Ant-Man Ant-man's reviews thread

[SuperSanchez]

Ant-Man was a great film that didn't try to act big, it was a heist movie at heart and I enjoyed it's refreshing take on the character! You can check out my review below!

[YT]ybaLBcmaP_8[/YT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybaLBcmaP_8

 

[Dark Raven]

Were there any spiders or other creepy, disgusting insects in the film?

Well, there were ants, because it's Ant-Man.

 

[Gaztacular]

Several species of ant. With accurate depictions of their unique biological abilities!

As for fighting The Superior Spoiler-Man, I say it makes perfect sense. This is a heist movie. We went through the planning and the training montages like a heist movie. Now it's the dry run/shake down/get one last crucial component sequence. There's gotta be some kinda conflict here and in a super-heroic heist movie, it makes sense for it to be a super-heroic conflict.

The character they picked was the best, most even match they could get from the established cast. He appeared in exactly the same location and capacity in which we last saw him. That scene perfectly connects Ant-Man to the larger MCU.

Pym's connections are old. Peggy and Howard are out of the picture. The Triskelion that was just under construction when Pym left SHIELD is now rubble. That rooted this story in MCU lore but Ant-Man vs Spoiler-Man roots it in the MCU now.

 

[Slade W]

Well, there were ants, because it's Ant-Man.

Obviously but I don't classify ants as "disgusting" or "creepy" so that is ok with me.

 

[SomeOldGuy]

George RR Martin liked it...

http://grrm.livejournal.com/435595.html

 

[Elayis]

I'm one of those people that never really got over Edgar Wright being forced off the movie, so my excitement for this film never recovered after that.

This movie overall felt like a video game. Not much in the way of plot of character development, just "objectives" the hero has to complete just "because", formulaic beats that are neither surprising nor earned, hiring talented actors and then wasting them in roles that never give them a chance to shine; and to top it off, it probably features Marvel's worst villain (and that's saying something). And for this movie primarily being a comedy, I found it interesting that most of the jokes fell flat.

There were some clever moments here and there, enough to show there was a good movie hidden in here somewhere, but it was lost amidst the countless rewrites and studio oversight (a lot like Iron Man 2).

4.5/10 My least favorite Marvel Studios film, along with GotG (though I prefer Ant-Man slightly more).


EDIT: Just some more thoughts, since I didn’t put all of my thoughts in the original post -


good de-aged VFX
flat, one-dimensional characters (thieves, ex-wife, cop husband, Cross, Martin Donovan)
boring/pointless VFX ant scenes
formulaic plot beats (I’m done with stealing stuff, sees daughter & decides to return to crime for her, recruitment, gang assembly, training montage, father/daughter reconciliation, heist, bad guy dies, hero trapped but escapes)
pointless inclusion of Falcon, Stark, Peggy
criminal waste of Wood Harris



Like others have pointed out, the only reason I was ever interested in this film was because Wright was involved. Ant-Man has never been a property that I’ve cared about (Giant Man, on the other hand, might be cool), and as the movie has given credence to, I didn’t have much faith that the concept could be pulled off in live action and not be silly (like Green Lantern). There were many moments where I laughed out loud (and not in a good way) when the various shrinking and ant interactions were taking place. There also didn’t seem to be much internal logic to the universe (like how could Falcon punch, much less see, Scott when he was an ant?).

I never go into a film wanting it to be bad. Why would anyone want that? I was giving this film the benefit of the doubt (and even enjoying it) until the Baskin Robbins scene, which you could find in any other generic non-superhero comedy movie. After that point I knew that I couldn’t take the film seriously anymore. There’s a fine line between poking fun yourself and the absurdity of your subject, and becoming outright farcical. Like with Avengers 1, TDW & GoTG, this film crossed that line and I no longer cared. This film still could’ve been enjoyable if it was intelligently written or had a well-developed emotional core, but it had neither.

