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

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

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more