Ant-Man Ant-man's reviews thread

[kedrell]

Well that's the kind of thing I'd have liked to have discovered next week.

 

[kedrell]

Deadline's positive review:

 

[jmc]

This film was always a question mark for me due to its premise but given who was originally involved I was willing to give the premise the benefit of the doubt. The biggest issue with this film is that it has the makings of an Edgar Wright film but done by someone else, and because of that the film is an uneven concoction. You can tell where Wrights fingerprint were over this film, and it's unfortunate that film was never made because the worst thing I can say about Ant-Man is that it just feels completely unnecessary. It's competent enough, but barely enough. It's a film that never blends it components as well as it could have.

The biggest issue with the film is that it just feels like it's a bare bones movie. A case of ticking off certain action movie cliches. Hero looking for redemption? Check. Evil corporate bad guy? Check. Old teacher with estranged daughter? Check. Wise cracking supporting character? Check. Training montage? Check. It's all just an itinerary that's being ticked off as the film progresses and worst of all there's long stretches where nothing interesting happens. We're suppose to care about this or that, but it's never presented in a compelling way. It's all just vanilla and for the most part unimportant.

The biggest crime is that the story and pacing really screws up the performances by the two main actors. Rudd works fine as Scott Lang, and Douglas is good a Hank Pym, but they are left hanging with the little they have to work with. Evangeline Lilly feels really miscast in this, she has zero chemistry with either Rudd or Douglas. And as for Corey Stroll's villain - well who cares? It's just another throw away bad guy in the MCU.

What also seems evident to me is that there's a real lack of being comfortable with the concept. When ever a film about someone being shrunk is done it's generally not done in a serious tone, and whilst this film tries to play up the laughs it also tries to add more weight. It tries to straddle the line between serious and funny but never really pulls it off. It just feels awkward. The shrunken sequences early on in the film weren't nearly as well thought out as I thought they'd be, although by films end they seemed to get better.

What's unfortunate about the film is that the ending is actually pretty entertaining, it pretty well thought out, unique, and has some funny moments (albeit maybe too many for its own good). But how we get there feels like a chore, and in some respects it almost feels like it wasn't for much. The other major action sequence involving Falcon feels tact on for no other purpose than to remind people this is set in the MCU. For the most part the ending is the only real highlight of the movie.

So in the end Ant-Man really is a throw away Marvel movie. It's not awful, but it doesn't add anything to the MCU, to the point where it makes me wonder why they bothered to make it. I can understand why Marvel let Wright go because a Wright Ant-Man film would have been widely different to this, but the problem is his marks are still evident in this movie, and I can't help but wonder if that film would have ended up much better.

6/10

 

[TeeKay]

Has anyone actually reviewed the film without the whole mentioning of "Edgar Wright"? Because I'm gonna judge the film based on what I see not onon what would have been.

 

[jmc]

The problem is if you know Wrights work it's hard to not see where his fingerprints are on the film. The problem though isn't Wrights mark, the problem is the film itself.

 

[TeeKay]

Well if the film really is that problematic, then I'll see on Saturday.

 

[onDgrind]

Tired of reading Wright this and that . Was reading a interview with Rudd yesterday, and they kept asking about Wright, Rudd shut them off by saying its rude to the director and hes gonna stop answering questions about Wright. Gets on my nerves too, i have seen Wrights movies and honestly i dont see what the fuss is. Every good review i have read,seems to not mention Wright, its the Reviewers who keep bringing up Wrights name that try to see a fault in the movie. The mans not a genius

 

[psylockolussus]

I've watched it yesterday afternoon, be easy on me.

Spoiler

It was alright. I totally enjoyed this more than Age of Ultron and The Dark World. Another good entertaining Marvel film. I liked how such a B-lister like Ant-Man got a solo film and then it ended up as a decent film. I really liked the training scenes especially with the ants. The gossip scenes were done very well. I liked Peggy's cameo at the beginning. I liked the original Wasp. I liked the fight with Falcon. Yellowjacket seemed really threatening at first... but I just wasnt a fan of the final act with the climax happening in Scott's daughter's house and even though there was a glimpse to the sub atomic world, the climax wasn't great and after the film, I ended up leaving with the thought of "it was good but far from the best". The mid-credits scene was really cool even though the prototype costume didn't look similar to Wasp's costume in the comics, I really wanted to see Evangelline Lily become the Wasp. However the post-credits scene which was a teaser to Civil War I guess, didn't really make me excited. 7/10

 

[Darkraid]

Can we stop on all this Wright Bulls***??? I realized I really dislike him now after all these things.

From what I have heard on Wright's script, the movie might just turn out terrible if Wright had stayed on.

This is like a guy dreaming how life would be if he courted girl A instead of girl B. Its ******ed.