A large part of what I didn’t like about the movie stems from the actors. This is probably a fault of the script (and maybe the direction) but nothing ever felt real or natural to me. Everyone was merely reciting their lines or acting like they were on a sitcom. There was a clear editorial hand at work that never let you forget that this was a movie, with lots of quick cuts and in-your-face heist-y music that put on emphasis on “fun” and ruined any chance of emotionally engaging with the events onscreen.

And much like most of Marvel’s movies, the CGI was very cartoony and didn’t blend well with the on-set photography at all. The ant scene particularly looked like they were from a video game, and were nowhere near being photo-real. Even the 1989 prologue with the de-aged Douglas (which was fantastic) might not be as good as it appeared since I saw it in 3D and it has a tendency to blur the details. To me, the first Iron Man still has the best VFX because that film was still partly grounded in the real world. The colors weren’t as zany; most scenes that had VFX featured mostly real locations, people & props. The effects were only there to aid the onscreen action, not be front & center spectacle.

I wish I could like this film more because it did have some clever bits that I enjoyed (the tip scenes, Yellowjackets backhanded into the bug zapper), but the few good moments couldn’t outweigh the fundamental story and character flaws that this film was built around.

Also, yet again, the 3D was pointless. I’m so sick of it at this point. The last film that truly used it to any noticeable degree was Prometheus. I wish Hollywood would just leave the IMAX screen alone and in 2D.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I'm one of those people that never really got over Edgar Wright being forced off the movie, so my excitement for this film never recovered after that.

I stopped reading here because factually it's incorrect and set the tone for a clear bias as you headed into the film.

 

[Guard82]

There were some clever moments here and there, enough to show there was a good movie hidden in here somewhere, but it was lost amidst the countless rewrites and studio oversight (a lot like Iron Man 2).

4.5/10 My least favorite Marvel Studios film, along with GotG (though I prefer Ant-Man slightly more).

I thought Ant-Man was a genuinely clever movie, but of course, different people have different tastes. By the way, just out of curiosity, how come GotG is ranked as your least favorite? I thought it was loads of fun.

 

[Solaire]

I stopped reading here because factually it's incorrect and set the tone for a clear bias as you headed into the film.

Yeah. I saw it was a lengthy review and planned on reading it but that sentence

 

[Blind_Lawyer]

I thought the movie got a bit slow in the middle with Scott Lang training and learning to harness his powers. With the exception of the first Spider-Man movie (which, in my opinion, got everything right) that seems to be kind of par for the course when it comes to super hero origin stories. Plus, I felt the writer and director were beating the father/daughter dynamic over my head. Scott's a dad, Hank's a dad. We get it. Being a dad is hard and rewarding and requires constant sacrifice. I just felt like they were trying to drill that message in and it got distracting. I think this movie tried to over explain its theme and it wasn't necessary.

But other than that, I thought it was fantastic and a whole hell of a lot of fun. After the heavy and dark Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron it was nice to see something fun and tongue in cheek. I was a big fan of this movie.

Would be nice to see a prequel that shows the exploits of the original Ant-Man and Wasp.

 

[scatterax]

I thought the movie got a bit slow in the middle with Scott Lang training and learning to harness his powers. With the exception of the first Spider-Man movie (which, in my opinion, got everything right) that seems to be kind of par for the course when it comes to super hero origin stories. Plus, I felt the writer and director were beating the father/daughter dynamic over my head. Scott's a dad, Hank's a dad. We get it. Being a dad is hard and rewarding and requires constant sacrifice. I just felt like they were trying to drill that message in and it got distracting. I think this movie tried to over explain its theme and it wasn't necessary.

But other than that, I thought it was fantastic and a whole hell of a lot of fun. After the heavy and dark Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron it was nice to see something fun and tongue in cheek. I was a big fan of this movie.

Would be nice to see a prequel that shows the exploits of the original Ant-Man and Wasp.

If you thought AoU and Iron Man 3 were heavy and dark just wait til you see the netflix show about a blind lawor.

