn’t quite have the level of comedic tone it should, and has an ending that’s a little obvious given something brought up earlier. And despite Douglas’ performance, they really missed the boat by not casting Rick Moranis as Hank Pym: the true father of shrink technology!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more