 

[horacethegrey]

Just saw the movie. It was great. It's probably the best origin film I've seen since the first Thor. The cast was great. Paul Rudd was a good Scott Lang, but Michael Douglas is brilliant as Hank Pym. He may be an egghead, but he's a egghead you don't want to mess with as is established early on. The effects also were phenomenal, and they and Peyton Reed's direction really establish why Ant-Man is such a cool superhero. And I agree with other posters here, it's probably Marvel's funniest film. The humor is really reminiscent of Edgar Wright's other work.

Anyway, a great film and a solid 9/10 from me.

 

[Nelson/Murdock]

It's not awful, but it doesn't add anything to the MCU, to the point where it makes me wonder why they bothered to make it. 6/10

Probably because it's not all about furthering the MCU. And I would argue it did add to it anyway. It added Ant-Man.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The problem is if you know Wrights work it's hard to not see where his fingerprints are on the film. The problem though isn't Wrights mark, the problem is the film itself.

I'm not sure I get what your saying here. We know that essentially all that was used from Wright's drafts was that Hank was to be a mentor for Scott and it was loosely based on To Steal an Ant-Man. Not sure what fingerprints you are referencing because McKay and Rudd completely reworked the script. I felt it had their stamp on the whole film especially the comedy which I felt was done better than any MCU film before it.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

I've liked roughly half of Wrights output to date, and my least fave is his most recent. Could not care less about the "what might have been" bs. Luckily (ironically?) many of the snootier critics aren't exactly blown away by Wroghts oeuvre either.

Not that I'm a Reed fanboy, but I have to give the guy credit. He took a subject I have zero interest in - cheerleading - and made a solid entertaining and genuinely funny movie out of it. Not an easy task.

 

[BoredGuy]

I liked all 4 of Wright's studio films, personally
but I also like Rudd and McKay's movies, and I didn't even hate on Yes Man or some of Reed's other stuff

so I'm going into this with zero consideration of the "what could have been"

 

[marvellover]

If I have to rank my favorite phase 2 movies
The list goes like this

Cap 2 > GOTG > Ant Man = Iron Man 3 > TDW > AOU

 

[Hammer!]

Age of Ultron is last? Really!?

 

[Mysteryman]

This film was always a question mark for me due to its premise but given who was originally involved I was willing to give the premise the benefit of the doubt. The biggest issue with this film is that it has the makings of an Edgar Wright film but done by someone else, and because of that the film is an uneven concoction. You can tell where Wrights fingerprint were over this film, and it's unfortunate that film was never made because the worst thing I can say about Ant-Man is that it just feels completely unnecessary. It's competent enough, but barely enough. It's a film that never blends it components as well as it could have.

The biggest issue with the film is that it just feels like it's a bare bones movie. A case of ticking off certain action movie cliches. Hero looking for redemption? Check. Evil corporate bad guy? Check. Old teacher with estranged daughter? Check. Wise cracking supporting character? Check. Training montage? Check. It's all just an itinerary that's being ticked off as the film progresses and worst of all there's long stretches where nothing interesting happens. We're suppose to care about this or that, but it's never presented in a compelling way. It's all just vanilla and for the most part unimportant.

The biggest crime is that the story and pacing really screws up the performances by the two main actors. Rudd works fine as Scott Lang, and Douglas is good a Hank Pym, but they are left hanging with the little they have to work with. Evangeline Lilly feels really miscast in this, she has zero chemistry with either Rudd or Douglas. And as for Corey Stroll's villain - well who cares? It's just another throw away bad guy in the MCU.

What also seems evident to me is that there's a real lack of being comfortable with the concept. When ever a film about someone being shrunk is done it's generally not done in a serious tone, and whilst this film tries to play up the laughs it also tries to add more weight. It tries to straddle the line between serious and funny but never really pulls it off. It just feels awkward. The shrunken sequences early on in the film weren't nearly as well thought out as I thought they'd be, although by films end they seemed to get better.



What's unfortunate about the film is that the ending is actually pretty entertaining, it pretty well thought out, unique, and has some funny moments (albeit maybe too many for its own good). But how we get there feels like a chore, and in some respects it almost feels like it wasn't for much. The other major action sequence involving Falcon feels tact on for no other purpose than to remind people this is set in the MCU. For the most part the ending is the only real highlight of the movie.

So in the end Ant-Man really is a throw away Marvel movie. It's not awful, but it doesn't add anything to the MCU, to the point where it makes me wonder why they bothered to make it. I can understand why Marvel let Wright go because a Wright Ant-Man film would have been widely different to this, but the problem is his marks are still evident in this movie, and I can't help but wonder if that film would have ended up much better.

6/10

Without giving too much away ,can you describe which sections of the film felt most like they had Wrights imprint on them?
What felt most like Wright ?

 

[Mysteryman]

I've liked roughly half of Wrights output to date, and my least fave is his most recent. Could not care less about the "what might have been" bs. Luckily (ironically?) many of the snootier critics aren't exactly blown away by Wroghts oeuvre either.

Not that I'm a Reed fanboy, but I have to give the guy credit. He took a subject I have zero interest in - cheerleading - and made a solid entertaining and genuinely funny movie out of it. Not an easy task.