 

[Elayis]

I stopped reading here because factually it's incorrect and set the tone for a clear bias as you headed into the film.

To me, when a company hires some like Edgar Wright they know what they are getting. He first wrote a treatment in 2003 and began actively working on the film with Marvel in 2006. That's 8 years of pre-production development. If Marvel only realized two months before shooting that they were never going to get what they wanted from Wright, I think the blame more or less rests fully on their shoulders. Besides, hiring screenwriters to work on the script behind the director's back is a really dick move.

I'm not a die-hard Wright fan (I didn't much care for "The World's End") so this is not me being biased. If the facts behind the split eventually come to light and prove otherwise, I will revise my stance. But this isn't the first time that Marvel has stamped down on the vision of a director that they hired. Granted, they own the characters and are financing the movie, but you should work out all of these details before you sign a contract. Some of these directors have been happy being merely work-for-hire and not having much say in the final direction of the film. If the director's vision aligns with Marvel then of course they are given more leeway and have an obviously different working experience with the studio.

But this is also why big-name directors will never work on a Marvel movie, because they want final cut and will never get it. This is why Ava DuVerany passed on Black Panther and Patty Jenkins didn't do TDW (but is now doing Wonder Woman at DC).

Obviously these decisions aren't affecting Marvel much because their films are still raking in the dough, but it does affect my enjoyment of these movies and why I will be more cautious when deciding to see one of them in theaters or not. I really enjoyed Iron Man 1 & The Incredible Hulk, and still liked (but to a slightly lesser extent) Thor & Avengers: Age of Ultron. Beyond that, I've found their films to be average & forgettable, or downright annoying (like GotG or Ant-Man).

I've still kept seeing their movies because I want to like them; TDW was the only film I didn't see in theaters. It also helps to renew my interest that Marvel is still starting new franchises with new creative teams. Doctor Strange is intriguing to me because of Benedict Cumberbatch and Tilda Swinton (not because of Scott Derrickson). Even though I thought TWS was an average film with a bad screenplay, I'm still going to see Civil War because it's a storyline that I've been looking forward to for years. But if I don't like it (or still get the same meh feeling I did from TWS), I doubt I'll be seeing Infinity War. I barely decided to go see AoU because I really didn't care for the first Avengers (the only reason I went was to due to the "must see" status that a film that size has), but luckily I really enjoyed it. My fondness (and misconception) of that film due its bad trailers also partially influenced me to go ahead and see Ant-Man.


Didn't mean to type that much. Anyone who actually does manage to read that great, big wall of text gets my utmost respect (especially if you don't agree with me).

I thought Ant-Man was a genuinely clever movie, but of course, different people have different tastes. By the way, just out of curiosity, how come GotG is ranked as your least favorite? I thought it was loads of fun.

I thought the script was really dumb. Aside from a single gag or two the jokes weren't funny; the plot was formulaic and cliche; Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro & Lee Pace were criminally wasted; and I just didn't care about any of the characters because they either irritated the hell out of me (Starlord, Rocket & Groot) or were too dumb to sympathize with (Gamora & Drax).

 

[JtheDreamer]

To me, when a company hires some like Edgar Wright they know what they are getting. He first wrote a treatment in 2003 and began actively working on the film with Marvel in 2006. That's 8 years of pre-production development. If Marvel only realized two months before shooting that they were never going to get what they wanted from Wright, I think the blame more or less rests fully on their shoulders. Besides, hiring screenwriters to work on the script behind the director's back is a really dick move.

False.

“With Edgar, [the decision] was mutual. People said, ‘You guys have been working together for 10 years; why did you only figure it out a couple of months before you started filming?’

But that’s really not true. We’d been working on it for about nine months, maybe a year at most. And it became apparent to him and to us that the best thing to do was to move on. But because Edgar has a fan base and Marvel has a fan base, there’s good and bad that comes with that high profile. And one of the bads is that internal decisions and shuffles get headlines.”

