Review: Ant-Man And The Wasp - Quantumania

Ant-Man And The Wasp:
Quantumania
Cert: 12A / 124 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer

It's a weird one, I don't know what critics want. I mean to be fair, I am technically part of 'critics' and I don't really know what I want, so how would I have any idea what would keep other people happy? Not a clue. Anyway, Marvel Studios' Phase Five begins with another outing for Ant-Man and The Wasp, as Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly are joined in their eponymous roles for a full adventure by Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer as Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne, along with Kathryn Newton as Ant-Man's daughter Cassie, all shrunk to sub-atomic size and battling their way to be free of The Quantum Realm, much to the chagrin of Jonathan Majors' Kang The Conqueror...

And the critics really aren't bothered about it. The film's been on general release for a week*¹ and the aggregated score over at Rotten Tomatoes is firmly middling. Far from being trashed, but way below what was expected or even hoped-for. Civilian viewers are digging it a bit more, but frankly they're often more fickle than the folks' who write it all down afterwards. There seems to be the received thought that Quantumania (looks good written down, but a dreadful title to say aloud) is a decidedly average outing which is more suited to the hardcore Marvel fanboys. But given that this is the 31st feature film in a steadily-formulaic series, the fifth screen appearance of Ant-Man and his third own, actual movie, it's hard to know who else the audience is expected to be...

TAKEN

Part of the reason that this review has taken over a week to surface is that I thoroughly appreciated this latest flick, and at the same time I completely understand that criticism. It's reassuringly underwhelming, in a way that seems almost unique to the Ant-Man films. The cast are reliably great (Majors is especially fun, bringing the only real sense of gravitas to the entire thing while still treating it like a pantomime), and the screenplay does just about everything its able to, acknowledging that the story is Fantastic Voyage retooled for the MCU. And bearing in mind the rescue of Pfeiffer's Janet Van Dyne in Ant-Man's first sequel set up precisely this, it hardly comes as a surprise.

Inside of the 'normal world' framing device which tries (and only scrapingly succeeds) to recapture the easygoing, low-key charm of 2015's Ant-Man, the pacing of this movie is relentless, and it's frankly draining. After shrinking, the heroes are split into two groups (standard), with their adventures intertwining to tell the story. Unfortunately, despite industrial amounts of backstory and exposition, none of it slows down enough to convince the viewer of why this matters (other than: trying not to die in the Quantum Realm). There's little room for the story to breathe, and the expansive CGI surroundings (admittedly necessary) create a weird claustrophobia as the main body of the film exists without sunlight. The visual debt to modern era Star Wars is - in places - absolutely off the scale, with pretty much every character in the Quantum Realm looking like they've either stepped out of Maz Kanata's watering hole or just gotten off the shuttle from Jakku.

NON-STOP

The real problem is that much like its 2018 predecessor, there's little that's actively bad about Quantumania but it feels like it doesn't really have a proper place to sit; especially as the film takes place in its own micro-universe where outside time doesn't exist. The potential for these events to spill over into the 'real' world is more than hinted at, of course, but this feels like a very expensive project just to establish a recurring villain for Phase Five. That said, they'd better use it as such, because it's even more of a waste of money to cue up multiversal Kang on the big screen and then not exploit the absolute hell out of him.

Rudd is always fun to watch of course, and this is no exception. But even at his comedic height of working with the Judd Apatow crew, Rudd was always an ensemble player; frequently one of the best things about a movie, but not its leading man. He works best when he's got others to bounce off so it seems slightly unfair to expect the guy to carry the weight of an entire movie on his own, and yet he's the only character upon whom the script allows any real focus.

Then Bill Murray shows up for a restaurant scene which is slightly too long to be classed as a cameo, and not really meaningful enough to be anything but. And as much as we all love Bill, the thought soon emerges that much like Jeff Goldblum in Ragnarok, he's been hired to just turn up and play himself, suggesting the Marvel casting department are now running on fumes. The film is entertaining as hell all the time it's on, but doesn't leave the audience with much other than wanting to see how Kang develops.