I didn't see At Worlds End.
I am looking forward to Baby Driver .

 

[Shikamaru]

It's not awful, but it doesn't add anything to the MCU, to the point where it makes me wonder why they bothered to make it.

I haven't seen it yet, but this is exactly what I was afraid of.

From day 1, this whole film had been sold as Wright's pet project. It was only being made because he wanted it made, which is something Feige admitted several times. So when Wright left and Marvel announced they'd continue with the film, to me it felt more like them trying to minimize damage control than anything else. As in "We've already spent money on it, plus cancelling it might bring more bad publicity, so we'll salvage what we can of it, hope it does at least decent and then move on".

Based on the reviews, it suggests fans were right about that to an extent.

 

[Son of Coul]

I don't really see how Wright wouldn't come up in a review of this. It's his story, his lead cast, and even lots of his storyboards and pre-vis they went off of for the big set pieces. I understand not wanting a snooty putdown to the new crew because of preference, but this isn't like he fell off the project a decade ago without them using most of his material. Do those asking to judge the movie solely on its own terms not compare movies to their predecessors (sequel-wise & directorial effort-wise) and other MCU installments, as well as comment on how it effects other movies in the MCU? If you're vouching for reviewing the movie in a vacuum, I feel you have to go all the way with it.

It doesn't even have to do with the fact that Wright is a preference to lots of people as a director. If the project went from Spielberg to Scorsese (a la Cape Fear), it'd still be interesting to speculate on what the differences would be, even if that were in the review of the film itself.

 

[Vincanws]

This film was always a question mark for me due to its premise but given who was originally involved I was willing to give the premise the benefit of the doubt.
The biggest issue with this film is that it has the makings of an Edgar Wright film

Going in with preconceived ideas, always a good start.

...but done by someone else, and because of that the film is an uneven concoction. You can tell where Wrights fingerprint were over this film,

I never considered Wright was that transparent and obvious, oh well. I need to read Wright's script as well to to be sure. Oh, ok you haven't read his script either? So you won't really know his beats then either? For all you know, the best parts of what you liked had nothing to do with Edgar. Ok, but lets not consider that.

...and it's unfortunate that film was never made because the worst thing I can say about Ant-Man is that it just feels completely unnecessary.

My feelings on this review so far to be honest, I will persevere though (for a bit)..

It's competent enough, but barely enough. It's a film that never blends it components as well as it could have.

Because Edgar didn't do it. Or maybe could have been worse, a lot worse. You'll never know.

The biggest issue with the film is that it just feels like it's a bare bones movie. A case of ticking off certain action movie cliches. Hero looking for redemption? Check. Evil corporate bad guy? Check. Old teacher with estranged daughter? Check. Wise cracking supporting character? Check. Training montage? Check. It's all just an itinerary that's being ticked off as the film progresses and worst of all there's long stretches where nothing interesting happens. ......

All of those things will be used again, and time and again in future comic book movies, and non comic book movies because they are typical beats that film makers have used a lot because they help drive a movie's plot forward....Why is this time such a cliché for you now? Because Edgar didn't direct it to make it less cliché? For all we know, some or all of those would have been part of Edgar's film anyway.


Sorry, but that review reads like it's pandering to the worst of what I've seen out there. It's not so much a critique as a homage to one of your favourite directors and 'should-have-been' as opposed to what we have, and failing to highlight almost any positive in it at all. I don't get your 6/10 rating because it reads more like a 3/10 movie at best.

 

[Sean of Justice]

Can anyone who's seen the movie tell me whether we get to see

Spoiler

Hank Pym in the suit

?

I'm not sure I get what your saying here. We know that essentially all that was used from Wright's drafts was that Hank was to be a mentor for Scott and it was loosely based on To Steal an Ant-Man. Not sure what fingerprints you are referencing because McKay and Rudd completely reworked the script. I felt it had their stamp on the whole film especially the comedy which I felt was done better than any MCU film before it.

On IMDb, they've made the mistake of crediting the script to Wright & Cornish & McKay & Rudd. They should have credited Wright & Cornish and McKay & Rudd. & signifies collaboration, whereas and means one or more of the writers did their work separately.

 

[ironman_rick]

Can anyone who's seen the movie tell me whether we get to see

Spoiler

Hank Pym in the suit

?



On IMDb, they've made the mistake of crediting the script to Wright & Cornish & McKay & Rudd. They should have credited Wright & Cornish and McKay & Rudd. & signifies collaboration, whereas and means one or more of the writers did their work separately.

Yup....in a

Spoiler

flash back scene. When he is on top of a Russian missile

 

[Sean of Justice]

Yup....in a

Spoiler

flash back scene. When he is on top of a Russian missile

Cool. And is it

Spoiler

a de-aged Michael Douglas or another actor

?

 

[Mysteryman]

The only way those reviews can be seen as sabotage is if the reviews were written with the intent of driving the score down.
Proving that would be very difficult.