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2015/...ture-and-working-with-sony-on-spider-man.html

I'm not a die-hard Wright fan (I didn't much care for "The World's End") so this is not me being biased.

Had me fooled. You may not be a diehard, but sounds more like you didn't give the movie a chance in how you explained your mentality heading into it.

I thought the script was really dumb. Aside from a single gag or two the jokes weren't funny; the plot was formulaic and cliche; Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro & Lee Pace were criminally wasted; and I just didn't care about any of the characters because they either irritated the hell out of me (Starlord, Rocket & Groot) or were too dumb to sympathize with (Gamora & Drax).

I'm on the outlier as well with GOTG. I was psyched for it because of Chris Pratt, Thanos, and Ronan. But it turned out to be a very immature film with waaaaay too much exposition, some very stiff acting (Gilian, Bautista, and Zaldana), and too much being crammed into it in order to unspool the cosmic side of Marvel. I honestly think the sequel could use someone else besides James Gunn writing. Between stuff like Drax drunk dialing Ronan, Nebula straight up calling Gamora "stupid", and the whole "He's not 100% a dick" I can't tell you how many times I rolled my eyes.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

This movie made my top 3 MCU films. Not an easy task.

I thought it was an absolute blast. Basically how everyone thought GotG was the perfect blockbuster is how I felt about this film.

Going in I was worried about a weak villain or miscasting but every role was perfectly executed.

The effects, the humor, the drama, the storytelling, etc all great. The movie was firing on all cylinders.

And the jail break and watching Scott master his powers was pure joy.

My 9 year old son who didn't care for GotG was cracking up throughout the movie and was playing as Ant-Man in Lego Marvel the next day.

I'm still giddy thinking about the movie and what a perfect symphony it was.

I enjoyed this way more than anything Edgar Wright ever did so I'll never get why people are ******** that Marvel kicked him to the curb.

9/10

 

[Elayis]

False.

“With Edgar, [the decision] was mutual. People said, ‘You guys have been working together for 10 years; why did you only figure it out a couple of months before you started filming?’

But that’s really not true. We’d been working on it for about nine months, maybe a year at most. And it became apparent to him and to us that the best thing to do was to move on. But because Edgar has a fan base and Marvel has a fan base, there’s good and bad that comes with that high profile. And one of the bads is that internal decisions and shuffles get headlines.”

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2015/...ture-and-working-with-sony-on-spider-man.html

Had me fooled. You may not be a diehard, but sounds more like you didn't give the movie a chance in how you explained your mentality heading into it.

Regardless of whether what Feige says or not is true, it's still jut producer double talk. It's a publicized interview so of course he's going to try to put everything in the best light possible. It'll probably be 5-10 years before we get the honest, off-the-cuff truth. But ultimately, I don't care why Wright left the film. All I know is that Wright probably would've made a better (but less Marvel-ish) film. But let's say for the sake of argument that this is the film that Wright was trying to make and it featured his name on it instead of Reed's. If that were the case, I still wouldn't like the film based on all the reasons I've already given.

But based off Wright's previous films and Reed's, I can say almost without a doubt that most of my problems with this film were put into the film after Wright left.

I'm on the outlier as well with GOTG. I was psyched for it because of Chris Pratt, Thanos, and Ronan. But it turned out to be a very immature film with waaaaay too much exposition, some very stiff acting (Gilian, Bautista, and Zaldana), and too much being crammed into it in order to unspool the cosmic side of Marvel. I honestly think the sequel could use someone else besides James Gunn writing. Between stuff like Drax drunk dialing Ronan, Nebula straight up calling Gamora "stupid", and the whole "He's not 100% a dick" I can't tell you how many times I rolled my eyes.

Most of the issues I have GotG are the same I have with Ant-Man. Lazy storytelling, characters that never evolve past tropes, bad "jokes" and awful dialogue.