A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST

So does this have the whoops of No Way Home, the snarls of Multiverse Of Madness or the camaraderie of Love And Thunder? No, it doesn't. Then again, it doesn't have the appalling accent work of Black Widow, the personality-vacuum of Eternals, or the plotline which deliberately excludes legacy characters and then can't find anything interesting to do with the ones still left of Wakanda Forever, either.

All Quantumania is trying to do is bimble along and have a laugh, and if anything that's far more respectable than striving for greatness where it can't exist. From a wider angle, the film contains very on-point messages about responsibility and personal growth (delivered both straight-faced and with wry smiles), but after two hours, at the movie's very crescendo, when all else lies in ruins and ashes, this still somehow comes down to two guys in a room punching each other...

But there I go again, complaining about a film whose side I'm on.

For better or worse, Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania is essentially a very loud, very bright, two hour chase/fight sequence, with a near-constant exposition track and which still makes almost no sense.

Not going to lie, I rather enjoyed that.

*¹ That's right, I watched this ten days ago and the review is just landing now. That finger-on-the-pulse, agile responsiveness is exactly what you lovely people come here for and I love you for it. ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man And The Wasp

Ant-Man and The Wasp (first-pass / 2D / spoiler-free)
Cert: 12A / 118 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



Good things come to those who wait, and viewers in the UK have been standing by for the arrival of Marvel Studios' Ant-Man And The Wasp for almost a month. The twentieth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe landed in the US on 6th July, but the UK release was postponed until 2nd August, reportedly because some people were playing football or somesuch.

But cometh the hour, cometh the ant, and Peyton Reed's anticipated sequel is finally here. The story picks up around two years after the events of Captain America: Civil War, but before those of the recent Avengers movie. Having struck a plea-deal with the FBI for Ant-Man's part in breaking the Sokovia Accords, Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is nearing the end of a 24-month house-arrest, while Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) and her father Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) have spent the time on the run, legally complicit in Lang's crime by virtue of owning the equipment he used to shrink and enlarge himself.

The Pyms haven't been idle in their time though, and are nearing completion on a machine to explore the Quantum Realm, certain now that they can rescue Hank's wife (and Hope's mother), Janet van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer), who's been lost in there for 30 years. For this, they need to bring Lang out of his enforced retirement. But the product of their secretive work is in high demand, and black market tech dealer Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins) has gotten wind of what they're building, as has a mysterious entity known only as the Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), who is equally keen to acquire the finish product. The race for the Quantum Tunnel is on, but do any of its participants realise exactly what they're hoping to unleash..?

The good news - Marvel have succeeded once again, demonstrating why they're the market leaders in superhero movies which are entertaining, heartfelt and funny. Director Reed keeps the plates spinning with a focused skill, smoothing out the often-competing plot strands. As hectic as the five-author screenplay becomes, everything pulls in the same direction, blending action and humour in the way we've come to expect, all set against the backdrop of the larger continuity.

Paul Rudd is on solid form as our flippantly laid-back hero, still trying to balance a slightly dysfunctional family life with his membership of the Avengers. Evangeline Lilly gets to shine more properly this time around, stepping into the Wasp costume revealed at the end of the first instalment. Bringing both brains and brawn to the partnership, Hope van Dyne threatens to overshadow her counterpart on several occasions with a performance which is bigger than the script Lilly is working from.

Elsewhere, Michael Douglas holds the fort once more as the irascible Dr. Hank Pym, matched only by an unusually brittle turn from Laurence Fishburne as his ex research colleague, Bill Foster. Light slapstick and bickering duties are carried again by Michael Peña, T.I. and David Dastmalchian, while Judy Greer, Bobby Cannavale and Abby Ryder Fortson return to flesh out Lang's home-life.

But the show is very nearly stolen by Hannah John-Kamen's Ghost. A fantastic emotive and physical performance coupled with a character who's in a satisfyingly grey area make this antagonist arguably the most interesting aspect of the entire film.

Because while Ant-Man And The Wasp is a great ride and undoubtedly Marvel™, there's something missing.