Ant-Man never had anything as bad as Star-Lord's dance-off, surviving in space without a suit or crash-landing on a planet in a tree cocoon & surviving. GotG has some of the most ludicrous things I've ever seen in a live-action movie that wasn't a spoof.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

That surviving in space thing without a suit actually has some science behind it. Gunn and Marvel went to NASA and they said there's been a few occasions where astronauts lost pressurization in vacuums and survived. With Quill not being full human, he likely had some other enhancements that allowed him to survive longer than normal. Plus, that scene is not fully playing in real time so it's not exactly like they spent a full minute or two out there.

Also, I'm not sure why you have a problem with them surviving in a cocoon made from Groot. You and JtheDreamer just had no sense of fun with that film. Based on your favorite CBM list, you just seem to not enjoy any type of humor in your CBM films.

 

[JtheDreamer]

Regardless of whether what Feige says or not is true, it's still jut producer double talk. It's a publicized interview so of course he's going to try to put everything in the best light possible. It'll probably be 5-10 years before we get the honest, off-the-cuff truth. But ultimately, I don't care why Wright left the film. All I know is that Wright probably would've made a better (but less Marvel-ish) film. But let's say for the sake of argument that this is the film that Wright was trying to make and it featured his name on it instead of Reed's. If that were the case, I still wouldn't like the film based on all the reasons I've already given.

But based off Wright's previous films and Reed's, I can say almost without a doubt that most of my problems with this film were put into the film after Wright left.

You haven't established that at all. You're just "saying" that's the case. Regardless Feige's comments have been in the process almost two months now and yet no dispute coming from Wright. I wonder why that is.

 

[Elayis]

That surviving in space thing without a suit actually has some science behind it. Gunn and Marvel went to NASA and they said there's been a few occasions where astronauts lost pressurization in vacuums and survived. With Quill not being full human, he likely had some other enhancements that allowed him to survive longer than normal. Plus, that scene is not fully playing in real time so it's not exactly like they spent a full minute or two out there.

Also, I'm not sure why you have a problem with them surviving in a cocoon made from Groot. You and JtheDreamer just had no sense of fun with that film. Based on your favorite CBM list, you just seem to not enjoy any type of humor in your CBM films.

Just because one can "survive" in space without a suit, doesn't mean they will be free from harm. At best, they would suffer severe frostbite and he would've lost his eyes since he opened them. You couldn't go through something like that and be right as rain immediately afterwards.

I enjoy humor if it is done intelligently and supplements a story; I don't like it front and center, especially in films where the fate of the world is at stake and hundreds (if not thousands) of people die.

You haven't established that at all. You're just "saying" that's the case. Regardless Feige's comments have been in the process almost two months now and yet no dispute coming from Wright. I wonder why that is.

For the same reason he hasn't said anything about the film now that it has been released: he doesn't have anything nice to say so he isn't saying anything at all. He doesn't want to burn bridges or come off as a sore loser. You would think someone that is credited as a co-writer and executive producer would have at least some presence in the press tour for the film. Even a phone interview or something. Ultimately, I think he's just trying to move past his involvement on the film and put it behind him.

 

[def28]

Really dug it. Probably the first MCU film where I didn't walk in with huge expectations and didn't know what to expect.

8/10

Loved the Cure gag.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Just because one can "survive" in space without a suit, doesn't mean they will be free from harm. At best, they would suffer severe frostbite and he would've lost his eyes since he opened them. You couldn't go through something like that and be right as rain immediately afterwards.

I enjoy humor if it is done intelligently and supplements a story; I don't like it front and center, especially in films where the fate of the world is at stake and hundreds (if not thousands) of people die.



For the same reason he hasn't said anything about the film now that it has been released: he doesn't have anything nice to say so he isn't saying anything at all. He doesn't want to burn bridges or come off as a sore loser. You would think someone that is credited as a co-writer and executive producer would have at least some presence in the press tour for the film. Even a phone interview or something. Ultimately, I think he's just trying to move past his involvement on the film and put it behind him.

Just seems the MCU is not for you then because it's not overly serious like the X-Men or DC movies. I find many of the X-Men and DC films to lacking in the fun and entertaining part a lot of the time so that's why I for one like that the MCU is not deadset on being super serious all the the time and can vary their tones and themes for each of their films.

 

[Greens]

Saw the movie yesterday. Enjoyable.

7/10

 

[chamber-music]

Regardless of whether what Feige says or not is true, it's still jut producer double talk. It's a publicized interview so of course he's going to try to put everything in the best light possible. It'll probably be 5-10 years before we get the honest, off-the-cuff truth. But ultimately, I don't care why Wright left the film. All I know is that Wright probably would've made a better (but less Marvel-ish) film. But let's say for the sake of argument that this is the film that Wright was trying to make and it featured his name on it instead of Reed's. If that were the case, I still wouldn't like the film based on all the reasons I've already given.

But based off Wright's previous films and Reed's, I can say almost without a doubt that most of my problems with this film were put into the film after Wright left..

It is true.

Edgar himself said he only works on one movie at a time and his draft of Ant-Man had changed very little since his original idea for the movie back in 2003.

Edgar and Joe were not continuously working on the film. They both liked their original idea for the movie and it didn't change too much after Marvel Studios started building their own interconnected film franchise.

One of the things Peyton Reed said he did was take out stuff that had already been seen in Superhero movies in the subsequent years Edgar & Joe's script had been sitting on the self.

The Ant-Man story/plot didn't change that much between the Wright version and Reed version which is why Edgar & Joe still get a story credit on the movie.

You might of preferred Edgar's execution of the story but it would not of been too radically different.

 

[Dark Raven]

It is true.

Edgar himself said he only works on one movie at a time and his draft of Ant-Man had changed very little since his original idea for the movie back in 1973.

Edgar and Joe were not continuously working on the film. They both liked their original idea for the movie and it didn't change too much after Marvel Studios started building their own interconnected film franchise.

One of the things Peyton Reed said he did was take out stuff that had already been seen in Superhero movies in the subsequent years Edgar & Joe's script had been sitting on the self.

The Ant-Man story/plot didn't change that much between the Wright version and Reed version which is why Edgar & Joe still get a story credit on the movie.

You might of preferred Edgar's execution of the story but it would not of been too radically different.

Fixed.

Michael Douglas was still in the Streets of San Francisco at the time, and to get round scheduling conflicts, Edgar Wright thought he might as well set it in San Francisco as well. So this plot point remained.

And it's true that Wright only works on one movie at a time. He's currently working on Baby Teenage Adult Pensioner Driver.

 

[JtheDreamer]

for the same reason he hasn't said anything about the film now that it has been released: He doesn't have anything nice to say so he isn't saying anything at all. He doesn't want to burn bridges or come off as a sore loser. You would think someone that is credited as a co-writer and executive producer would have at least some presence in the press tour for the film. Even a phone interview or something. Ultimately, i think he's just trying to move past his involvement on the film and put it behind him.

100% pure speculation. Now you're just putting words in the guy's mouth to fit your own story.

For a self-proclaimed non-fanboy of Wright (who ironically was upset when he left this movie), you sure seem to know a lot about the inner-workings of his mind.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Just because one can "survive" in space without a suit, doesn't mean they will be free from harm. At best, they would suffer severe frostbite and he would've lost his eyes since he opened them. You couldn't go through something like that and be right as rain immediately afterwards.

The low temperatures wouldn't be much of a problem. There is nothing in space to transfer body heat to so the only way to lose body heat is for it radiate away. You would eventually freeze, but it would take a long time in space, much longer than it would on Earth. And they were only exposed for like a minute.

Now granted in the film, they do show them freezing, but that would be the inaccurate part. They wouldn't start to freeze instantly like that. It would take hours.