A huge part of that is the wow-factor. Whereas the 2015's Ant-Man had the element of pleasant surprise on its side, this sequel is weighed down with expectation, much like Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2. But rather than build upon the universe of the first entry, Reed's film feels more like an extension. Rudd's trademark deadpan exasperation has been more or less usurped by Chris Pratt's Star Lord at this stage, leaving the former's quips feeling a little flat. And although the gags are fast and frequent here, the script pales next to the gleeful boisterousness of Thor: Ragnarok. It's almost as if the rest of the MCU has overtaken this casual outsider.

The next issue is one of Ant-Man And The Wasp's scale (no pun intended). While the whole MCU project has been on a generally upward trajectory since its birth in 2008, how do you top the dramatic weight of Avengers: Infinity War? Well in this case, you don't. Edgar Wright's original foundations for Ant-Man were separate from Thanos' quest to get his hands on the magical mitt, so even after Wright's departure, the 2015 feature had a 'detached' quality. Of course the in-universe link is stronger this time around, with half of the setup coming from Civil War, but the West-coast location and lack of cross-over characters from other titles give the story the feeling of a spin-off, rather than a numbered chapter within the main narrative. This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course. After all, Disney's other studio, Lucasfilm, played a similar card by succeeding (also chronologically preceding) the divisive heft of The Last Jedi with the breezy swagger of Solo, a sort of palate cleanser for the continuity.

But truth be told, the stakes never feel particularly high in Ant-Man And The Wasp. Walton Goggins' bad guy is certainly painted as an unpleasant character, but carries little sense of actual danger (indeed, his presence seems to be a setup for a long-running joke about truth serum). Considering the title specifically names two characters, Evangeline Lilly's Wasp is still effectively a sidekick here, and the story revolves more firmly around what Ant-Man is up to. Equally, with Brie Larson's Captain Marvel on the horizon, you might think that a female character like Hannah John-Kamen's Ghost would play a more central role in the proceedings, especially given her close ties to the protagonists. Instead, she's criminally underused, a cog which could exist solely to make the machine appear more complex.

And all of this might be more forgivable if it wasn't for the frequent bursts of exposition wrapped in shoddily explained pseudo-science; Marvel is usually above this methodology. Obviously the viewer needs to accept the convoluted concept of items being able to shrink and enlarge at the touch of a button if they're to go with the flow. But they'll also need to believe that a vehicle can be reduced from full-size to that of a child's toy, yet still somehow maintain the same speed on the road after the transformation. As if the physics of wheel-RPM doesn't count in the MCU. And when pedantic things like that are sticking in your humble correspondent's mind during the movie, it's probably not doing all it could be to engage an audience on other levels.

The last four paragraphs aside, the incredible shrinking adventure of Ant-Man And The Wasp is an enormous amount of fun. Perhaps not the Fantastic Voyage it could have been, but it's nice to see that Marvel aren't Downsizing just yet.

Good things come to those who wait. Although great ones seem more arbitrary…

The business-end (not spoilers, but highlight-to-read anyway):

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? Not that I heard.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? There is, yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Of course there is.
• Is there a post-credits scene? There is. More on this in my second-pass review.

Well, Ant-Man.



Yes, obviously.



Yes, obviously.



It's not.



I shouldn't imagine so.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: That un-named First Order Officer from The Force Awakens is in this.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man (third-pass)

Ant-Man (2D / third-pass / THEMATIC-SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



So after watching Marvel's Ant-Man a couple of times (first here, second here) followed by the customary cooling-off period, I gave it another whirl last night to see how it stands up to 'familiar' scrutiny. And as much as I enjoyed it (again), the one question it raises is:
Does Ant-Man need to be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

As I'd previously noted, the film has obvious issues regarding its connection with the larger MCU, not least because it does nothing to advance the larger story-arc of the Infinity Stones. If anything, the film's main purpose seems to be to introduce more characters for future use, rather than give them anything strenuous to do, initially. Then it occurred to me that the two aren't necessarily linked, and the former is probably the reason the film works so well.

We haven't had an MCU-movie that's not centered around one of the sparkly MacGuffins since 2013's Iron Man 3, and even that was a respite from the Cosmic Cube and the Loki-Pokey Stick shenanigans. And (as I've also previously noted), the formula regarding the stones was already repetitive-by-necessity at the point of Guardians. While the various TV-offshoots fill in their own gaps, they're also pre-occupied with telling their own sprawling stories (as well they should be), so can't really introduce a new recurring character with the same level of zest that a two-hour movie can.

It's quite nice to have a bit of a 'continuity comfort-break' in Ant-Man, knowing that it's still part of a larger tapestry, but is more self-contained than the MCU movies have been for a long while. Sure, the Avengers references are a little tacked on, and sure, I do still think the plot structure is derivative of The First Avenger, and sure, I'm still irked by Marvel's unwillingness to commit to killing off characters. But Ant-Man is still a hugely enjoyable super-hero flick.

Does Ant-Man need to be part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
No.

But Does the Marvel cinematic Universe need Ant-Man?
More than it'd like to admit, yes.

Oh, and a question for people who know about these things: How come when Scott gets out of prison we see the Golden Gate Bridge and it's red (like it usually is), but in the two later exterior scenes featuring it, it's painted grey? Is that a different bridge, or is it painted grey on the other side, or am I just imagining things?



Well, yeah.



Buy it so you can watch all the lovely extras.



(( ^{not particularly} ))



Given that its overall aims are actually fairly low, yes it does.



Not as much as you'd imagine I would.



There ain't. BAH.



Paul Rudd starred in Anchorman 2, a film which had an appearance from Harrison 'Solo' Ford.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man (second-pass)

Ant-Man (3D / D-Box / second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



So I read this article (also linked in my previous review) in which Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon says:

"Somebody said, ‘Well, that was a great setup for the next thing!’ in one of the test screenings, and I died inside. [Marvel executives] were like, ‘No! They say that all the time, it’s fine.’ I was like, ‘No, that’s the worst thing I could have heard.’ I want people to come out feeling done."

…and while I feel for Mr Whedon, I have to admit that the reaction of the audience-member in question isn't a million miles away from my own over Marvel's latest saga-installment, Ant-Man. Apart from the fact that it's slightly counter-intuitive to run mid/post-credits teasers for the next film in the series if you're going to complain when people leave the cinema rubbing their hands in anticipation for three/six/eight months time, and apart from the fact that the script for Ant-Man is littered with both references to the previous movies and setups/foreshadowing for future ones, the bottom line is that it's part of a steadily expanding series, and not really an individual movie.

It could certainly be enjoyed as a standalone if a viewer hadn't seen any of the previous MCU flicks, but structurally, the film is basically Captain America all over again: A well-meaning, if troubled, young man is given a shot at greatness by an enigmatic mentor who's been working on a scientific means of enhancement, so that he can a) grow as a person and character (à la The Hero's Journey), and b) settle a score for the mentor by vanquishing his enemy who is using an ideologically twisted version of that same enhancement as a tool to gain power. It's not a new structure for storytelling, of course, but it's not even a new concept for this series.

So if audiences distract themselves from that thematic hurdle by reading the portents and hints you've left in plain sight, don't get too disheartened, okay? From a business point-of-view you're doing it right, and if they're leaving the screening-room with smiles on their faces, you're doing well in terms of the long-term story, too ;)

Plus, if you want to keep your audience's attention on the right-now, maybe stop dropping shit like this?



* cough *

Anyway, as you may have gathered, I caught Ant-Man again at the weekend, this time in eye-popping 3D and in D-Box. The 3D is well-enough implemented but, like most live-action movies, isn't in any way essential for enjoyment of the film. It seems odd that these movies are released in 3D as default now, yet there still aren't that many '3D moments' in them, which suggests a lack of confidence as far as the cinematography is concerned. The D-Box on the other hand is essentially a plush leather seat which gently sways when characters are in the air, gently thrums when characters are in a car, and shakes like fuck when things are getting broken. Which, in a movie like this, is quite a lot of the time (although each seat is adjustable). Like the 3D, once you adapt to it, it's quite fun (if a little distracting) and in no way makes for a better movie. It's not that I'll never sit in D-Box again, but it probably won't be until Star Wars, put it that way.

In more film-related news, I'm glad to say that Ant-Man's smaller plot-points make more sense the second time around (as is standard form for the MCU), but I still think the film's a little scattershot at times and doesn't make full use of its lead actor. But it's still bloody good fun. As with Guardians of the Galaxy, the film's humour works better when you're watching with a large audience, so see it sooner rather than later.

The 3D's not really necessary, the D-Box even less so, but the bigger the screen you see Ant-Man on, the better.

And stay 'til the end.
Obviously.

You could pay your money and see something a lot worse, put it that way.



I'll be buying it, but probably once the BluRay comes down to a tenner.



With the best will in the world, no.



It achieves what Marvel set out to do; I'd genuinely love to hear Edgar Wright's thoughts on it.



Not a lot.



Watching it again, I still can't hear one, no.



Ant-Man stars Evangeline Lilly who played Tauriel in the Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.







DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Ant-Man (first-pass)

Ant-Man (2D / first-pass)
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Peyton Reed / Trailer



And here we are! It seems like a bloody age since I first saw the trailer for Ant-Man and thought 'yep, I'm on for that!', and the day has finally arrived, albeit with less of a fanfare than we've become accustomed to for films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Using the names and general premises of the established characters but moving the pieces around the board enough to feel fresh (as is the modus operandi of the MCU), Ant-Man sees ageing physicist and inventor Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) recruit the wayward Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) to protect his Pym Particle formula; the scientific process by which a human can be shrunk to the size of an ant whilst retaining their strength and momentum. Locked out of his own corporation, Pym needs to utilise his own secret technology to prevent it being developed anew and sold to Hydra by the crooked CEO, Darren Cross (Corey Still). Short version: Lang goes all small, Cross goes all small, they fight, and Pym is caught in the middle looking concerned. And it's very good.

Funny and exciting in equal measure, Ant-Man is genuinely deserving of a place in Marvel's Avengers timeline, although the most disconcerting thing about the film is the knowledge that it wasn't always meant to be. While it always feels like Marvel, some of the references to existing characters and organisations feel a little shoehorned in, as if they've been added for no other reason than to reinforce the connection. That said, there are a few familiar faces dropping in (including Iron Man 2's John Slattery as Stark Snr, no less), and a bold verbal setup for everyone's favourite web-slinger. I honestly think this is a better film for being inside the existing timeline.

Importantly, director Peyton Reed knows how to have fun with his cast, and it certainly stands in contrast to the earnestly po-faced Winter Soldier, especially when Hydra is mentioned on-screen. The script doesn't quite make full use of Paul Rudd's comic ability*¹, but doesn't quite give him enough actual acting to do either, preferring to hand the gags to Michael Peña's Luis and his gang of small-time criminal misfits. Their gags and pratfalls work in context but as a result, Lang's humorous lines end up coming off like an inconsistent Star Lord. It's not a deal-breaker, but less is less this time around.

Michael Douglas is great value for money but feels a little under-used, as does Evangeline Lilly, yet the whole thing works as a whole and makes a great standalone movie. Just, a great standalone movie which talks about other movies quite a lot.

But hey, these are just my opening thoughts. Like all the MCU entries, there's a bit too much to take in on a first viewing, and like its predecessors, I'll be watching Ant-Man again pretty damned soon.

Spoilery-question, highlight-to-read: So if people/objects are shrunk by moving their molecules closer together, then they retain their original mass and density. But this means Hank Pym's pocket-sized keyring would weigh the same as a full-size tank, surely? It was still a nice moment, though. *shrugs*

The business-end:

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? No.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.

The post-credits scene is potentially more significant than the the mid-credits one, so have patience ;)

If you're into Marvel, it certainly is.



If you're not hyped enough to see it at the earliest opportunity, a rental should suffice.



In all fairness, not really.



It does, indeed.



Not too much.



Y'know, I didn't hear one.
More attention will be paid next time.



As well as a stonking-great visual reference to General Dodonna's Death Star assault plans, Ant-Man features a the dulcet tones of Mr. Tom Kenny (as the ugly-rabbit), who lent his voice to the Star Wars Angry Birds cinematic trailer. I've told you before, it's licensed: it counts.







*¹ Which is especially odd as Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish's original screenplay was reworked by Adam 'Anchorman' McKay and Paul Rudd himself.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.